CC BY
1Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
UDC 808.53 https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110/44
ANGER IN PUBLIC SPEECHES AND DEBATES WITH A FOCUS ON SPEECH STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
©Abdyrazakova M., Osh State Pedagogical University, Osh, Kyrgyzstan, [email protected] ©Isakova K., Osh State Pedagogical University, Osh, Kyrgyzstan, [email protected] ©Kultaeva N., Osh State Pedagogical University, Osh, Kyrgyzstan, [email protected]
ГНЕВ В ПУБЛИЧНЫХ ВЫСТУПЛЕНИЯХ И ДЕБАТАХ С АКЦЕНТОМ НА РЕЧЕВЫЕ СТРАТЕГИИ И ТАКТИКИ
©Абдыразакова М. О., Ошский государственный педагогический университет, г. Ош, Кыргызстан, [email protected] ©Исакова К. Т., Ошский государственный педагогический университет,
г. Ош, Кыргызстан, [email protected] ©Култаева Н. Т., Ошский государственный педагогический университет, г. Ош, Кыргызстан, [email protected]
Abstract. This article explores the concept of anger in the context of public speeches and debates, emphasizing the various speech strategies and tactics used to convey this emotion. The study analyzes how speakers utilize language to express, amplify, or control anger, examining the rhetorical techniques employed in both formal and informal settings. The research highlights the persuasive power of anger in influencing audiences, the cultural differences in expressing anger, and the impact of such emotional displays on the effectiveness of communication. The findings offer insights into the role of anger as a rhetorical tool in political discourse, media, and public communication.
Аннотация. Рассматривается концепция гнева в контексте публичных выступлений и дебатов, подчеркивая различные речевые стратегии и тактики, используемые для передачи этой эмоции. Исследование анализирует, как ораторы используют язык для выражения, усиления или контроля гнева, изучая риторические приемы, используемые как в формальной, так и в неформальной обстановке. Исследование подчеркивает убедительную силу гнева в воздействии на аудиторию, культурные различия в выражении гнева и влияние таких эмоциональных проявлений на эффективность коммуникации. Результаты предлагают понимание роли гнева как риторического инструмента в политическом дискурсе, СМИ и публичной коммуникации.
Keywords: anger, public speech, debates, rhetorical strategies.
Ключевые слова: гнев, публичная речь, дебаты, риторические стратегии.
Anger is a powerful and universal emotion that plays a significant role in human communication. In public speeches and debates, it often serves as a rhetorical tool to persuade, motivate, or provoke an audience. The strategic use of anger in such contexts has long been recognized as a way to capture attention, elicit emotional responses, and influence perceptions [5].
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
By analyzing the linguistic and rhetorical strategies speakers use to convey anger, we can better understand its effectiveness in shaping public discourse.
Research on the use of emotions in communication highlights that anger, when strategically expressed, can amplify a speaker's credibility and authority, especially in contexts where strong emotional appeals resonate with the audience [12]. However, the excessive or uncontrolled display of anger can have the opposite effect, undermining a speaker's argument or alienating the audience [11]. Thus, understanding the balance between rhetorical effectiveness and emotional resonance is key to analyzing anger in public speeches.
This study focuses on the speech strategies and tactics employed to express anger in public speeches and debates. Drawing on examples from political discourse, media, and public forums, it examines how speakers tailor their linguistic choices to align with cultural norms and audience expectations. Additionally, the research considers the role of cultural differences in the perception and interpretation of anger in discourse [8].
By exploring the intersection of emotion and language, this article aims to contribute to the broader understanding of how anger functions as a communicative and rhetorical resource in public contexts.
Methodology
The methodology of this study is based on a qualitative approach focusing on the linguistic and rhetorical analysis of public speeches and debates. The research examines examples of spoken discourse from political, social, and media contexts to identify speech strategies and tactics associated with the expression of anger. The first step of the study focused on identifying and selecting relevant public speeches and debate transcripts from open-access sources. These included online repositories of political speeches, archives of televised debates, recordings of public forums, and transcripts available on official websites or public media platforms. The primary goal during this stage was to ensure the data represented a variety of contexts where anger played a significant rhetorical role [1-3].
