The Bull and Bear Communicative Strategies in the US presidential campaign rhetoric

Abstract

This article seeks to introduce bull and bear communicative strategies in the US election discourse. The coinage is derived from the popular images of bull and bear in the economic terms ‘bull market’ and ‘bear market’. The bull strategy focuses on positive self-presentation, while the bear strategy is aimed at negative otherpresentation. Research into US presidential debates shows that most frequent communicative strategies aim either to create and reinforce the politician’s positive image or to discredit his or her opponent and ruin their chances to win. Which of the strategies stands to be more efficient is yet a matter of argument; however it is vividly shown that these strategies provide the perfect breeding ground for discursive confrontation.

Full text

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
48
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2019-2-48-60
Д.С.Мухортов, Е.А.Жовнер
Московский государственный университет им.М.В. Ломоносова,
119991г. Москва, Российская Федерация
Коммуникативные стратегии
«Бык» и«Медведь» в риторике
кандидатов впрезиденты США
Целью данной статьи является введение внаучный оборот коммуникативи-
стики понятия «стратегия быка (bull) имедведя (bear)» на примере американ-
ского электорального дискурса. Подобная метафоричность прослеживается
ванглийской бизнес-терминологии ивстречается, например, впонятиях bull
market иbear market. Воснове стратегии быка лежит тактика неприемлемости
самокритики, тогда как при реализации стратегии медведя говорящий делает
все возможное, чтобы дискредитировать своего оппонента. Вработе нацелом
ряде примеров демонстрируется набор тактик, сопровождающий каждую
из стратегий, и предпринимается попытка выявить наиболее продуктивные
стороны каждой изних. Действенность стратегий доказывается путем анализа
дебатных выступлений Дж.Буша-мл., Д. Трампа и их противников. Сравнение
эффективности данных коммуникативных стратегий позволяет постулиро-
вать, что они обе являются определяющими для конфронтационного дискурса
дебатов.
Ключевые слова: коммуникативные стратегии, коммуникативная стратегия
быка имедведя, американский электоральный дискурс, президентские дебаты
вСША, дискурсивная конфронтация, агональность.
ССЫЛКА НА СТАТЬЮ: Мухортов Д.С., Жовнер Е.А.Коммуникативные стратегии
«Бык» и«Медведь» вриторике кандидатов впрезиденты США// Рема. Rhema.
2019. №2. С.48–60. DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2019-2-48-60.

Лингвистика
49
Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2019-2-48-60
D. Mukhortov, E. Zhovner
Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation
The Bull and Bear Communicative Strategies
in theUS presidential campaign rhetoric
This article seeks tointroduce bull and bear communicative strategies in theUS
election discourse. Thecoinage isderived from thepopular images ofbull and bear
in the economic terms ‘bull market’ and ‘bear market’. The bull strategy focuses
on positive self-presentation, while the bear strategy is aimed at negative other-
presentation. Research into US presidential debates shows that most frequent
communicative strategies aim either tocreate and reinforce thepolitician’s positive
image or to discredit his or her opponent and ruin their chances to win. Which
ofthe strategies stands to bemore efficient isyet amatter ofargument; however
it is vividly shown that these strategies provide the perfect breeding ground for
discursive confrontation.
Key words: communicative strategies, bull and bear strategies, US election
discourse, US presidential debates, discursive confrontation.
CITATION: Mukhortov D., Zhovner E. TheBull and Bear Communicative Strategies
in the US presidential campaign rhetoric. Rhema. 2019. № 2. Pp. 48–60.
DOI: 10.31862/2500-2953-2019-2-48-60.
1. Introduction
In terms ofpragmalinguistics, presidential election debates can beprimarily
considered as a verbal confrontation between candidates seeking to win
or hold power. Confrontation, or agonism, plays a leading role in political
discourse, as it is directly connected with the quest for power. The word
“agonism” originates from Greek agon meaning “contest”, astruggle between
two contenders. As a political theory, agonism emphasizes the importance
of dispute, disagreement and conflict to political discourse. It represents
“victory through forfeit or default, or over an unworthy opponent, which
comes up short compared to a defeat at the hands of a worthy opponent–
a defeat that still brings honor” [Chambers, 2001]. Confrontation focuses

