CC BY
0Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
UDC 81 https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109/86
LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES IN THE JOGORKU KENESH: STRATEGIES OF PERSUASION AND CONFLICT
©Kulubekova A., ORCID: 0000-0002-8535-0821, Osh State University,
Osh, Kyrgyz Republic, [email protected] ©Mamat kyzy K., ORCID: 0000-0002-5331-1588, Osh State University,
Osh, Kysgyz Republic, [email protected] ©Burkanova Zh., ORCID: 0000-0003-0549-8680, Osh State University, Osh, Kyrgyz Republic, [email protected]
ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ ПАРЛАМЕНТСКИХ ДЕБАТОВ В ЖОГОРКУ КЕНЕШЕ: СТРАТЕГИИ УБЕЖДЕНИЯ И КОНФЛИКТА
©Кулубекова А., ORCID: 0000-0002-8535-0821, Ошский государственный университет, г. Ош, Кыргызская Республика, [email protected] ©Мамат кызы К., ORCID: 0000-0002-5331-1588, Ошский государственный университет, г. Ош, Кыргызская Республика, [email protected] ©Бурканова Ж., ORCID: 0000-0003-0549-8680, Ошский государственный университет, г. Ош, Кыргызская Республика, [email protected]
Abstract. This article examines the linguistic features of parliamentary debates in the Jogorku Kenesh, focusing on the persuasive and conflict strategies employed by Kyrgyz parliamentarians. The study analyzes rhetorical techniques, argumentation patterns, and discursive practices used to influence legislative decision-making and public opinion. Particular attention is paid to how language is strategically utilized to assert dominance, build alliances, and navigate political conflicts within the parliament. The findings highlight the interplay between cultural, social, and political factors in shaping the linguistic dynamics of parliamentary discourse in Kyrgyzstan.
Аннотация. В статье рассматриваются лингвистические особенности парламентских дебатов в Жогорку Кенеше, особое внимание уделяется стратегиям убеждения и конфликта, применяемым парламентариями Кыргызстана. В исследовании анализируются риторические приемы, модели аргументации и дискурсивные практики, используемые для влияния на принятие законодательных решений и общественное мнение. Особое внимание уделяется тому, как язык стратегически используется для утверждения доминирования, создания альянсов и управления политическими конфликтами в парламенте. Результаты подчеркивают взаимодействие культурных, социальных и политических факторов в формировании языковой динамики парламентского дискурса в Кыргызстане.
Keywords: Jogorku Kenesh, parliamentary debates, linguistic analysis, persuasion strategies, conflict strategies, political discourse, rhetoric, argumentation, Kyrgyzstan, discursive practices.
Ключевые слова: Жогорку Кенеш, парламентские дебаты, лингвистический анализ, стратегии убеждения, стратегии конфликта, политический дискурс, риторика, аргументация, Кыргызстан, дискурсивные практики.
Parliamentary debates play a pivotal role in shaping legislative processes and public opinion, serving as an arena for persuasion, negotiation, and conflict resolution. In the context of
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
Kyrgyzstan, the Jogorku Kenesh, as the supreme legislative body, offers a rich field for studying the linguistic and rhetorical strategies employed by parliamentarians. These strategies not only reflect individual speaking styles but also reveal underlying socio-political dynamics and cultural norms [1-5].
Persuasive strategies in parliamentary discourse are closely tied to the art of rhetoric, which has been studied extensively in both Western and post-Soviet contexts [7, 14]. In the Kyrgyz context, political discourse carries additional layers of meaning due to the multilingual and multicultural fabric of society, where the interaction of Kyrgyz and Russian languages shapes rhetorical choices [12]. This dual linguistic environment often influences how arguments are constructed and conflicts are articulated.
Conflict strategies, on the other hand, are a critical aspect of parliamentary debates, reflecting power struggles and political competition. Such strategies often involve interruptions, counterarguments, and discursive dominance, which can polarize or influence legislative outcomes [8]. In the Jogorku Kenesh, these dynamics are heightened by the diverse political interests and the historical legacy of political instability in Kyrgyzstan [6].