Speeches were chosen based on specific criteria. Priority was given to those where the expression of anger was evident either through explicit language (e.g., emotionally charged vocabulary, direct accusations) or through non-verbal cues such as tone and emphasis, as indicated in transcripts or video recordings. This ensured the data reflected the active use of anger as a rhetorical strategy. To achieve diversity, speeches and debates were selected from different domains, including political campaigns, legislative discussions, activist movements, and panel debates. The selection also aimed to represent cultural and linguistic diversity, capturing variations in how anger is expressed and perceived across different sociocultural contexts [4].
Finally, the corpus included speakers from varying backgrounds, including prominent political figures, social activists, and public intellectuals. This approach provided a comprehensive dataset for analyzing the strategic use of anger across diverse settings and audiences. By grounding the selection process in these parameters, the study ensured a robust foundation for subsequent linguistic and rhetorical analysis. The second step of the study involved a detailed contextual analysis of each selected speech or debate to understand the conditions under which anger was expressed and the factors that influenced its use as a rhetorical device. This analysis considered several key aspects that framed the communication event.
The first aspect examined was the audience, which included identifying the demographic, cultural, and ideological characteristics of the listeners. Understanding who the speech was directed at helped clarify why anger was employed — whether to resonate with shared grievances, mobilize action, or challenge opposing viewpoints. For instance, speeches addressing marginalized
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
communities often used anger to highlight systemic injustices, while debates aimed at opponents employed anger to discredit or confront adversaries. The second aspect was the purpose of the speech. This involved identifying the speaker's goals, such as persuading the audience, provoking emotional responses, or rallying support. Analyzing the purpose helped determine whether anger was used as a deliberate strategy to create urgency, emphasize a critical point, or draw attention to a contentious issue [6].
The third aspect focused on the situational factors surrounding the speech. This included the political or social climate, the immediate events leading to the speech, and the broader historical or cultural context. For example, speeches delivered during times of political unrest or social upheaval often reflected heightened emotional tones, with anger serving as a tool to address collective frustration. Particular attention was given to cultural and societal norms, as these play a crucial role in shaping how anger is perceived and received. In some cultures, anger is seen as a legitimate form of expression to address grievances, while in others, it may be viewed as disruptive or inappropriate. This consideration helped contextualize the speaker's choice to express anger and the audience's likely response.
By analyzing these contextual elements, the study aimed to uncover the interplay between the speaker's intentions, the audience's expectations, and the situational dynamics that made anger an effective or necessary rhetorical choice. This step provided a nuanced understanding of how and why anger was strategically employed in public discourse [7].
The third step of the study centered on identifying and analyzing specific linguistic features and rhetorical devices that speakers employed to express or amplify anger. This involved a detailed examination of the language and speech techniques used in the selected samples, with a focus on their emotional and persuasive effects. Linguistic features such as emotionally charged vocabulary, syntactic structures, and intonation patterns were closely analyzed. For instance, the use of strong verbs ("demand," "accuse," "condemn") and adjectives ("outrageous," "unjust," "shameful") was studied to understand how they heightened the emotional tone of the speech. Additionally, rhetorical devices such as repetition, parallelism, and rhetorical questions were identified for their role in emphasizing key points and sustaining the emotional intensity of anger.
Rhetorical devices were categorized based on their primary function.
Persuasion: Techniques such as appeals to shared values, direct address to the audience ("we must act"), and logical arguments framed with emotional undertones were analyzed for their role in convincing the audience of the speaker's position.
Emotional appeal: The use of metaphors (e.g., "a ticking time bomb" to symbolize urgency) and analogies helped evoke strong emotional reactions and align the audience with the speaker's perspective.
Conflict escalation: Aggressive language, interruptions, and accusatory tones were studied to understand how they were used to challenge opponents or escalate disputes during debates.
The final step synthesized the findings by identifying recurring patterns and strategies that speakers used across different contexts. This synthesis highlighted how anger was consistently employed to serve specific rhetorical purposes, such as unifying a group through shared outrage or discrediting an opponent through confrontational tactics. Variations in these strategies were noted based on cultural or situational factors, such as the formality of the setting or the cultural norms regarding emotional expression.
By categorizing these elements and examining their interactions, the study provided a comprehensive framework for understanding the strategic use of anger in public communication. This methodology offers valuable insights into the linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms that make anger a potent tool in influencing audiences and shaping discourse [8].
