Учебное пособие 1351

References

[1]Postanovleniye Pravitel’stva RF ot 23 maya 2015 g. #497 «O Federal’noy tselevoy programme razvitiya obrazovaniya na 2016–2020 gody» [Elektronny resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: https://base.garant.ru/71044750/ (data obrascheniya 01.09.2021).

[2]Prikaz Ministerstva obrazovaniya I nauki Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 23 iyulya 2013 g.

#611 «Ob utverzhdenii poryadka formirovaniya I funktsionirovaniya innovatsionniy infrastruktury»

[Elektronny resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: https://base.garant.ru/70435666/ (data obrascheniya 01.09.2021).

[3]Federal’ny zakon «Ob obrazovanii v Rossiyskoy Federatsii» ot 29.12.2012 #273-FZ

[4]Ariyan М.А. Osnovy obschey metodiki prepodavaniya inostrannykh yazykov: teoreticheskiye i prakticheskiye aspekty: ucheb. posobiye (v soavtorstve). М.: FLINTA: Nauka, 2017. 224 s.

[5]Ariyan M.A., Litonina N.V. Online Collaborative Learning as a way of boosting language and teaching proficiency // Denman, C. J., & Al-Mahrooqi, R. (Eds.). (2019). Curriculum reform initiatives in English education. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. ISBN: 9781522558460.

[6]Dmitriyeva Е.N., Oberemko О.G. Lingvisticheskoye obrazovaniye v kontekste issledovaniya fenomena mezhetnicheskoy kommunikatsii // Yazyk i kul’tura. 2018. # 41. S. 241-254.

[7]Dmitriyeva Е.N., Oberemko О.G. Podgotovka prepodavatelya inostrannogo yazyka v rusle kul’turologicheskoy paradigmy // Yazyk i kul’tura. 2018. # 44. S. 182-197.

[8]Professional’no orientirovannoye obucheniye angliyskomu yazyku: metody, priemy, otsenivaniye: Koll. monografiya. 2-e izd. / K.E. Bezukladnikov, E.N. Dmitriyeva, B.А. Zhigalev, B.А. Kruze, M.P. Novoselov, M.A. Vikulina, М.А. Mosina, S.N. Novoselova, V.R. Oskolkova. – Perm’, N. Novgorod: PGG-PU, NGLU, 2018. – 122 s.

[9]Developing foreign language regional competence of future foreign language teachers: modeling of the process // Oberemko O., Glumova E., Shimichev A. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2019. Т. 907. С. 195-209.

[10]NGLU zapuskayet proyekt sozdaniya polilingval’nogo metodicheskogo resursa,

URL: https://lunn.ru/news/6884 (vremya obrascheniya - 19.11.2021).

[11]NGLU – Federal’naya innovatsionnaya ploschadka, URL: https://lunn.ru/page/nglu- federalnaya-innovacionnaya-ploshchadka (vremya obrascheniya - 19.11.2021).

[12]Polozheniye o deyatel’nosti FIP, URL: https://lunn.ru/media/news/2021/09/28/polozhenie_o_deyat._fip.pdf (vremya obrascheniya - 19.11.2021).

44

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

DOI 10.36622/MLMDR.2021.97.66.005

UDC 808.51

PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF STYLISTICALLY COLORED

LINGUISTIC UNITS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE:

ON THE MATERIAL OF V.V. PUTIN'S SPEECHES

N. Ghezaili

Algiers University 2 named after Abu Elkassem Saad Allah, Doctor of Philology, Professor,

Deputy Dean on Scientific Research of the Faculty of Arabic Philology and the Eastern Languages

Nadia Ghezaili

e-mail: nadia.ghezaili@univ-alger2.dz

Laboratory: "Étude de pragmatique inférentielle" EPI

Problem statement. In the proposed paper, we subject to a pragmatic analysis the use of stylistically colored linguistic units in the political discourse of the genre of oral speech: based on the material of television speeches (as meeting and interview) of the President of Russia. The study of colored linguistic units within the framework of political discourse is of particular interest, since these units serve the pragmatics of language.

Results. Pragmatic information in political discourse is distributed among all linguistic units. However, stylistically colored linguistic units, by which we mean connotatively saturated words, expressions, phraseological units and aphorisms, carry the greatest pragmatic load. They contribute not only to attracting the attention of the addressee, but also to influencing him.