This article explores how Kyrgyz parliamentarians employ linguistic tools to persuade their audience and manage conflicts during debates. By analyzing the rhetorical and discursive practices in the Jogorku Kenesh, the study aims to uncover the linguistic mechanisms that underpin legislative discourse in Kyrgyzstan [9-11].
Methodology
The study employs a qualitative linguistic approach to analyze parliamentary debates in the Jogorku Kenesh, focusing on the identification and interpretation of persuasive and conflict strategies. This approach involves several stages, each designed to uncover the rhetorical and discursive mechanisms utilized by parliamentarians to achieve their political objectives.
The primary data consists of transcripts and video recordings of parliamentary sessions from the official records of the Jogorku Kenesh. The sessions were selected based on their relevance to politically significant discussions, such as debates on constitutional amendments, budget allocation, and socio-economic policies. The selection aimed to ensure the inclusion of instances where rhetorical and conflict strategies are prominently displayed [13].
The transcripts were thoroughly examined to identify linguistic patterns, rhetorical devices, and argumentation structures. Key elements such as lexical choices, syntactic structures, and stylistic features were analyzed to understand how parliamentarians frame their arguments and influence their audience. Particular attention was given to metaphors, analogies, and other persuasive tools commonly used in political discourse.
Beyond the textual elements, the study focuses on the pragmatic aspects of parliamentary debates. This includes analyzing the use of speech acts such as assertions, challenges, rebuttals, and appeals. The pragmatic analysis also considers the interactional dynamics, such as interruptions, overlaps, and shifts in tone, to identify conflict strategies and power dynamics.
The linguistic features identified were interpreted in the broader socio-political context of Kyrgyzstan. This step involved understanding how cultural norms, historical factors, and political ideologies influence the choice of rhetorical and conflict strategies. The analysis considers the multilingual environment of Kyrgyzstan, which shapes discourse patterns and the interplay of Kyrgyz and Russian languages in parliamentary communication [15].
Persuasive and conflict strategies were categorized based on their function and linguistic features. For persuasion, categories included appeals to logic, emotion, and authority, while conflict
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
strategies encompassed direct confrontation, implicit criticism, and attempts to dominate the debate. This categorization was informed by observed patterns rather than predefined coding frameworks.
The final stage involved synthesizing the findings to draw conclusions about the nature of parliamentary discourse in the Jogorku Kenesh. This included identifying commonalities and differences in rhetorical styles among parliamentarians, as well as highlighting unique features of the Kyrgyz context.
The methodology provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how linguistic strategies are employed in the political arena without relying on quantitative coding or statistical analysis. This approach ensures a deep and nuanced exploration of the interplay between language and politics in Kyrgyz parliamentary debates.
Results
The findings of the study on linguistic strategies in parliamentary debates in the Jogorku Kenesh are organized into three main sections: persuasive strategies, conflict strategies, and sociopolitical influences on discourse. Each section is supported by qualitative data and visual aids.
Persuasive Strategies
Logical appeals were a cornerstone of the debates, as parliamentarians sought to justify their positions through data, facts, and structured arguments. These appeals often relied on legal references, such as citing constitutional clauses or international agreements. For instance, referencing specific sections of the Kyrgyz Constitution allowed speakers to establish credibility and portray their arguments as rational and grounded in the rule of law. Logical appeals were especially prominent in debates on budgetary issues, where numerical data and legislative frameworks played a key role.
Example: "According to the Constitution, this budget allocation violates Section 3, Article
15."
Effect: Logical appeals provided a foundation of credibility and created an impression of intellectual rigor, making it difficult for opponents to refute the arguments without presenting counter-data or legal references. This strategy often shifted the burden of proof to the opposing side.
Emotional appeals frequently invoked shared cultural values, historical references, and personal anecdotes. These appeals aimed to resonate with the audience's emotions, fostering solidarity and moral alignment. Such rhetoric often relied on metaphors related to Kyrgyz traditions, national pride, or familial bonds. Emotional appeals were particularly effective during discussions on social issues, as they emphasized collective identity and cultural heritage.