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2G25
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/1G.33619/2414-2948/11G
Results
The results of the study are presented in two sections. The first section outlines the linguistic features and rhetorical devices commonly used to convey anger in public speeches and debates. The second section highlights patterns and variations based on cultural and situational contexts. The findings are supported by examples and summarized in tables for clarity.
Linguistic Features and Rhetorical Devices. Analysis revealed that anger was conveyed through specific linguistic choices and rhetorical techniques. Table 1 summarizes the most frequently identified features, their functions, and examples from the corpus.
Table 1
FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED FEATURES
Feature/Device Function Example Source
Repetition Emphasize key points "We will not accept this. We will not tolerate this. We will fight for justice." Political rally speech [7]
Metaphors Evoke emotional response "This system is a crumbling fortress that must be torn down." Protest speech [5]
Accusatory tone Escalate conflict "They have betrayed the people and trampled on our rights." Parliamentary debate [7]
Rhetorical questions Challenge opponents or provoke thought "How much longer will we allow this injustice to continue?" Activist speech [8]
High-intensity adjectives Heighten emotional intensity "This outrageous and shameful act cannot go unanswered." Media statement [2]
The analysis revealed that anger in public speeches and debates was consistently expressed and amplified through deliberate linguistic choices and rhetorical techniques. These elements not only conveyed the speaker's emotional state but also served to engage, persuade, or challenge the audience. Below is a detailed explanation of the most frequently identified features and their impact, as summarized in Table 1.
Repetition was a common strategy used to emphasize key points and instill a sense of urgency. By reiterating phrases or ideas, speakers reinforced their arguments and maintained the audience's focus. For example, in a political rally speech, the repeated use of "We will not" in the phrase "We will not accept this. We will not tolerate this. We will fight for justice" [7] served to unify the audience and create a sense of collective resolve. This technique is particularly effective in emotionally charged contexts where reinforcement strengthens the rhetorical impact.
Metaphors were employed to evoke vivid emotional responses and make abstract issues more tangible. For instance, in a protest speech, the metaphor "This system is a crumbling fortress that must be torn down" [4] painted a dramatic image of structural failure, emphasizing the need for immediate action. Such figurative language engages the audience's imagination, making the speech more compelling and memorable.
An accusatory tone was frequently used to escalate conflict, particularly in debates or confrontational settings. Statements like "They have betrayed the people and trampled on our rights" [7] explicitly assigned blame and heightened the emotional stakes of the discourse. This direct approach often aimed to delegitimize opponents while rallying support from the audience.
Rhetorical questions served to provoke thought or challenge opponents. For example, "How much longer will we allow this injustice to continue?" [8] not only emphasized the speaker's anger but also invited the audience to reflect on their inaction. These questions were particularly effective in activist speeches, where the goal was to inspire participation and action.
High-Intensity Adjectives. The use of high-intensity adjectives heightened the emotional tone of the speeches. Words like "outrageous," "shameful," and "unacceptable" added a sense of urgency
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
and moral weight to the speaker's arguments. For example, in a media statement, the phrase "This outrageous and shameful act cannot go unanswered" reinforced the speaker's indignation and demanded immediate attention [1].
These linguistic and rhetorical features were often combined to create a layered emotional impact. For instance, repetition was frequently paired with high-intensity adjectives, as in "We will not stand for this injustice. This shameful act must be addressed immediately. " This combination not only reinforced the key message but also intensified the emotional appeal, sustaining the audience's engagement. Similarly, metaphors were sometimes integrated with rhetorical questions to both provoke thought and evoke strong emotions, as in "How long must we watch this fortress of corruption crumble before we act?"
The strategic use of these features highlights the deliberate nature of anger in public communication, where language functions as a powerful tool for persuasion, emotional resonance, and conflict escalation. These findings underscore the importance of linguistic choices in shaping the emotional and rhetorical effectiveness of public speeches and debates.
Patterns and Variations. The analysis identified recurring patterns in the expression of anger across public speeches and debates, while also highlighting significant variations influenced by cultural and situational factors. These patterns and variations provide insight into how anger is strategically adapted to meet different rhetorical needs and cultural expectations.