Conclusion. Political discourse, representing a specific and complex type of communication, requires a special approach to its study. The role of stylistically colored linguistic units in the realization of the addressee's speech intention in political discourse is huge. In the course of the study, it was stated that the words, expressions, phraseological units and aphorisms used by the President of Russia are generally evaluative, more precisely, ironic (in particular, there is a fairly frequent use of phraseological units (81.81%), and sometimes stylistically reduced words and expressions (6.06%)). This can be explained by the fact that phraseological units, unlike aphorisms, are carriers of lexical meaning and can act as an equivalent of words. In addition, the degree of compatibility of components in phraseological units is not the same, i.e. they may include non-free, but easily separable words, and be used in a figurative sense. Consequently, they are more easily created in the process of speech, contributing to the achievement of the illocutionary goal of the addressee. Nevertheless, phraseological units and aphorisms, as well as stylistically reduced words, due to their expressiveness, contribute not only to attracting the attention of the addressee, but also to influencing him, while producing a certain pragmatic effect.

Key words: political discourse, genre of oral speech, linguistic units, stylistically colored, pragmatic effect, implicature, context.

For citation: Ghezaili N. Pragmatic analysis of the use of stylistically colored linguistic units in political discourse: on the material of V.V. Putin's speeches / N. Ghezaili // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Me- thodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2021. - № 4 (35). – P. 45-54.

Introduction.

This article is devoted to the pragmatic analysis of the use of stylistically colored linguistic units in political discourse: based on the material of television speeches (such as a meeting and an interview) of President Vladimir Putin. The study of colored linguistic units within the framework of political discourse is of particular interest, since these units serve the pragmatics of language.

_________________

© Ghezaili N, 2021

45

Research methodology.

The object of the study is the television speeches of President V.V. Putin:

1)meeting with political scientists at the Valdai International Discussion Club (2008);

2)interview with NBC (06/14/2021).

The subject of the study is stylistically colored linguistic units (words, expressions, phraseological units and aphorisms) used by the President of Russia:

1)at a meeting with political scientists at the Valdai International Discussion Club (2008);

2)in an interview with NBC (06/14/2021).

The purpose of this study is to determine the role and influence of stylistically colored linguistic units in the implementation of the addressee's speech intention in political discourse based on selected television speeches by President Vladimir Putin (meeting with political scientists at the Valdai International Discussion Club (2008); interview with NBC (06/14/2021)). The present research is connected with the solution of the following tasks:

1)to analyze the place of discourse in Russian political linguistics;

2)define the term "political discourse";

3)to identify the forms and composition of political discourse;

4)identify stylistically colored linguistic units in political discourse;

5)to identify the pragmatic potential of stylistically colored linguistic units in political discourse.

The material of this study was colored language units selected from President Vladimir

Putin's television speeches (a meeting with political scientists at the Valdai International Discussion Club (2008) [1*]; an interview with NBC (06/14/2021) [2*]).

The main methods of this paper are the communicative-pragmatic method, the method of cognitive analysis, the method of continuous sampling.

The results of the study.

Before proceeding to the analysis of colored linguistic units on the examples of television speeches by the President of Russia, namely at a meeting with political scientists at the Valdai International Discussion Club (2008) [1*] and in an interview with NBC (14.06.2021) [2*]), - It is necessary to conduct a theoretical review of research in the field of political discourse and identify its place in Russian political linguistics.

We know that the term "discourse" is of non-Russian origin. In fact, the term is borrowed from the French language "discours" from the Latin "discursus", i.e. "reasoning".

The question arises involuntarily about the reasons for the lack of an equivalent of this term in the Russian language.

Dutch scientist G.A. van Dijk argues that "the concept of discourse is as vague as the concepts of language, society, ideology. We know that often the most difficult to define concepts become the most popular. Discourse is one of them" [1, p. 4].

On the other hand, M.R. Miloud explains that "the reasons for borrowing include the desire for a fashionable, more prestigious term <...> among the advantages of words of foreign origin, researchers include the isolation of foreign words from the system of the receiving language" [2, p. 30].

Conceptualization of political discourse is in the focus of attention of Russian research-

ers.