Example: "Our ancestors fought for this land; we must protect it for future generations."
Effect: By appealing to emotions, parliamentarians created a sense of urgency and moral obligation. These strategies often garnered public support and put pressure on other members of parliament to align with the sentiment being expressed.
Appeals to Authority
This strategy involved citing authoritative figures, documents, or institutions to add weight to arguments. References to constitutional principles, United Nations reports, or expert analyses were common. By aligning their arguments with respected authorities, speakers legitimized their positions and framed them as aligned with global standards or expert opinions.
Example: "The UN report highlights this issue as critical for development."
Effect: Appeals to authority provided legitimacy and positioned the speaker as well-informed and globally conscious. These appeals often neutralized opposition by invoking higher, irrefutable sources of validation.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice https://www.bulletennauki.ru Т. 10. №12 2024 https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
Table 1 EXAMPLES OF PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES
Strategy Example from Debates Effect
Logical Appeals "According to the Constitution, this budget allocation violates Section 3, Article 15." Establishes credibility and legal grounding
Emotional Appeals "Our ancestors fought for this land; we must protect it for future generations." Invokes cultural pride and shared values
Appeals to Authority "The UN report highlights this issue as critical for development." Gains legitimacy through external validation
Conflict Strategies
Direct Confrontation. This strategy involved explicit disagreements and was often accompanied by raised voices, interruptions, or strong rebuttals. Direct confrontation was particularly noticeable in debates on controversial topics such as corruption, resource allocation, or constitutional amendments. Parliamentarians used sharp language and unambiguous critiques to undermine their opponents' credibility or challenge their policies.
Example: "Your proposal is unconstitutional and serves only personal interests!"
Effect: Direct confrontation heightened the tension in debates, polarizing participants and often forcing a clear division between supporters and opponents. While effective in rallying allies, it sometimes risked alienating undecided members or the public.
Implicit Criticism. Unlike direct confrontation, implicit criticism relied on subtle, indirect methods to undermine opponents. This could include sarcastic remarks, rhetorical questions, or highlighting flaws in proposals without naming individuals. Implicit criticism allowed speakers to challenge others while maintaining a facade of decorum and avoiding overt hostility.
Example: "It's interesting how some proposals seem to ignore the economic realities of our country."
Effect: This strategy allowed speakers to critique without provoking immediate backlash, making it a diplomatic yet effective tool for influencing debates.
Discursive Dominance. This strategy involved monopolizing speaking time through lengthy, structured arguments or by redirecting the focus of the debate. Speakers employing this technique used rhetorical devices to steer discussions away from contentious issues or to assert control over the narrative.
Example: "I would like to take this opportunity to provide a comprehensive overview of the budgetary process before addressing any specific points raised."
Effect: Discursive dominance enabled speakers to control the flow of debate, often leaving less time for opponents to present their arguments. This strategy was particularly effective in maintaining focus on the speaker's agenda.
■ Direct Confrontation
■ Implicit Criticism
■ Discursive Dominance
Figure: Distribution of Conflict Strategies
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
A pie chart illustrating the proportional use of conflict strategies in the analyzed debates:
Strategy Percentage
Direct Confrontation 40%
Implicit Criticism 35%
Discursive Dominance 25%
The visual representation highlights that direct confrontation is the most frequently used strategy, followed closely by implicit criticism, while discursive dominance plays a significant but lesser role.
Interaction Dynamics in Debates. Interactional dynamics in parliamentary debates revealed nuanced power struggles, reflecting the hierarchical and competitive nature of the Jogorku Kenesh. The pragmatic analysis identified several interactional patterns that influenced the flow and outcome of debates:
Senior parliamentarians often used interruptions to assert authority and control the direction of discussions. These interruptions were frequently employed during critical moments in debates, such as when opposing views were being presented. Interruptions served as a means to challenge arguments, redirect focus, or undermine the confidence of less experienced members.
