This study presents a sociolinguistic analysis of political discourse with a focus on different linguistic means that are used by political leaders in order to express their political ideology. The author demonstrates the choice of linguistic forms used by political leaders. Furthermore, in this article the peculiarities of creating allies and enemies among social actors are shown. Finally, this sociolinguistic analysis generates a typology of discourse strategies manifested in political

more »

... se of "otherness". Linguistic generalizations, implications and discursive "approaches" form significant insights to understand the nature of political discourse and show ways in which language is manipulated in order to obtain definite political goals. Most of recent studies have neglected the analysis of the linguistic form to correlate language and ideology and to account for the particular ways in which ideology, power and sociocultural nuances are constructed linguistically. Similarly, some studies in different fields demonstrate the fact that politicians manipulate language to convey their goals, to establish their points of view, to set alliances, but very few of them articulate explicitly how this is done linguistically. In order to project the enemy most politicians bring another voice into the discourse, a voice with whom the politician will align himself and which will allow him support his own political arguments versus the enemy's political arguments. The voice of interlocutor sets an alliance with the recipients forming rapport with it by means of specific linguistic means such as questions, vocatives, modality markers etc. By building "we-team", the politician indirectly distances "them" instigating the process of "otherness".