It should be noted that the term "discourse" has firmly entered the scientific usage of Russian political linguistics. The French school has made an important contribution to the scientific substantiation of the modern understanding of discourse. French philosopher M. Foucault, who is considered the founder of the kratological concept of discourse, offers the following interpretation of the concept: "discourse is a set of statements of one formation ..."such statements reflect the specific conditions and goals of each possible sphere of communication" not only by their content (thematic) and linguistic style, i.e. by the selection of vocabulary,

46

phraseological and grammatical means of the language, but above all by its compositional construction. All these three points - thematic content, style and compositional construction - are inextricably linked with the purpose of the statement and are equally determined by the specifics of this sphere of communication" [3, p. 241].

At first glance, the proposed interpretation of the term is comprehensive. But from the standpoint of pragmalinguistics, the following definition seems more reliable: "discourse is an interactive activity of communication participants, establishing and maintaining contact, emotional and informational exchange, influencing each other, intertwining instantly changing communicative strategies and their verbal and nonverbal implementation in communication practice/ discourse, defining communicative moves in the unity of their explicit and implicit content" [4, p. 1-5].

In the above definition, we highlight an important point concerning the "interactive activity of communication participants", this is, from our point of view, the main characteristic of the concept of discourse, especially in a political context.

As for political discourse, V.I. Karasik's interpretation seems to be the most distinct: "Political discourse as a specific sphere of human activity is defined as institutional communication using a special system of professionally oriented signs and having its own vocabulary and phraseology" [5, p. 281].

In our understanding, political discourse is used for communicative purposes in the form of an utterance, text, speech act with such nonverbal communication methods inherent in it as facial expressions, gestures, intonation, laughter, pause. Political discourse has a pronounced purposeful character, consisting in a struggle for power. Regardless of its form or genre, the participants of communication in political discourse are in an unequal balance of forces, i.e. the addressee (institution), showing his attitude to reality in a certain social context, must necessarily influence the addressee (citizen, agent of an institution), in other words, exert manipulative influence on him. Thus, manipulativeness is an integral part of political discourse. As a result, implicature plays an essential role in political discourse, i.e. "meanings that go beyond what is said" [6, p. 364]. It is in the implication that the essence of the message lies.

In the same connection, the Algerian Linguist Y. Imoune, analyzing the power of political discourse, considers the relationship between discourse and political actions not from the point of view of their consistency and consistency, but most likely from the standpoint of their relevance and significance. Thus, "political actions in discourse interact naturally with contextual data" [7, p. 14].

Political discourse can take place both in oral and written speech, therefore, researchers distinguish:

-genres of oral speech (report, debate, conversation, interview, etc.);

-genres of written speech (letter to a political leader, program, newspaper article, historical reference, etc.) [8, p. 54; 9, p. 78-87].

It should be emphasized that the choice of linguistic units in political discourse is cardinal. Every word is worth its weight in gold. The philosopher M.M. Bakhtin, reflecting on the responsibility of using the word, pointed to "its use in all its semantic completeness, which includes both its content-semantic side (word-concept), and visual-expressive (word image), and emotional-volitional (intonation of the word) in their unity" [10, p. 34].

It should be recalled that political discourse, referring to the formal style of speech, has a fairly rich arsenal of technical language units presented in detailed complex syntactic constructions, especially in the genres of written speech, thereby corresponding to the purpose of discourse [11].

Political discourse, differing in general by its dryness and coldness, is often compared with the clerical language.

Our interest is directed to the genre of oral speech of political discourse (conversation, debate, interview), in which communication by the degree of institutionality is the least formal.

47

For example, in an interview or in a conversation, the personality of a politician, his thought, his intentions are revealed. Unlike other genres of political communication, in the genre of oral speech, a kind of freedom of the addressee is allowed, leading to some improvisation during the conversation.

Our choice is also explained by the fact that the speech of a politician in the genre of oral speech is more emotional, lively, expressive due to the use of stylistically colored linguistic units characteristic of colloquial speech. Stylistically colored linguistic units are understood by us as connotatively saturated words and expressions (phraseological units and aphorisms), which, in combination with facial expressions, gestures, changes in intonation, pauses of silence or unsaid, with laughter, help to create a certain pragmatic effect, the decoding of which is essential for the addressee.