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
50
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
onthe intention to win. Its main goal is to achieve superiority, domination
ininterpersonal relationships or even to achieve election victory. Of special
interest for researchers are communication tactics and strategies pursued
by contenders. Examples of strategies and tactics in electoral discourse
are plentiful. Each is somewhat unique as rivals are unpredictable in their
communicative behavior.
The article examines communicative strategies and tactics pursued
byGeorge W. Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry during thepresidential debates
of 2000 and 2004. The research material includes The First Gore-Bush
Presidential Debates (October 3, 2000), TheSecond Gore-Bush Presidential
Debates (October 11, 2000), The Third Gore-Bush Presidential Debates
(October 17, 2000), TheFirst Bush-Kerry Presidential Debates (September 30,
2004), The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debates (October 8, 2004),
The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debates (October 13, 2004). Special
emphasis islaid onefficient use ofcommunicative strategies inthepresidential
debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016 (September 27;
October 10, 20) [Debate Transcripts].
The topicality of the article is determined by the growing significance
of political communication in modern society. Politicians greatly influence
the electorate through unique political language, the prime means of mass
manipulation. Therefore, it is important to study communicative strategies
and tactics of political discourse to better understand linguistic profiles
ofpoliticians, including their beliefs and intentions.
This paper examines various approaches to strategies and tactics with
the intent to find self-explanatory names ofrecurrent strategies in political
debates. We argue that the images of bull and bear most precisely reflect
theconfrontational nature ofpolitical discourse.
2. Strategy and tactic
Originally, theword ‘strategy’ was borrowed from military parlance, where
itmeans “the science and art of military command as applied to the overall
planning and conduct of warfare” [https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/
search.html?q=strategy]. Today dictionaries provide two definitions
oftheword:
1)“aplan ormethodforachievingsomething,especiallyover alongperiod
oftime”;
2) “the skill of planning how to achieve something, especially in war
or business” [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/
strategy].
The semantics ofthe word ‘strategy’ implies the process ofplanning and
achieving something. vanDijk distinguishes between ‘plan’ and ‘strategy’,

Лингвистика
51
Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
saying that “whereas a plan is a global concept of the macroaction and
its final result or goal, a strategy is a global representation of the means
ofreaching that goal” [van Dijk, 1983, р. 65]. ‘Strategy’ is awider notion
than ‘plan’ as itincludes certain moves to achieve agoal. This term isused
not only in military science but also “in political science, economics, and
other disciplines involved with complex goal-directed actions” [Ibid, р.62].
The word ‘strategy’ has long been exploited bypolitical discourse analysts
as itmeans the art of leadership in thesocial and political struggle [Issers,
2017], and action-planning intheprocess ofsocial and political confrontation.
In Russian psycholinguistics and pragmalinguistics, ‘strategy’ is a com-
municative behavior with language means predetermined by the speaker’s
intention, it isachain ofdecisions made bythespeaker and realized first and
foremost through discursive practices. Theterm ‘strategy’ (or‘communication
strategy’) inthis paper isconceived ofasaset ofdiscursive practices designed
toachieve thespeaker’s intentions. Pursuing astrategy involves theplanning
ofacommunication process with regard tosteps for implementing this plan,
acommunication setting, thespeaker’s profiling, and thelike.
In political communication ‘strategy’ is a manipulatory process, and
“the means employed to attain a certain end, ina way in which one seeks
tohave advantage over others” [Foucault, 1982, р.793] or“an accurate and
intentional plan of practices (including discursive practices) adopted
to achieve a particular social, political, psychological or linguistic aim”
[Wodak, 2003, р.386] can beconsidered asits tactics.
The Macmillan dictionary defines ‘tactic’ as“a particular method or plan
for achieving something” [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/
british/tactic].
If the strategy expresses the speaker’s communicative intent, the tactic
is a specific communicative move during the implementation of astrategy
which isaimed atacommunicative goal being achieved at themoment ofspea-
king [Malysheva, 2009]. Issers compares astrategy and atactic inpolitical
science with agenus and aspecies inbiology [Issers, 2017]. Acommunication
strategy can berealized through anumber oftactics.
3. Two approaches tostrategies and tactics
Considerable research has been conducted inrecent years oncommunication
strategies and tactics. Research approaches differ, with some linguists making
detailed classifications based onvarious criteria and others, seeking precision,
creating dichotomies.
Strategies can be classified in terms of their global purpose or function
[Ibid]. Strategies can define the speaker’s goal, help to make an impact
onthevoter, facilitate interaction with thepublic, monitor themessage and

