<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="ru" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="issn">2313-8912</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2313-8912</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-2-0-5</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">2771</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>&lt;strong&gt;Interrogative sentences and their functions in Russian and American political discourse: a comparative analysis&lt;/strong&gt;</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>&lt;strong&gt;Interrogative sentences and their functions in Russian and American political discourse: a comparative analysis&lt;/strong&gt;</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Korolyova</surname><given-names>Lyudmila Yu.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Korolyova</surname><given-names>Lyudmila Yu.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>lyu-korolyova@yandex.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1" /></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><institution>Tambov State Technical University, Russia</institution></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>0</fpage><lpage>0</lpage><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="/media/linguistics/2022/2/Лингвистика_8_2_2022_66-83.pdf" /><abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>Despite the vast research on questions in linguistics, little is known about their functioning in political discourse. So the paper considers questions, their types and functions in political discourse. We pay attention to polar, embedded and non-canonical questions (rhetorical, tag, declarative, special and echo questions), and study their functions depending on discourse participants&amp;rsquo; intentions. We also make a qualitative and quantitative analysis and compare the use of questions by V. Putin (Russia) and J. Biden (USA) in interviews to TV channels and during press conferences in order to identify types of questions asked by both presidents and journalists, their functions and connection of the proposed meaning of questions and their interpretation in 60 fragments of political discourse. The study shows that four types of questions are typical for political discourse of Russia and the USA: polar (10% and 34.5%), rhetorical (60% and 65.5%), special (15% and 0%) and echo questions (15% and 0%). Unlike their proposed meaning, polar questions are structured so that the interviewer can get a preferred response; echo questions are aimed at drawing the attention of journalists and the audience to certain parts or expressing negative emotions; rhetorical questions are used by politicians to make the audience think about specific facts, events or consequences or highlight the role of the country on the world arena. Special questions are asked to get accurate information that coincides with their original connotation. The results obtained are promising for further study of the functioning of questions in the speech of politicians.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Despite the vast research on questions in linguistics, little is known about their functioning in political discourse. So the paper considers questions, their types and functions in political discourse. We pay attention to polar, embedded and non-canonical questions (rhetorical, tag, declarative, special and echo questions), and study their functions depending on discourse participants&amp;rsquo; intentions. We also make a qualitative and quantitative analysis and compare the use of questions by V. Putin (Russia) and J. Biden (USA) in interviews to TV channels and during press conferences in order to identify types of questions asked by both presidents and journalists, their functions and connection of the proposed meaning of questions and their interpretation in 60 fragments of political discourse. The study shows that four types of questions are typical for political discourse of Russia and the USA: polar (10% and 34.5%), rhetorical (60% and 65.5%), special (15% and 0%) and echo questions (15% and 0%). Unlike their proposed meaning, polar questions are structured so that the interviewer can get a preferred response; echo questions are aimed at drawing the attention of journalists and the audience to certain parts or expressing negative emotions; rhetorical questions are used by politicians to make the audience think about specific facts, events or consequences or highlight the role of the country on the world arena. Special questions are asked to get accurate information that coincides with their original connotation. The results obtained are promising for further study of the functioning of questions in the speech of politicians.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>Intention</kwd><kwd>Interaction</kwd><kwd>Linguistic research</kwd><kwd>Political discourse</kwd><kwd>Question</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>Intention</kwd><kwd>Interaction</kwd><kwd>Linguistic research</kwd><kwd>Political discourse</kwd><kwd>Question</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>Список литературы</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation>Agbara, C. (2016). The implicitness of some interrogative sentences in legislative debates, Nile Journal of English Studies, 1&amp;nbsp;(1), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.20321/nilejes.v1i1.37 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation>Arita, Y. (2021). Display of concession: maa-prefaced responses to polar questions in Japanese conversation, Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.014 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation>Black, E. (1992). Rhetorical questions: studies of public discourse, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation>Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its uses: melody in grammar and discourse, Stanford University Press, Stanford, USA. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation>Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, UK, New York, USA. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation>Chudinov, A. (2006). Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political Linguistics], Flinta, Nauka, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation>Dayal, V. (2016). Questions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation>Eisenberg, A. and Gamble, T. (1991). Painless public speaking, University Press of America, Lanham &amp;ndash; New York &amp;ndash; London, USA, UK. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation>Fetzer, A. (2002). Put bluntly, you have something of a credibility problem: Sincerity and credibility in political interviews, in Chilton, P. and Sch&amp;auml;ffner, C. (eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: analytical approaches to political discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 173-201. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation>Ginzburg, J. (1991). Questions without answers, wh-phrases without scope: A semantics for direct wh-questions and their responses, in Barwise,&amp;nbsp;J., Gawron, J.&amp;nbsp;M., Plotkin,&amp;nbsp;G. and Tutiya,&amp;nbsp;S. (eds.), Situation theory and its applications, Vol. 2, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 363-404. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation>Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order, American Sociological Review, 48, 1-17. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation>Gutierrez-Rexach, J. (1998). Rhetorical questions, relevance and scales, Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11, 139-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/raei.1998.11.11 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation>Hague, R., Harrop, M. and Breslin, S. (1998). Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction, 4th ed., Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation>Hamblin, C. (1970). Fallacies, Methuen, London, UK. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><mixed-citation>Hautli-Janisz, A., Budzynska, K., McKillop, C., Pl&amp;uuml;ss, B., Gold, V. and Reed, C. (2022). Questions in argumentative dialogue, Journal of Pragmatics, 188, 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.029 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><mixed-citation>Heim, I. (1994). Interrogative semantics and Karttunen&amp;rsquo;s semantics for know, in Buchalla,&amp;nbsp;R. and Mittwoch,&amp;nbsp;A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Israeli Association of Theoretical Linguistics, Jerusalem, Israel, 128-144. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><mixed-citation>Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Oxford, England. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><mixed-citation>Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge, Research on language and social interaction, 45&amp;nbsp;(1), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><mixed-citation>Heritage, J. and Roth, A. (1985). Grammar and institution: questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview, Research on language and social interaction, 28&amp;nbsp;(1), 1-60. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><mixed-citation>Horn, L. (1978). Remarks on neg-raising, in Code,&amp;nbsp;P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, NY, 129-220. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><mixed-citation>Huddleston, R. (1994). The contrast between interrogatives and questions, Journal of Linguistics, 30, 411-439. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><mixed-citation>Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of Grammar, H. Kolt and company, New York, USA. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><mixed-citation>Kartunnen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions, Linguistics and philosophy, 1&amp;nbsp;(1),</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><mixed-citation>3-44. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><mixed-citation>Kimps, D. (2018). Tag questions in conversation: a typology of their interactional and stance meanings, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><mixed-citation>Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: assertive questions in everyday interaction, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/sidag.16 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><mixed-citation>McGregor, W. (1997). Semiotic Grammar, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B28"><mixed-citation>Mithun, M. (2012). Tags: cross-linguistic diversity and commonality, Journal of Pragmatics, 44&amp;nbsp;(15), 2165-2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B29"><mixed-citation>Penz, H. (1996). Language and control in American TV talk shows: an analysis of linguistic strategies, Narr, T&amp;uuml;bingen, Germany. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B30"><mixed-citation>Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive Grammar of the English language, Longman, London, UK. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B31"><mixed-citation>Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding, American Sociological Review, 68, 939-967. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1519752 (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B32"><mixed-citation>Reyes, A. (2011). Voice in political discourse, Continuum International Publishing Group, London, UK. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B33"><mixed-citation>Roseman, I., Abelson, R. P. and Ewing, M. F. (1986). Emotion and Political Cognition: Emotional Appeals in Political Communication, in Lau,&amp;nbsp;R.&amp;nbsp;R. and Sears,&amp;nbsp;D.&amp;nbsp;O. (eds.), Political Cognition, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 279-94. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B34"><mixed-citation>Schegloff, E. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation, in Atkinson, J. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 28-52. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B35"><mixed-citation>van Dijk, T.&amp;nbsp;A. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition, in Chilton,&amp;nbsp;P.&amp;nbsp;A. and Sch&amp;auml;ffner, Ch. (eds.), Politics as text and talk: analytical approaches to political discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 203-237. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B36"><mixed-citation>Watson, L. (2020). Vices of questioning in public discourse, in Kidd,&amp;nbsp;I.&amp;nbsp;J., Battaly,&amp;nbsp;H. and Cassam,&amp;nbsp;Q. (eds.), Vice Epistemology, Routledge, New York, USA, 239-258. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B37"><mixed-citation>Weber, E. (1993). Varieties of questions in English conversation, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands. (In English)</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>