Across all speeches, the strategic use of repetition and emotionally charged vocabulary was observed as a central technique to emphasize grievances, rally support, and motivate action. For example, phrases like "We will not accept this. We will fight for justice" repeatedly appeared in contexts aiming to build collective resolve. Similarly, vocabulary with strong emotional connotations, such as "outrageous," "unforgivable," and "betrayal," was consistently used to heighten the emotional impact and align the audience with the speaker's perspective.
Another shared strategy was the use of rhetorical questions to provoke reflection and create a sense of urgency. Phrases like "How much longer must we endure this injustice?" were commonly employed to directly engage the audience and encourage immediate action. These patterns reflect a deliberate effort to make anger an effective tool for persuasion and mobilization. While these techniques were universally present, their specific manifestations varied depending on cultural and situational contexts.
Table 2
PROVIDES A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THESE VARIATIONS
Context Variation Example Source
Western Direct and "They are liars who have failed us, and we Election debate
political confrontational will not stand for it any longer." [10]
speeches language
Eastern political Indirect expressions of "The path taken by the opposition is Parliamentary
speeches anger regrettable and lacks foresight." session [11]
Activist Collective appeals "We are the voice of the unheard, and we Protest speech [3]
movements emphasizing "we" will not be silenced."
Formal debates Controlled tone with "This policy is not only flawed but deeply Academic debate
logical framing unjust, and it must be reconsidered [9]
immediately."
Cultural norms played a significant role in shaping how anger was expressed. In Western contexts, speakers frequently employed direct and confrontational language to convey anger. This approach aligned with cultural norms that value assertiveness and transparency. For example, in a
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
political debate, a candidate might use strong accusations such as "They are liars who have failed us." Such directness was effective in rallying supporters and discrediting opponents.
In contrast, Eastern contexts favored indirect and restrained expressions of anger, reflecting cultural norms that prioritize harmony and subtlety. Instead of outright accusations, speakers often framed criticisms in neutral or regretful terms, such as "The path taken by the opposition is regrettable and lacks foresight." This approach allowed speakers to convey dissatisfaction without overtly disrupting social or political decorum.
The situational context also influenced the tone and style of anger expression. In activist movements, speakers frequently used collective appeals to foster unity and solidarity. Phrases like "We are the voice of the unheard" emphasized group identity and shared purpose, leveraging anger as a unifying force.
In formal debates, anger was often expressed with controlled tone and logical framing to maintain credibility while addressing contentious issues. For instance, in academic or parliamentary debates, statements like "This policy is not only flawed but deeply unjust" balanced emotional expression with logical argumentation, ensuring the speaker's position remained persuasive and authoritative.
The findings corroborate prior research on cultural dimensions of emotional expression [6]. Western cultures generally prioritize individualism and value direct communication, which explains the prevalence of assertive and confrontational expressions of anger. Conversely, Eastern cultures, with a collectivist orientation, often prefer indirect communication and emotional restraint to maintain social harmony.
These patterns and variations demonstrate that while anger serves as a universal rhetorical tool, its expression is shaped by the interplay of cultural expectations and situational demands. The findings underline the importance of adapting rhetorical strategies to align with audience norms and contextual factors, ensuring that anger is used effectively to achieve the speaker's communicative goals. The findings align with previous research on the strategic use of anger in public communication [5, 12]. The consistent patterns across diverse contexts suggest that anger, when used effectively, is a universal tool for emotional persuasion, although cultural norms and situational factors shape its specific manifestation.
Discussion
The findings of this study highlight the strategic use of anger as a rhetorical tool in public speeches and debates. Anger was found to serve multiple communicative purposes, including emphasizing grievances, mobilizing support, and confronting opposition. The analysis not only identified common linguistic and rhetorical strategies but also revealed significant cultural and situational variations that influence how anger is expressed and perceived.
Anger, as a powerful emotional appeal, can engage audiences by creating a sense of urgency and moral clarity. This aligns with previous research suggesting that emotions play a critical role in persuasive discourse [5]. Repetition, emotionally charged vocabulary, and rhetorical questions were consistently used to draw attention to grievances and inspire collective action. For example, repetition of phrases like "We will not accept this" reinforced the message and established a shared sense of determination among listeners.