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
52
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
initiative over thecourse ofcommunication with theopponent ortheaudience,
orpersonalize and dramatize political discourse. Issers divides strategies into
semantic, pragmatic, dialogic, and rhetorical [Issers, 2017].
Parshina classifies strategies and tactics according tothe goal of political
communication. Apolitician normally wants toencourage thevoter tovote
for him/her or his/her party, persuade the opponent to accept his/her point
of view, build up his/her own positive image, create and sustain a desired
emotional atmosphere, influence thevoter inmany respects [Parshina, 2011].
Parshina distinguishes between self-presentation, persuasion, power race,
and power retention strategies [Ibid].
Bozhenkova etal. argues that strategies can beclassified into integrative
and disintegrative according to“endeavours communicants make tocooperate
with each other”. Six integrative and five disintegrative strategies can
beidentified with 27 and 28tactics for each cluster respectively [Bozhenkova
etal., 2017, р.276].
Researchers [Sheigal, 2000; Malysheva, 2009] argue that strategies can
be considered in terms of confrontation between the us-group and them-
group. The actors of political communication are we – the speaker, us –
the voter, – and them – the speaker’s opponent. Three strategies therefore
can beidentified with either ofthese actors asaprimary focus– orientation,
integration and confrontation strategies [See Malysheva, 2009]. Orientation
points out thepolitician’s views and beliefs, integration aims at uniting and
winning over the voter, and confrontation seeks to discredit the opponent.
Apparently, each strategy presupposes awide range oftactics.
Insofar as the political discourse [Chilton, 2004, р. 22] tends to divide
reality into two opposite categories – ‘us’ and ‘them’, some researchers
distinguish between two opposite strategies. Sheigal says that any discourse
can be manifested through the strategy of positive self-presentation and
negative presentation ofothers [Sheigal, 2004].
According to van Dijk, positive self-presentation and negative other-
presentation manifested through “emphasizing our good things, emphasizing
their bad things, de-emphasizing our bad things and de-emphasizing their
good things” aretwo main discursive strategies [van Dijk, 2006, р.734].
Wodak contends that “the discursive construction of ‘us’ and ‘them’
is the basic fundamentals of discourses of identity and difference” that
employ discursive strategies ofpositive self and negative other presentation
[Wodak, 2001, р.73].
According toChilton, there arestrategies oflegitimization (oftheself) and
delegitimization (oftheother). Heargues that “delegitimization can manifest
itself in acts of negative other-presentation, acts of blaming, scapegoating,
marginalizing, excluding, attacking the moral character of some individual