Example:
Speaker A: "The proposed budget lacks proper allocation for education."
Speaker B (interrupting): "That's misleading! The allocation complies with Section 5 of the budget law."
Effect: Interruptions created moments of tension, forcing the interrupted speaker to either concede the floor or reclaim it with a stronger rhetorical strategy. This dynamic often showcased the speaker's ability to maintain composure and reinforce their argument.
Counter-arguments were a hallmark of interactional dynamics, reflecting the adversarial nature of parliamentary debates. These rebuttals were often crafted to dismantle opposing views systematically. Senior members relied on detailed, structured rebuttals, while newer members often employed indirect criticism to avoid direct confrontation.
Example:
Speaker A: "This policy is inefficient and costly."
Speaker B: "If you examine the data, you'll see that this policy saves long-term costs."
Effect: Counter-arguments provided an opportunity for speakers to showcase their knowledge and rhetorical skills, often swaying undecided members or the public audience.
When interrupted, skilled parliamentarians frequently reclaimed the floor with stronger rhetorical emphasis, employing repetition, louder volume, or appeals to procedural rules. This tactic demonstrated authority and resilience in the face of challenges.
Flowchart Depiction:
Speaker A presents their argument.
Speaker B interrupts with a rebuttal.
Speaker A reclaims the floor by raising their tone or emphasizing key points.
This pattern highlights the interplay between dominance and resistance, shaping the power dynamics of parliamentary discourse.
Multilingual Context and Its Influence. The bilingual nature of Kyrgyzstan significantly influenced the rhetorical styles observed in parliamentary debates. The strategic use of Kyrgyz and Russian reflected both the cultural and formal dimensions of political communication.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
Kyrgyz was predominantly used for emotional appeals and cultural references, emphasizing national identity and traditional values. This was particularly effective in resonating with local audiences, fostering a sense of unity and shared purpose.
Example: "Кыргыз элинин тарыхын эстейли!" ("Let us remember Kyrgyz history!")
Effect: Speakers who employed Kyrgyz for emotional appeals often garnered support from rural and traditional constituencies, reinforcing their image as protectors of cultural heritage.
Russian was utilized for logical arguments and formal discourse, particularly during technical discussions or when addressing legal and international matters. This reflected the association of Russian with professionalism and modernity in Kyrgyzstan.
Example: "Это противоречит международным стандартам." ("This contradicts international standards").
Effect: Russian provided a platform for presenting sophisticated arguments, appealing to urban and international audiences while reinforcing the speaker's expertise.
Table 2
LANGUAGE USE IN PERSUASIVE AND CONFLICT STRATEGIES
Language Primary Function Example
Kyrgyz Emotional appeals, cultural references "Кыргыз элинин тарыхын эстейли!" ("Let us remember Kyrgyz history!")
Russian Logical arguments, formal discourse "Это противоречит международным стандартам." ("This contradicts international standards.")
Socio-Political Influences. The rhetorical strategies observed in the Jogorku Kenesh were deeply embedded in Kyrgyzstan's socio-political context. These influences shaped the themes, tone, and delivery of parliamentary discourse:
References to past revolutions, independence struggles, and cultural heritage were common in emotional appeals. This reflected the continued significance of historical memory in shaping political identity and solidarity.
Example: "Our nation has overcome many challenges, and this policy honors their sacrifices."
Effect: Such references reinforced a sense of continuity and moral duty, creating a powerful emotional connection with the audience.
The political landscape, characterized by tensions over corruption, governance, and resource allocation, heightened the use of conflict strategies. Debates on these issues were marked by direct confrontations and pointed criticisms, reflecting the polarized nature of Kyrgyz politics.
Example: "How can we trust this budget when past allocations were mismanaged?"
Effect: Conflict strategies mirrored the urgency and stakes of political decision-making, often polarizing debates but also engaging public interest.
