Irony in Political Communication: Discursive Practice, Strategy and Tactics

Aim. The study lays the basics of a new theory according to which political irony is regarded as the inherent characteristics and integral part of communication in the modern world of politics. The objective of the current study is to establish link between ethnic style and pragmatic side, i.e. cultural/ communicative values and irony functions, mechanisms and language means.

Methodology. The paper focuses on political irony as a discursive practice and regards it as a characteristic feature of English political discourse. The fragments of modern English political speeches (2014–2024) of D. Cameron, B. Johnson, R. Sunak, D. Trump, J. Biden and others (from YouTube resource) make the base for the detailed analysis. The research is conducted via the following methods: the method of intent analysis; the method of content analysis; the method of discourse analysis (mainly CDA – critical discourse analysis), social role analysis, genre analysis and analysis of communication strategies.

Results. The findings prove the initial hypothesis about the interrelation of national and cultural peculiarities, individual characteristics of the politician and situational context. These aspects influence the nature of English discursive irony, the frequency of ironic statements and their functions, as well as an extensive set of linguistic means. Irony is regarded as a strategy of political discourse, which follows and operates within the mainstream strategy of theatricality. Political irony is implemented through a considerable number of discursive tactics that create variable ironic images. The results of the politicians’ speeches analysis show that different tactics can be used to fulfill a single strategy. The choice of the tactics is based on the “friend–foe” (aka “us-them”) opposition, the specific features of the ethnic style and the individual style of the politician’s speech portrait.

Research implications. The paper opens new perspectives in political linguistics for developing the classification of ironic images as situational or emotional. The scheme for the analysis can be applied in further studies in the field of political linguistics and ethnostylistics. 

1. Arroyo, J. L. (2010). Interpersonal issues in political discourse. In: Locher M. A. & Graham S. L., eds. Interpersonal Pragmatics. New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 405–434. DOI: 10.1515/978311021433 8.3.405.

2. Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Analyzing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.

3. Gornostaeva, А. A. (2019). Irony and Communicative Values in Political Discourse: Intercultural and Interpersonal Communication. In: International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), 10 (4), 4154–4159. URL: http://infonomics-society.org/ijcdse (accessed: 12.09.2023). DOI: 10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2019.0507.

4. Gornostaeva, A. A. (2024). The “Friend–Foe” Opposition in Modern Ironic Political Discourse. In: Professional Discourse & Communication, 6 (2), 49–61. DOI: 10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-2-49-61

5. Fialkova, L. & Yelenevskaya, M. (2013). In Search of the Self: Reconciling the Past and the present in Immigrants’ Experience. Tartu: ELM Scholarly Press.

6. Hall, K., Goldstein, М. & Ingram, M. B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. In: HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6 (2), 71–100. DOI: 10.14318/hau6.2.009

7. Musolff, A. (2019). Creativity in Metaphor Interpretation. In: Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (1), 23–39. DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-23-39.

8. Bakhanovich, A. S. (2021). Linguopragmatic potential of irony in Belarusian and English language discourse. In: Minsk State Linguistic University Bulletin. Series 1: Philology, 2 (111), 14–22 (in Russ.).

9. Sheigal, E. I. (2000). The theatricality of political discourse. In: Units of language and their functioning. Iss. 6. Saratov: Saratov State Academy of Law publ., pp. 92–96 (in Russ.).

10. Kosichenko, E. F. (2022). Internet Meme as a Genre of Entertainment. In: Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 2 (857), 16–23. DOI: 10.52070/2542-2197_2022_2_857_16 (in Russ.).

11. Solodilova, I. A. (2023). Irony in Political debate: Functional coherence. In: Theoretical and applied linguistics, 9 (4), 124–135. DOI: 10.22250/24107190_2023_9_4_124 (in Russ.).

12. Soomro, M. A. (2023). A review of “Politeness West and East” by Geoffrey Leech and Tatiana Larina. In: Journal of academic research for humanities, 3 (3), 12–17.

13. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. In: Discourse and society, 17 (3), 359–383. DOI: 10.1177/0957926506060250.

14. Wodak, R. (2015). The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses. London: Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781446270073.

15. Zotzmann, K. & O’Regan, J. P. (2023). Critical discourse analysis, critical discourse studies, and critical applied linguistics. In: The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 57–67.