Address forms and gender in political discourse (the case of Greek, Kazakh, Russian)

Almira Tatkenova


The dominant ideologies of a society including those related to gender are put into practice via particular use of language. This paper presents findings from contrastive research that views address forms as a subcategory of linguistic gender involved in social gender construction in Kazakh, Rus­sian, and Greek political discourse: it discusses commonalities and differences from the viewpoint of Critical Discourse Analysis, which detects the social character of linguistic preferences and their role in existent power relations in the society. As the results illustrate, along with the speak­ers’ gender, there are other factors (the interviewee’s status, political affiliations of the newspaper, cultural norms) that shape the choice of address forms, communicative strategies of the speakers and type of interview (cooperation or contestation). Unequal distribution of power in the societies is evident not only in women’s numerical representation in socially and politically significant posi­tions but also in covertly gendered political discourse, with mass media representatives resorting to adversarial strategies of interviewing, and female politicians seem to be held responsible for all the flaws of their political institutions and are obliged to defend their right to be in power.


gender; address forms’ political discourse; contrastive research

Full Text:



Aysakova, E. A. (2008). Sotsial’naya i sotsiokul’turnaya differentsiatsiya obrashcheniy v sovremennom russkom yazyke. PhD thesis. Moscow: MTSU.

Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin/NY/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2002). Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U. S. Presidents Eisenhower & Reagan. Journal of Communication, 52, 749–775. Https://

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London/NY: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold.

Inigo-Mora, I. (2008). Politicheskoe teleinterv’yu: neytralitet i provotsirovanie. Politicheskaya lingvistika, 1(24), 33–39. Ekaterinburg.

Jaworski, A. & Galasiński, D. (2000). Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies, 2(1), 35–53. Https://

Kuo, S. (2003). The use of address forms in Chinese political discourse: analyzing the 1998 Taipei mayoral debates. The Tsing Hu Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, 33(1), 153–172.

Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (1983). Apopira perigrafis tis neoellinikis prosfonisis. Meletes gia tin Elliniki Glossa, 5, 219–239.

Mamaeva, G. B. (2003). Erler men aielderdin soz koldanystaryndagy erekshelikter (genderlik zertteu). PhD thesis. Almaty: Al-Farabi KNU.

Shadkam, Z. (2004). Kazakh jane turik tilderindegi karatpa soz formasi, koldanylu erekshelikteri. Kazakh Tili men Adebieti, 8, 94–99.

Winter, J. (1993). Gender and the political interview in an Australian context. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 117–139. Https://

Data publikacji: 2018-11-05 11:24:47
Data złożenia artykułu: 2018-02-07 19:54:53


Total abstract view - 1099
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 492



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.