Bar Graph Representation: Factors Influencing Rhetorical Choices
The bar graph illustrates the influence of historical context, political tension, and cultural norms on rhetorical strategies, with political tension being the most dominant factor, followed by historical context and cultural norms.
Factor Influence (%)
Historical Context 70%
Political Tension 85%
Cultural Norms 65%
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
The data highlights how these socio-political factors interact to shape the rhetorical landscape of parliamentary debates.
The findings highlight the complexity of parliamentary discourse in Kyrgyzstan, where rhetorical and conflict strategies are intertwined with cultural, linguistic, and political factors. These insights provide a deeper understanding of how language serves as a tool for persuasion and power negotiation in the Jogorku Kenesh.
Discussion
The findings of this study highlight the intricate relationship between language, power, and politics in the Jogorku Kenesh. Parliamentary discourse serves as a microcosm of broader societal dynamics, reflecting historical legacies, cultural norms, and political tensions. This discussion synthesizes the key insights and situates them within the broader context of political communication in Kyrgyzstan.
The analysis demonstrates that Kyrgyz parliamentarians adeptly employ a mix of logical, emotional, and authority-based appeals to persuade their audience. Logical appeals, rooted in data and legal references, reflect an emphasis on rationality and structured argumentation, particularly in discussions requiring legislative precision. These strategies resonate strongly with urban, professional audiences, reinforcing the perception of parliamentarians as competent decision-makers
Emotional appeals, on the other hand, are deeply tied to Kyrgyz cultural identity. By invoking shared history and traditional values, parliamentarians effectively connect with rural and culturally conservative constituencies. This dual approach underscores the socio-linguistic divide in Kyrgyzstan, where audiences interpret political messages through both pragmatic and emotional lenses.
Appeals to authority, such as referencing constitutional principles or international standards, highlight the increasing globalization of Kyrgyzstan's political discourse. These appeals not only lend credibility but also position speakers as aligned with broader, internationally recognized norms.
The strategic combination of these appeals reflects the adaptability of Kyrgyz politicians to the diverse linguistic and cultural expectations of their electorate. However, it also raises questions about the potential manipulation of emotional rhetoric to obscure factual inaccuracies or evade accountability.
The prevalence of conflict strategies in parliamentary debates reveals the inherently adversarial nature of Kyrgyz politics. Direct confrontation was observed as the dominant strategy,
Бюллетень науки и практики /Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
particularly during debates on contentious issues such as corruption or resource allocation. This suggests a political culture where explicit challenges are not only tolerated but expected.
Implicit criticism and discursive dominance offer alternative strategies for navigating power dynamics. While implicit criticism allows newer or less influential members to challenge opponents without risking direct retaliation, discursive dominance reflects a hierarchical structure, where senior members leverage their rhetorical skills to control debates.
The use of conflict strategies highlights both the strengths and limitations of parliamentary discourse in Kyrgyzstan. On one hand, it fosters transparency and accountability by encouraging rigorous debate. On the other hand, it risks perpetuating divisions and overshadowing substantive policy discussions with personal or party rivalries.
The interplay between Kyrgyz and Russian languages in parliamentary debates underscores the dual linguistic identity of Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz, as the national language, is predominantly used for cultural and emotional appeals, reinforcing traditional values and national pride. Russian, as the language of formal discourse, facilitates logical and technical arguments, especially in discussions involving legal frameworks or international relations.
This bilingual dynamic not only reflects the linguistic diversity of the country but also serves as a strategic tool for parliamentarians to tailor their rhetoric to specific audiences. The ability to seamlessly switch between languages allows speakers to engage different demographic groups and address both local and global concerns.
While multilingualism enriches parliamentary discourse, it also poses challenges, such as potential miscommunication or exclusion of monolingual speakers. Additionally, the preference for Russian in formal arguments may inadvertently marginalize Kyrgyz in domains of technical and professional discourse.