Лингвистика
53
Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
or group, attacking the communicative cooperation of the other, attacking
therationality and sanity of the other, while legitimization, usually oriented
totheself, includes positive self-presentation, manifesting itself inacts ofself-
praise, self-apology, self-explanation, self-justification, self-identification
as a source of authority, reason, vision and sanity, where the self is either
an individual or the group with which an individual identifies or wishes
toidentify” [Chilton, 2004, р.47].
This paper adopts a dichotomous approach to discursive strategies
research, proposing to figuratively call commonplace confrontation
strategies as a bull strategy and a bear strategy. Drawing on the images
of‘bull’ and ‘bear’, we mean to stress how these animals normally attack
their victims: a bull drives its horns up into the air, while a bear swipes
its paws downward upon its prey. Thebull strategy aims atpositive self-
presentation, while thebear strategy, or negative other-presentation, seeks
toundermine theopponent’s authority as isthe case with thebear seeking
to take his enemy down to the ground. The choice of tactics for these
two strategies ispredetermined by the goals being pursued, positive self-
presentation ornegative other-presentation.
As isknown, economic discourse and political discourse, which areno less
confrontational inessence, too exploit thedichotomy bull/bear inthemeaning
ofpositive/negative. Suffice ittogive afew telling examples.
“There is a widespread belief both by investors, policy makers and
academics that low frequency trends do exist inthestock market. Traditionally
these positive and negative low frequency trends have been labelled asbull
and bear markets respectively” [Maheu etal., 2010, p. 2].
“We propose that the most suitable definition of market states should
beone which results inconsiderable differences intheaverage returns during
the different types of market, i.e. the average return in positive (defined
as “bull”) states should be higher than that negative (defined as “bear”)
states” [Gwilym etal., 2012, р.7–8].
“If themean return ispositive (negative), themarket status isbull (bear)”
[Nyberg, 2013, р.5–6].
An analysis into a bunch of classifications of communicative tactics
provided inMikhalyova’s Political Discourse: theSpecificity ofManipulative
Influence enables us to conclude that the bull strategy can be manifested
through the tactics of cooperation, self-presentation, a recipient’s value
orientation and apositive evaluation ofthe current situation, while the bear
strategy is best revealed in tactics of accusation and a negative evaluation
ofthecurrent situation.
US presidential debates are a good example ofhow these strategies and
tactics can bepursued inpolitical confrontation.

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
54
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
Thebull strategy
Cooperation
Cooperation means merging to the us-group. A search for supporters
focuses oncreating asense of unity and is realized through the use of such
address forms as folks, America, my fellow Americans, the United States
ofAmerica.
It’s time for our nation to come together and do what’s right for
thepeople, and Ithink this isright for thepeople. (Bush, 2000)
We’re America, and we believe in our future and we know we have
theability toshape our future. (Gore, 2000)
But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protection is
tostay ontheoffense. (Bush, 2004)
This isinour country, folks, theUnited States ofAmerica. (Kerry, 2004)
The fact isthat my health-care plan, America, isvery simple. (Kerry, 2004)
Self-presentation
As the name suggests, a self-presentation tactic is aimed at creating
apositive image ofthespeaker. It isaway tofocus ontheir positive qualities
through highlighting their social status ortheir moral character.
And I’ve been the chief executive officer of the second biggest state
inthe union. I have a proud record ofworking with both Republicans and
Democrats, which iswhat our nation needs. (Bush, 2000)
I’ve been thegovernor ofa big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my
relationship inAustin, Texas, isthat I’ve had thecapacity towork with both
Republicans and Democrats. Ithink that’s animportant part ofleadership.
(Bush, 2000)
I’ve been aleader. I’ve been a person who has to set a clear vision and
convince people tofollow.(Bush, 2000)
I’ve been a person that has been called a uniter, not a divider, because
Iaccept other peoples’ points ofview.(Bush, 2000)
I can just tell you, I’m aperson who respects other people. (Bush, 2000)
Therecipient’s value orientation
The recipient’s value orientation is a powerful instrument to address
thevoter’s values inorder toattract his/her attention and manipulate them.
There’s alarger law. Love your neighbor like you would like tobeloved
yourself. And that’s where our society must head ifwe’re going tobeapeaceful
and prosperous society. (Bush, 2000)
I see afuture when theworld isatpeace, with theUnited States ofAmerica
promoting the values of democracy and human rights and freedom all
around theworld. (Gore, 2000)