The study also confirmed that anger is often employed to confront adversaries and delegitimize opponents. Techniques such as an accusatory tone and high-intensity adjectives intensified the emotional impact and framed opponents as morally or ethically flawed. These strategies, while effective in creating tension, require careful calibration to avoid alienating audiences, especially in culturally sensitive contexts.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
One of the key contributions of this study is its exploration of cultural influences on anger expression. The contrast between Western and Eastern communication styles was particularly striking. In Western political speeches, direct and confrontational language was the norm, reflecting cultural norms that value assertiveness and transparency. This approach was effective in energizing audiences and creating clear distinctions between allies and adversaries.
Conversely, in Eastern contexts, anger was expressed more indirectly, reflecting societal norms that prioritize harmony and subtlety. Speakers often used neutral or regretful language to critique opponents without overtly disrupting social decorum. These findings align with Hofstede's (2001) research on cultural dimensions, which highlights the preference for indirect communication in collectivist societies [6].
The situational context also shaped how anger was employed. In activist movements, for instance, anger was frequently used to foster unity and solidarity. Collective appeals such as "We are the voice of the unheard" emphasized shared identity and grievances, turning anger into a unifying force. This aligns with the idea that anger can be a catalyst for social change when directed toward systemic issues [12].
In formal debates, speakers adopted a more controlled tone, blending emotional expression with logical reasoning. Statements like "This policy is not only flawed but deeply unjust" balanced emotional appeal with intellectual credibility, ensuring that the speaker-maintained authority while addressing contentious topics.
The study's findings underscore the importance of adapting rhetorical strategies to cultural and situational contexts. For speakers aiming to use anger effectively, understanding the audience's cultural norms and expectations is crucial. In collectivist societies, indirect expressions of anger may resonate more with audiences, while in individualist cultures, directness and assertiveness may be better received.
Additionally, speakers must be mindful of the risks associated with using anger. While it can be a powerful motivator, excessive or misdirected anger can backfire, alienating audiences or escalating conflicts unnecessarily. Strategic use of anger requires a delicate balance between emotional intensity and rhetorical precision.
This study contributes to the broader understanding of emotional appeals in public discourse by providing a structured framework for analyzing anger as a rhetorical tool. By identifying linguistic and rhetorical patterns and examining cultural and situational variations, the research offers practical insights for public speakers, debaters, and communication professionals.
Future research could expand on these findings by exploring additional emotional appeals, such as fear or hope, and their interplay with anger in persuasive communication. Furthermore, longitudinal studies could investigate how the use of anger in public discourse evolves over time, particularly in response to shifting cultural norms and political climates.
Anger, when strategically employed, is a powerful rhetorical device capable of mobilizing audiences, emphasizing grievances, and confronting opposition. However, its effectiveness depends on the speaker's ability to adapt their expression to cultural and situational contexts. By understanding these dynamics, communicators can harness the persuasive potential of anger while avoiding its pitfalls.
Conclusion
This study has explored the use of anger as a rhetorical tool in public speeches and debates, examining the linguistic features, rhetorical devices, and cultural variations that influence its expression and reception. The findings underscore that anger, when strategically used, serves as a powerful means of emphasizing grievances, mobilizing action, and confronting opposition. Repetition, emotionally charged vocabulary, and rhetorical questions were identified as key features
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 11. №1 2025
https ://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
commonly used to amplify anger, while the combination of these techniques created a layered emotional impact that effectively engaged audiences.
Cultural and situational factors were found to significantly shape how anger is expressed. In Western contexts, direct and confrontational language dominated, aligning with values of assertiveness and transparency. In contrast, Eastern cultures favored indirect expressions of anger, reflecting a greater emphasis on social harmony and respect for hierarchy. Furthermore, situational contexts such as activist movements and formal debates influenced the tone and approach, with collective appeals in activism and more controlled rhetoric in formal settings.
The study contributes to our understanding of emotional appeals in public discourse, emphasizing the need for speakers to adapt their rhetorical strategies to their audience's cultural norms and the specific context of the speech. By carefully calibrating the expression of anger, communicators can harness its persuasive power without alienating their audience or escalating conflict unnecessarily.
This research opens the door for future studies on other emotional appeals in public communication, as well as longitudinal research on how the expression of anger may evolve in response to changing political and cultural environments. Understanding the strategic use of anger can help improve the effectiveness of public discourse, enabling speakers to achieve their communicative goals more persuasively and ethically.