The material of our study was the examples extracted by the method of continuous sampling from television appearances of President Vladimir Putin, and sessions with the scientists in the International discussion club "Valdai" (2008) [1*] and an interview to NBC (14.06.2021) [2*]).

Vladimir Putin as a political figure, does not go unnoticed in the international arena. His speeches are always widely discussed in the Russian and international press, causing fierce passions in the world of politics.

The language of the President of Russia is distinguished by its mosaic character. There is a clear trend towards the democratization of political language, which manifests itself in the spontaneous interweaving of formal and informal styles, especially in the genres of oral speech.

Let's analyze the speech intention of V.V. Putin when using stylistically colored linguistic units in the selected excerpts from his speeches.

Let's start with the meeting of the President of Russia with international political scientists in 2008, devoted mainly to the conflict in South Ossetia.

The meeting unexpectedly opened around the dining table. Vladimir Putin, noticing that some political scientists were keen on tasting dishes, showed his bewilderment from the very first minutes of the meeting:

"I want to greet you all ... good afternoon … I see that you haven't eaten everything yet…

This is in vain, because i t w i l l b e d i f f i c u l t t o e a t f u r t h e r ..." [1*].

From the very first words of greeting, the President of Russia sets the tone for the conference. The vocabulary, at first glance, seems quite ordinary, but the statement "it will be difficult to eat further", uttered with some irony, behind which lies, on the one hand, the President's indignation, and on the other, his intention to put everyone in their place, is pragmatically saturated.

We immediately guess the importance of the problem that will be discussed. Consequently, neutral vocabulary can also turn into connotatively saturated, depending on the addressee's goal and context [12].

When asked about the reasons for the advance of Russian troops into the territory of Georgia, which has started a conflict, Vladimir Putin frankly puts the dots over the "I":

o u r c o u n t r y … I was in Beijing and watched the world's electronic media. C o m -

Analyzing this passage, we notice that pragmatic information is distributed among various linguistic units, but stylistically colored linguistic units help to bring it to the forefront, to focus the attention of the addressee on it. V.V. Putin, without directly naming a conspiracy on the part of the West against Russia, uses the metaphor "powerful propaganda machine of the "West"", depicting with a gesture virtual quotation marks, in which his indignation is expressed. Further, the President shows his indignation and condemns all kinds of acts of interference, using colloquial phraseology: "This does not go through any gates, as they say in our country." Analyzing the events that took place in South Ossetia, the President uses the expressions "complete silence on the air" and "as if on command, simply", implying that the conflict was carefully prepared. V.V. Putin repeats twice "I congratulate you", implying that the enemy's goal was first achieved, but the final result of resolving the conflict is not yet known.

The Russian leader, continuing to explain the reasons for the military actions in Georgia, unconditionally declares:

"That in this case we needed to w i p e a w a y t h e b l o o d y s n o t , as they say in this case, and b o w o u r h e a d s ?" [1*].

Vladimir Putin, speaking as the owner of his territory, figuratively draws the expressions "wipe the bloody snot" and "bow your head" the insidious thoughts of opponents towards Russia.

The indignation of the Russian President did not subside:

force when tanks, multiple launch rocket systems, and heavy artillery are used against you. A r e w e s u p p o s e d t o s h o o t w i t h a s l i n g s h o t ? " [1*].

Talking about the delicate situation in which the Russian government is in relation to South Ossetia, the President openly puts the enemy in his place, using an expression with an obvious negative pragmatic attitude: "But there is simply no limit to arrogance." In addition, with the help of such a stylistic figure, he purposely downplays the power of the object "with a penknife (was it brandished)" or "Are we supposed to shoot from a slingshot", thereby producing a comic effect. Distorting the question raised about the inadequacy of the use of force, the Russian leader implies that it is necessary to act militarily in war.

Vladimir Putin, without departing from his positions, confirms the correctness of the actions of the Russian military forces:

"...., b u t t h e y w i l l g e t i n t h e f a c e p r o p e r l y . If there is a control point beyond the territory, beyond the conflict zone, then strikes should be carried out there. B u t o f c o u r s e !" [1*].

The president, in the colloquial phraseology "they will get in the face properly", does not hide his true intentions towards the enemy at all. The categorical nature of his positions is supported by the exclamation phrase "but of course!".