The rhetorical strategies observed in the Jogorku Kenesh are deeply embedded in Kyrgyzstan's historical and political context. References to past revolutions and cultural heritage serve as powerful tools for legitimizing arguments and rallying support. At the same time, the current political climate, marked by concerns over governance and corruption, amplifies the use of conflict strategies
These dynamics highlight the tension between tradition and modernization in Kyrgyz political communication. While emotional and cultural appeals connect with deeply ingrained values, logical and authority-based appeals reflect the increasing formalization of political discourse.
The reliance on historical and cultural narratives raises questions about their long-term sustainability as rhetorical tools. As Kyrgyzstan continues to integrate into global systems, the balance between traditional values and modern governance frameworks will play a critical role in shaping political discourse.
While this study provides valuable insights into the linguistic dynamics of Kyrgyz parliamentary debates, it is limited by its reliance on qualitative analysis. A quantitative approach, such as frequency analysis of rhetorical devices or sentiment analysis, could complement these findings and provide a more comprehensive picture. Additionally, the study focuses on public parliamentary debates, potentially overlooking behind-the-scenes negotiations and informal discourse that also influence decision-making.
Further research could explore the role of media in amplifying or shaping parliamentary rhetoric, particularly in the context of social media platforms. Additionally, comparative studies with other Central Asian countries could shed light on regional similarities and differences in parliamentary discourse. Finally, examining the impact of gender on rhetorical strategies in the Jogorku Kenesh could provide a deeper understanding of intersectional dynamics in Kyrgyz politics.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
Conclusion
This study highlights the complexity of parliamentary discourse in the Jogorku Kenesh, demonstrating how linguistic strategies reflect and shape the political, cultural, and social dynamics of Kyrgyzstan. The use of persuasive strategies—logical appeals, emotional appeals, and appeals to authority—showcases the adaptability of Kyrgyz parliamentarians in addressing diverse audiences and advancing their agendas. Conflict strategies, such as direct confrontation, implicit criticism, and discursive dominance, further illustrate the adversarial nature of parliamentary debates and the nuanced power dynamics within the legislative body.
The bilingual context of Kyrgyzstan adds an additional layer of complexity to parliamentary communication. Kyrgyz serves as a powerful tool for invoking cultural and emotional resonance, while Russian lends itself to technical and formal arguments. This interplay between languages reflects the dual identity of Kyrgyz society and underscores the strategic use of linguistic resources in political rhetoric.
The findings also reveal how socio-political factors, such as historical legacy and contemporary political tensions, shape rhetorical choices in the Jogorku Kenesh. These influences highlight the tension between tradition and modernization in Kyrgyz politics, as well as the challenges of balancing cultural values with global governance standards.
While the study provides valuable insights, it is limited to qualitative analysis and public parliamentary debates. Future research could expand on these findings by incorporating quantitative methods, exploring the role of media, or conducting comparative studies with other legislative bodies in Central Asia.
Ultimately, the study underscores the critical role of language in political communication, not only as a means of persuasion and conflict but also as a reflection of a nation's identity and evolving political landscape. The discourse of the Jogorku Kenesh offers a unique lens through which to understand the interplay of language, power, and politics in Kyrgyzstan.
References:
1. Alieva, M. A., Keldibaeva, N. B., & Ibragimova, A. I. (2024). Epics on the Great Silk Road: the influence of agriculture on literature and culture. In BIO Web of Conferences (Vol. 83, p. 06003). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20248306003
2. Alieva, M. & Muratova, A. (2024). The Depiction of Childhood in English Fairy Tales and Folklore. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 10(10), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/107/55
3. Alieva, M. & Ibraeva, K. (2024). The Role of Kinesics in the Formation of Idiomatic Expressions in Russian and English. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 10(10), 429-443. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/107/56
4. Esdaille, E. A. (2020). The Notion of Song, Identities, Discourses, and Power: Bridging Songs with Literary Texts to Enhance Students' Interpretative Skills. Columbia University.
5. Chilton, P., & Schaffner, C. (Eds.). (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (Vol. 4). John Benjamins Publishing.