Лингвистика
55
Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
So I really don’t think so. I hope you don’t think that. I mean, because
Ithink whoever isthePresident must guard your liberties, must not erode
your rights inAmerica. (Bush, 2004)
What I’m saying is, is that as we promote life and promote a culture
of life, surely there are ways we can work together to reduce the number
ofabortions. (Bush, 2004)
Positive tactic
A positive tactic implies apositive analysis ofthecurrent situation which
celebrates theresults of the policy being pursued and importance of actions
being taken, which all implicitly works for the speaker’s positive self-
presentation. It may becalled ashow-off tactic.
I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result
of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship, and that’s the role
ofgovernment toencourage that. (Bush, 2000)
We pay 4.7 billion. <…> We’re doing itfaster than any other state our
size, comparable state. We’re making really good progress. And our state
cares alot about our children. (Bush, 2000)
The quality oftheair iscleaner since I’ve been thepresident oftheUnited
States. And we’ll continue to spend money on research and development.
(Bush, 2004)
Added 1.9 million new jobs over thepast 13 months. Thefarm income
inAmerica ishigh. Small businesses areflourishing. Home ownership rate
isat anall-time high inAmerica. (Bush, 2004)
Thebear strategy
Accusation
An accusation tactic helps politicians build a negative image of their
opponents inorder to discredit them by blaming them for broken promises
and failure tomeet commitments.
Let me tell you about one of the governor’s. He has promised atrillion
dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund for young working adults
toinvest and save on their own. But he’s promised seniors that their Social
Security benefits will not becut, and he’s promised thesame trillion dollars
tothem. So this is ashow me state. Reminds me oftheline from themovie,
“Show me the money.” Which one of those promises will you keep, and
which will you break, Governor? (Gore, 2000)
I think what ismisleading is tosay you can lead and succeed inIraq ifyou
keep changing your positions onthis war. And he [Kerry] has. As thepolitics
change, his positions change. And that’s not how a commander in chief
acts. (Bush, 2004)

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
56
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
Ladies and gentlemen, he gave you a speech and told you he’d plan
carefully, take every precaution, take our allies with us. He didn’t. He broke
his word. (Kerry, 2004)
This isapresident who hasn’t met with theBlack Congressional Caucus.
This isa president who has not met with thecivil rights leadership ofour
country. If apresident doesn’t reach out and bring people inand beinclusive,
then how arewe going toget over those barriers? (Kerry, 2004)
Negative tactic
A negative tactic implies pinpointing problems in the country and
exposing negative aftermaths of political actions undertaken by various
agencies and actors in order to undermine their authority. It is meant
toshow disapproval. The speaker acts as if he were either apanic-monger
or an attorney for the prosecution, hence the tactic can be called panic-
mongering orprosecutorial.
Look, this isafunding crisis all around thecountry. (Gore, 2000)
I think one ofthebig issues here that doesn’t get nearly enough attention
is the issue of corruption. It’s an enormous problem and corruption
inofficial agencies, like militaries and police departments around theworld,
customs officials, isone oftheworst forms ofit. (Gore, 2000)
I think that racial profiling isaserious problem. <…> Iwas surprised
at theextent ofit. <…> And it’s not aneasy problem tosolve. (Gore, 2000)
Look, theworld’s temperature isgoing up, weather patterns arechanging,
storms aregetting more violent and unpredictable. What arewe going totell
our children? (Gore, 2000)
Look, 95% of our containers coming into this country are not inspected
today. When you get onanairplane, your bag isX- rayed, but thecargo hold
isn’t X-rayed. Do you feel safer? <…> We have bridges and tunnels that
aren’t being secured, chemical plants, nuclear plants that aren’t secured,
hospitals that areovercrowded with their emergency rooms. (Kerry, 2004)
4. Trump–Clinton Election Debates
A question arises as towhich strategy ismore efficient. Thelatest debates
between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may beofsome help.
Although Trump strives tobuild animage ofaprosperous businessman and
point out some positive moments inthe US economy, it is thebear strategy
that prevails inhis rhetoric through anaccusation tactic and anegative tactic.
1. Accusation
Trump accuses Clinton ofmaking empty promises, misappropriation and
squander inorder toexpose and discredit her.