When asked why Russia could not create stable, confident relations with the West, the Russian President answers the same question, but asking it to the West. Explaining his understanding of equal relations between states, Vladimir Putin cites American "power" in the literal and figurative sense of the word as an opposition:

"... G o d f o r b i d t h e r e to enter into any contradictions with our American partners on the American continent … T h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d t h e h o l y o f h o l i e s ..." [1*].

49

"... And if you need to sort things out with each other and f i g h t , as we say in Russia, swear, then why meet, waste time?" [2*].

V.V. Putin, implicitly putting a reporter in his place, uses the colloquial expression "fight" in order to moderate his impulse, show him the boundaries and the inappropriateness of the question asked.

During the interview, the sensational issue of human rights is raised, which is planned on the agenda of J. Biden. The reporter reminds that the entire systemic opposition in Russia faces criminal charges, many are given the status of foreign agents. Then there is the question of whether it is true that dissent is no longer tolerated in Russia. The answer is as follows:

"You mentioned the law on foreign agents, but this is not our invention, it was in the 30s

Vladimir Putin, commenting on the state of affairs, about which much has been written, makes a knight's move, touching on the question of the origin of the law on foreign agents, which is the Achilles heel for American partners. The President repeatedly uses the metaphor "the law is (much) tougher" implying that the American side is not in a better position than the Russian one. The pragmatic effect of using this metaphor was not slow to manifest itself. The American reporter, feeling his awkward position, constantly interrupted the President, not giving him the opportunity to finish his thought. But the Russian leader skillfully drove him into a dead end:

"No. If you h a v e p a t i e n c e and let me say to the end what I want to say, ..., you don't want my answer to be heard by your viewers, that's the problem. Y o u ' r e s h u t t i n g m e u p . Is this freedom of expression? Or is it freedom of expression in the American way?" [2*].

Vladimir Putin, realizing the correctness of his strategy, is trying to bring his idea to the end. He ironically asks the reporter to "be patient", then using the colloquial phraseology "shut up", he explicitly brings to light the true appearance of the American side, for which, apparently, freedom of expression is not so unlimited.

After such an answer, the reporter humbles himself and asks the President to answer the question he posed. The Russian leader, expressing his thought, emphasizes the government's fear of civil society structures and thereby justifies the measures he has taken:

"... and when our official structures see this, in order to prevent such interference in our

m i r r o r i f t h e f a c e i s c r o o k e d . This has nothing to do with you personally, but if someone blames us for something, you look at yourself, you will see yourself in the mirror there, not us" [2*].

Justifying his answer, Vladimir Putin once again resorts to a perceptual metaphor, speaking about Russian decisions and laws that are "much softer", he uses this time the antonym (hard # soft). Russian President in the same context cites the Russian proverb "there is nothing to blame on the mirror, if the face is crooked", once used by the great Russian writer and satirist N.V. Gogol as an epigraph for the play "The Inspector", which was violently greeted by the

51

audience when it was released. In this case, the President of Russia invites American partners to take a critical look at themselves first before "blaming" others for something.

An American reporter raises the question of the forced landing of an airplane on the territory of Belarus, which caused a negative response from the West. Vladimir Putin, answering the question, operates with the same tactics:

"...The President's flight No. 1, was forcibly ordered to sit down like this… And you don't even think about it. Do you think this is normal? It was good there, but did Lukashenka act badly? Listen, l e t ' s s o m e h o w s p e a k t h e s a m e l a n g u a g e and operate with some identical concepts..." [2*].

The President, commenting on the case of the forced landing of the plane in Minsk, again draw a parallel with the actions of American partners. Using the phraseology "to speak the same language", he emphasizes that the American authorities have a tendency to make claims on double standards.

The American reporter notes that the case he cited cannot be compared with what happened in Minsk. To which the Russian leader responds:

"... but if something was done in Belarus, and you don't want to just admit it, y o u i g - n o r e i t . And you want millions of people around the world not to notice it or forget it for tomorrow. I t w o n ' t w o r k " [2*].

Vladimir Putin once again points out the biased criticism of the Belarusian authorities. Using the phraseology "to ignore", he explicitly makes it clear that the American side sees and hears only what is convenient for it. The President concludes with the words: "it won't work" with a special lowered tone, meaning that the truth will prevail anyway.