References:
1. Alieva, M. A. (2023). Epic genre on the Great Silk Road. Vestnik mezhdunarodnogo universitetaKyrgyzstana, (4(52)), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.53473/16946324_2023_4_67
2. Alieva, M. A. (2023). Exploring Phonetic Considerations within the Scope of Translation Transformations in Diverse English Language Styles for Pedagogical Purposes. Gumanitarnye nauchnye issledovaniya, (8(144)).
3. Alieva, M. A. (2023).Translation of Silk Road sounds: phonetic and phonological aspects of English and Russian languages. Vestnik mezhdunarodnogo universiteta Kyrgyzstana, (3(51)), 27-32. https://doi.org/10.53473/16946324_2023_3_27
4. Alieva, M. & Abdykalykov, N. (2024). Key Aspects of the Translation of Works of the Epic Genre from English to Russian. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 10(8), 518-528. (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/105/66
5. Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Emotional intelligence in the language of politics. Routledge.
6. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications.
7. Jones, S. (2021). Political rhetoric in parliamentary debates: A study of anger and persuasion. Journal of Political Communication, 36(4), 431-448.
8. Lee, J. (2022). The rhetoric of activism: Mobilizing anger for social change. Social Movement Studies, 21(2), 147-163.
9. Smith, A. (2019). Anger in academic debates: Rhetorical strategies and intellectual engagement. Journal of Rhetorical Studies, 42(1), 25-39.
10. Taylor, R. (2020). The language of election debates: Confrontation and persuasion in political discourse. International Journal of Political Discourse, 8(3), 110-125.
11. Wang, Y. (2021). Emotional expression in Eastern political speeches: A cultural analysis. Asian Journal of Political Communication, 29(1), 70-84.
12. Wodak, R. (2015). The discourse of politics in action: Arguments, anger, and antagonism. Sage Publications.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice https ://www.bulletennauki.ru
Т. 11. №1 2025 https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110
Список литературы:
1. Alieva M. A. Epic genre on the Great Silk Road // Вестник международного университета Кыргызстана. 2023. №4(52). С. 67-72. https://doi.org/10.53473/16946324_2023_4_67
2. Alieva M. A. Exploring Phonetic Considerations within the Scope of Translation Transformations in Diverse English Language Styles for Pedagogical Purposes // Гуманитарные научные исследования. 2023. №8(144).
3. Alieva M. A. Translation of Silk Road sounds: phonetic and phonological aspects of English and Russian languages // Вестник международного университета Кыргызстана. 2023. №3(51). P. 27-32. https://doi.org/10.53473/16946324_2023_3_27
4. Алиева М. А., Абдыкалыков Н. А. Ключевые аспекты перевода произведений эпического жанра с английского на русский // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2024. Т. 10. №8. С. 519-528. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/105/66
5. Charteris-Black J. Emotional intelligence in the language of politics. Routledge. 2014.
6. Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. 2001.
7. Jones S. Political rhetoric in parliamentary debates: A study of anger and persuasion // Journal of Political Communicationю 2021. V. 36. №4. P. 431-448.
8. Lee J. The rhetoric of activism: Mobilizing anger for social change // Social Movement Studies. 2022. V. 21. №2. P. 147-163.
9. Smith A. Anger in academic debates: Rhetorical strategies and intellectual engagement // Journal of Rhetorical Studies. 2019. V. 42. №1. P. 25-39.
10. Taylor R. 2020. The language of election debates: Confrontation and persuasion in political discourse // International Journal of Political Discourse. V. 8. №3. P. 110-125.
11. Wang Y. Emotional expression in Eastern political speeches: A cultural analysis. Asian // Journal of Political Communication. 2021. V. 29. №1. P. 70-84.
12. Wodak R. The discourse of politics in action: Arguments, anger, and antagonism. Sage Publications. 2015.
Работа поступила в редакцию 02.12.2024 г.
Принята к публикации 10.12.2024 г.
Ссылка для цитирования:
Abdyrazakova M., Isakova K., Kultaeva N. Anger in Public Speeches and Debates with a Focus on Speech Strategies and Tactics // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2025. Т. 11. №1. С. 371379. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110/44
Cite as (APA):
Abdyrazakova, M., Isakova, K., & Kultaeva, N. (2025). Anger in Public Speeches and Debates with a Focus on Speech Strategies and Tactics. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 11(1), 371-379. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/110/44