Лингвистика
57
Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Never
going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary
Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms
ofwhat’s going on. (Trump, 2016)
The problem is, you talk, but you don’t get anything done, Hillary. You
don't. Just like when you ran theState Department, $6 billion was missing.
How do you miss $6billion? You ran theState Department, $6billion was
either stolen. They don't know. It’s gone, $6billion. (Trump, 2016)
And it’s politicians like Secretary Clinton that have caused this problem.
Our country has tremendous problems. We’re a debtor nation. We’re
aserious debtor nation. And we have acountry that needs new roads, new
tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don’t
have themoney, because it’s been squandered on somany of your ideas.
(Trump, 2016)
2. Negative tactic
Trump focuses onthe difficult economic situation with employment and
health insurance. He lambasts Barack Obama and Bill Clinton byrepeating
that their policy was a“disaster”.
So we're losing our good jobs, somany ofthem. <…> SoFord isleaving.
You see that, their small car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving
Michigan, leaving Ohio. They're all leaving. (Trump, 2016)
Look, our country is stagnant. We’ve lost our jobs. We’ve lost our
businesses. We're not making things anymore, relatively speaking. Our
product ispouring infrom China, pouring infrom Vietnam, pouring infrom
all over theworld. (Trump, 2016)
Obamacare isadisaster. <…> Obamacare will never work. It’s very bad,
very bad health insurance, far too expensive, and not only expensive for
theperson that hasit, unbelievably expensive for our country. (Trump, 2016)
Because NAFTA, signed byher husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster
trade deal in the history of the world. Not of this country. It stripped us
of manufacturing jobs. We lost our jobs, we lost our money, we lost our
plants. It isadisaster. (Trump, 2016)
While Trump iswell known for his aggressive responses and interruptions
ofhis opponents, Hillary Clinton, onthecontrary, largely focuses oncreating
her positive image. Therefore, she uses a positive tactic, cooperation, and
self-presentation tactics, which is to suggest that she resorts to the bull
strategy.
1. Cooperation
Clinton seeks tocreate asense ofunity with thecitizens through thephras-
es we can do together, work together, stronger together, we will all come
together.

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
58
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
I have apositive and optimistic view ofwhat we can do together. That’s
why theslogan ofmy campaign isstronger together. Because I think if we
work together, ifwe overcome thedivisiveness that sometimes sets Americans
against one another and instead we make some big goals and I’ve set forth
some big goals, getting theeconomy to work for everyone, not just those at
thetop. <…> Ifwe set those goals and we go together totry toachieve them,
there isnothing, in my opinion, America can't do. I hope we will all come
together inthis campaign. (Clinton, 2016)
2. Self-presentation
Clinton accentuates the importance of her position as Secretary of State
and her success during her career inpublic service which is meant tocreate
her positive image.
When Iwas Secretary of State, we actually increased American exports
globally 30percent. We increased them toChina 50percent. SoIknow how
toreally work toget new jobs and toget exports that helped tocreate more
new jobs. (Clinton, 2016)
So let me talk about my 30 years in public service. I'm very glad to do
so. Eight million kids every year have health insurance because when Iwas
first lady Iworked with Democrats and Republicans tocreate thechildren's
health insurance program. Hundreds ofthousands ofkids now have achance
to be adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care
system. After 9/11, I went to work with Republican mayor, governor and
president torebuild New York and toget health care for our first responders
who were suffering because they had run towards danger and gotten sickened
byit. (Clinton, 2016)
3. Positive tactic
Equally important for Clinton is togive apositive evaluation ofthesitua-
tion within thecountry.
Nine million people – nine million people lost their jobs. Five million
people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.
Now, we have come back from that abyss. And ithas not been easy. (Clinton,
2016)
We're making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we're
hoping that within theyear we'll beable topush ISIS out ofIraq and then,
you know, really squeeze them inSyria. (Clinton, 2016)
As aresult, it isthebear strategy that secured Trump his victory. Yet one
can hardly becertain as towhich strategy ismore efficient. What isapparent
is in presidential debates politicians tend to pursue either the bull strategy
or the bear strategy. The outcome of the election depends on the choice
ofastrategy and tactics that go along with it.

