Discursive Manipulation in Political Apologies Cross-Cultural Pragmatic
Keywords:
political apology, pragmatics, discourse manipulation, English, Uzbek, Russian, cross-cultural communicationAbstract
Political apologies are linguistically strategic acts that aim to mitigate political crises, restore public trust, and manage institutional face. While often perceived as simple speech acts, political apologies are layered with power dynamics, vagueness, and intentional ambiguity. This study investigates how political apologies are pragmatically constructed in English, Uzbek, and Russian political contexts and how discursive manipulation is embedded within them. Using a comparative corpus of 90 official political apologies—30 from each language—the study identifies the linguistic markers of insincerity, avoidance of responsibility, and indirectness. Findings reveal that while English apologies often rely on formulaic expressions with carefully balanced responsibility, Uzbek political apologies tend to emphasize collective cultural values and moral authority, whereas Russian apologies frequently exhibit distancing strategies and indirect admission. Through linguopragmatic analysis, the study highlights how political apologies are performative yet rarely transparent, shaped by sociopolitical pressures and the need to control narrative outcomes
References
1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
2. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. State University of New York Press.
3. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213.
4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
5. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
6. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Longman.
7. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.
8. Kampf, Z. (2009). Public (non-)apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2257–2270.
9. Lakoff, R. T. (2001). The language war. University of California Press.
10. Ryazanova-Clarke, L. (2006). The discourse of a spectacle at the end of the presidential term. Europe-Asia Studies, 58(7), 1035–1059.
11. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.
12. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Mouton de Gruyter.
13. Tursunov, B., & Rakhimova, M. (2021). Siyosiy nutqdagi evfemizmlarning lingvopragmatik tahlili. Til va Adabiyot, 2(34), 56–65.
14. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. Sage.
15. Vinogradova, I. (2020). Strategic vagueness in Russian political speech: A pragmatic approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 87–104.
16. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. SAGE.
17. Yusupova, D. (2021). Pragmatic features of political apology in Uzbek discourse. Til va Adabiyot, 3(22), 45–55.