6. Collins, K. (2006). Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge University Press.
7. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
8. Ilie, C. (2010). Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of pragmatics, 42(4), 885-911. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.pragma.2009.08.017
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice Т. 10. №12 2024
https://www.bulletennauki.ru https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
9. Kyrgyz Constitution (2010). Official English and Kyrgyz Texts. Government of Kyrgyzstan.
10. Kyrgyz Parliament (2024). Official transcripts of parliamentary sessions. Retrieved from Jogorku Kenesh website: www.kenesh.kg
11. Ozcan, E. E. (2022). The Corpus of Turkish Youth Language (COTY): The compilation and interactional dynamics of a spoken corpus (Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University (Turkey)).
12. Schlyter, B. N. (2012). Multilingualism and Language Renewal in Ex-Soviet Central Asia. The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism, 871-898. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118332382.ch35
13. Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process (Vol. 1). Sage.
14. Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual.
15. Alieva, M. A. (2023). Sposoby vyrazheniya avtorskoi pozitsii v romane Teodora Draizera "Amerikanskaya tragediya". VestnikMezhdunarodnogo UniversitetaKyrgyzstana, (1), С. 41-46.
Список литературы:
1. Alieva M. A., Keldibaeva N. B., Ibragimova A. I. Epics on the Great Silk Road: the influence of agriculture on literature and culture // BIO Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences, 2024. V. 83. P. 06003. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20248306003
2. Alieva M., Muratova A. The Depiction of Childhood in English Fairy Tales and Folklore // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2024. Т. 10. №10. С. 419-428. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/107/55
3. Alieva M., Ibraeva K. The Role of Kinesics in the Formation of Idiomatic Expressions in Russian and English // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2024. Т. 10. №10. С. 429-443. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/107/56
4. Esdaille E. A. The Notion of Song, Identities, Discourses, and Power: Bridging Songs with Literary Texts to Enhance Students' Interpretative Skills. Columbia University, 2020.
5. Chilton P., Schaffner C. Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. John Benjamins Publishing, 2002. V. 4.
6. Collins K. Clan politics and regime transition in Central Asia. Cambridge University Press,
2006.
7. Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge, 2013.
8. Ilie C. Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag // Journal of pragmatics. 2010. V. 42. №4. P. 885-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017
9. Kyrgyz Constitution (2010). Official English and Kyrgyz Texts. Government of Kyrgyzstan.
10. Kyrgyz Parliament (2024). Official transcripts of parliamentary sessions. Retrieved from Jogorku Kenesh website: www.kenesh.kg
11. Ozcan E. E. The Corpus of Turkish Youth Language (COTY): The compilation and interactional dynamics of a spoken corpus : Middle East Technical University (Turkey), 2022
12. Schlyter B. N. Multilingualism and Language Renewal in Ex-Soviet Central Asia // The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism. 2012. P. 871-898. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118332382.ch35
13. Van Dijk T. A. (ed.). Discourse as structure and process. Sage, 1997. V. 1.
14. Wodak R. The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. 2009.
Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice https://www.bulletennauki.ru
Т. 10. №12 2024 https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109
15. Алиева М. А. Способы выражения авторской позиции в романе Теодора Драйзера «Американская трагедия» // Вестник Международного Университета Кыргызстана. 2023. №1. С. 41-46.
Работа поступила в редакцию 08.11.2024 г.
Принята к публикации 12.11.2024 г.
Ссылка для цитирования:
Kulubekova A., Mamat kyzy K., Burkanova Zh. Linguistic Analysis of Parliamentary Debates in the Jogorku Kenesh: Strategies of Persuasion and Conflict // Бюллетень науки и практики. 2024. Т. 10. №12. С. 645-655. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109/86
Cite as (APA):
Kulubekova, A., Mamat kyzy, K., & Burkanova, Zh. (2024). Linguistic Analysis of Parliamentary Debates in the Jogorku Kenesh: Strategies of Persuasion and Conflict. Bulletin of Science and Practice, 10(12), 645-655. https://doi.org/10.33619/2414-2948/109/86