Лингвистика
59
Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
5. Conclusion
Overall, communication strategy ispart ofthepolitician’s communicative
behavior, it reveals contenders’ intentions, while tactics are specific steps
toachieve thegoal. Politicians pursue two main goals: either to build their
positive image or to discredit their opponents; confrontation between them
is manifested through the strategies of positive self-presentation (the bull
strategy) and negative other-presentation (the bear strategy). US presidential
debates show awide range oftactics including cooperation, self-presentation,
the recipient’s value orientation, accusation, positive and negative tactics
through which these strategies arerealized.
References
Bozhenkova etal., 2017– Bozhenkova N.A., BozhenkovaR.K., BozhenkovaA.M.
Modern political discourse: Verbal exemplification oftactical and strategic preferences.
RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching. 2017.
Vol.15(3). Pp.255–284.
Debate Transcripts – Debate Transcripts. URL: https://www.debates.org/voter-
education/debate-transcripts//
Issers, 2017 – Иссерс О.С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской
речи. М., 2017. [Issers O.S. Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoi rechi
[Communicative strategies and tactics ofRussian speech]. Moscow, 2017.]
Malysheva, 2009 – Малышева О.П. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики
в публичных выступлениях (на материале речей американских и британских
политических лидеров) // Известия Российского государственного универси-
тета им.А.И. Герцена. 2009. №96. С.206–209. [MalyshevaO.P. Communicative
strategies and tactics in public speech (on the material of American and British
political leaders). Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities and Science.
2009. №96. Pp.206–209.]
Mikhalyova, 2009– Михалёва О.Л. Политический дискурс: специфика манипу-
лятивного воздействия. М., 2009. [MikhalyovaO.L. Politicheskii diskurs: spetsifika
manipulyativnogo vozdeistviya [Political discourse: Thespecificity of manipulative
influence]. Мoscow, 2009.]
Parshina, 2011– Паршина О.Н. Российская политическая речь: теория ипрак-
тика/ Под ред. О.В.Сиротининой. 3-еизд. М., 2011. [Parshina O.N. Rossiiskaya
politicheskaya rech: teoriya ipraktika [Russian political speech: Theory and practice].
O.B.Sirotinina (ed.). 3rded. Moscow, 2011.]
Sheigal, 2004 – Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса. М., 2004.
[Sheigal E.I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semoitics of political discourse].
Moscow, 2004.]
Chambers, 2001 – Chambers S. Language and Politics: Agonistic Discourse
intheWest Wing. 12.12.2001. URL: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=317.
Chilton, 2004 – Chilton P. Analyzing political discourse: Theory and Practice.
London, 2004.

Rhema. Рема. 2019. № 2
60
Лингвистика
ISSN 2500-2953
Foucault, 1982– Foucault M. TheSubject and Power. TheUniversity ofChicago
Press, 1982.
Gwilym etal., 2012– Gwilym O., Clare A., Seaton J., Thomas S. Tactical Equity
Investing Across Bull and Bear Markets. TheJournal ofWealth Management. 2012.
Vol.14 (4). Pp.61–69.
Maheu etal.,, 2012 – Maheu J.M., McCurdy T.H., Song, Y. Components of bull
and bear markets: Bull corrections and bear rallies. Journal ofBusiness & Economic
Statistics. 2012. Vol.30(3). Pp.391–403.
Nyberg, 2013– Nyberg H. Predicting Bear and Bull Stock Markets with Dynamic
Binary Time Series Models. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2013. Vol. 37(9).
Pp.3351–3363.
van Dijk, Kintsch, 1983– Dijk, van T., Kintsch W. Strategies ofdiscourse compre-
hension. New York, 1983.
van Dijk, 2006 – Dijk, van T. Politics, Ideology and Discourse. Elsevier
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language.
R.Wodak (ed.). Elsevier, 2006. Pp.728–740.
Wodak, 2001 – Wodak R. The Discourse-Historical Approach. Methods
ofCDA.London, 2001.
Wodak, 2003 – Wodak R. Discourse and Racism. TheHandbook of Discourse
Analysis. Malden, MA– Oxford, 2003. Pp.372–397.
Статья поступила вредакцию 16.06.2018
The article was received on16.06.2018
Сведения обавторах/ About theauthors
Мухортов Денис Сергеевич– кандидат филологических наук, доцент;
доцент кафедры английского языкознания филологического факультета,
Московский государственный университет им.М.В.Ломоносова
Mukhortov Denis S.– Ph.D. in Philology; associate professor attheDepartment
of English Linguistics of the Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State
University
E-mail: dennismoukhortov@mail.ru
Жовнер Елизавета Андреевна– магистрант кафедры английского языкозна-
ния филологического факультета, Московский государственный университет
им.М.В.Ломоносова
Elizaveta A. Zhovner– masters student atthe Department ofEnglish Linguistics
oftheFaculty ofPhilology, Lomonosov Moscow State University
E-mail: lisayka@mail.ru