Then came the question about the reasons for the presence of a large concentration of armed forces and military personnel on the border with Ukraine. The answer was as follows:

"... At the same time, the United States conducted exercises in Alaska, j u s t f o r a m o m e n t . Do you know anything about this? Probably not. And I'll tell you, I know. This is also in close proximity to our borders, but it is on your territory. W e d i d n ' t e v e n p a y a t t e n t i o n ..." [2*].

Vladimir Putin, motivating his answer, casually shows surprise with the expression "just for a moment" emphasizing his disapproval of the US presence in Alaska, and adds: "We didn't even pay attention" implying implicitly by this stable phrase that everyone is free to act as he pleases on his own territory. The President notes questioningly that part of the American military equipment has been directly transferred from the American continent to the borders of the Russian Federation. The American reporter justifies this fact by saying that the American exercises are conducted in response to Russian actions and to the confrontation between Russia and NATO, which plays a kind of defense. V.V. Putin's reaction is indicative:

would be no expansion of NATO to the east. Well, where are these promises?" [2*].

The Russian leader in the expression "what a -- wow" shows his disapproving surprise, seriously questioning the valid reason put forward by an American reporter. Turning to the important issue of the illegal presence of NATO in the east of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin recalls the agreement concluded by the West with former President Mikhail Gorbachev,

52

adding the expression: "thank God, alive and well" which implies that the issue is not dated yesterday and, apparently, has been shelved.

The reporter took advantage of a convenient opportunity for him to launch a counterattack, asking about the written consolidation of this agreement. Here the Russian leader, applauding, congratulates him:

" w e l l d o n e ! That's right, t h e y d e c e i v e d t h e f o o l b y f o u r f i s t s " [2*].

The president ironically congratulates the reporter with the expression "well done" and, resorting to an old aphorism rooted in tsarist Russia: "The fool was deceived by four fists," he emphasizes that the promises of the West to Mikhail Gorbachev about the non-expansion of NATO to the east turned out to be just words thrown to the wind.

So, the analysis of excerpts from the meeting and the interview of the President of Russia shows that the genre of oral speech of political discourse (interview, debate, conversation) is a kind of "chess game" between its participants, in which every action depends on skillfully chosen linguistic means and their verbal and non-verbal presentation.

We have noticed that the words and expressions used by the President, phraseological units and aphorisms are generally negative evaluative in nature, the use of which helps the addressee to show the ability to mass persuasion, entailing a change in the addressee's attitude in his favor.

The use of stylistically colored linguistic units in political discourse is associated with a certain context and does not always fit into the formal style of speech, especially stylistically reduced words and expressions, but still their pragmatic role in speech is essential.

Distinguished by their expressiveness, stylistically colored linguistic units contribute to the instant creation of an image in the addressee's mind, thereby causing a pragmatic effect programmed by the addressee.

Conclusion.

Our analysis allows us to summarize the following results. Political discourse, representing a specific and complex type of communication, requires a special approach to its study.

The participants of communication in political discourse are in an unequal balance of forces. In political discourse, the addressee enters into communication with a specific goal, the achievement of which depends on the verbal and nonverbal means of communication chosen by him.

The genre of oral speech of political discourse (interview, debate, conversation) is of particular interest, since it reveals the identity of the addressee, his intentions.

Pragmatic information in political discourse is distributed among all linguistic units. However, stylistically colored linguistic units, by which we mean connotatively saturated words, expressions, phraseological units and aphorisms, carry the greatest pragmatic load. In the course of the study, it was stated that the words, expressions, phraseological units and aphorisms used by the President of Russia are generally evaluative in nature, or rather ironic in color (in particular, there is a rather frequent use of phraseological units, i.e. 27 language units out of a total of 33, which is 81.81%, and sometimes stylistically reduced words and expressions, i.e. 2 language units out of a total of 33, which is 6.06%). This can be explained by the fact that phraseological units, unlike aphorisms, are carriers of lexical meaning and can act as an equivalent of words. On the other hand, the degree of compatibility of components in phraseological units is not the same, i.e. they may include non-free, but easily separable words, and be used figuratively. Consequently, they are more easily created in the process of speech, contributing to the achievement of the illocutionary goal of the addressee. Nevertheless, phraseological units and aphorisms, as well as stylistically reduced words, due to their expressiveness, contribute not only to attracting the attention of the addressee, but also to influencing him.

53