ინტერტექსტუალობის სტრატეგიების კონტრასტული ანალიზი ბრიტანულ და ამერიკულ პოლიტიკურ დისკურსში

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify and analyse the main intertextuality strategies in British and American political discourses, to identify their rhetorical and ideological functions, and to explore how they are applied in institutional and cultural contexts. Both countries share a common cultural and literary heritage, both political discourses are widely known globally and have a significant impact on international rhetorical norms, although they differ significantly in terms of political institutions and rhetorical traditions.

The integration of theory and empirical material allows us to study the strategies that politicians use to formulate persuasive, authoritative and resonant messages based on the transformation of previous texts. The paper presents six strategies of intertextuality: explicit quotation of authoritative texts, historical allusion, recontextualization of opponents’ statements, interdiscursive blending, parodic and ironic appropriation, and evocation of shared cultural references. Examples of strategies from British and American contexts indicate both rhetorical function and ideological effect.

The analysis of the research material reveals the following similarities and differences: in both British and American political discourse the aforementioned strategies serve overlapping rhetorical functions: legitimization (quotation, allusion), delegitimization (recontextualization, parody), and solidarity-building (interdiscursive blending, cultural evocation). While UK parliamentary rhetoric favors adversarial recontextualization and ironic appropriation, U.S. political oratory often leans toward grand historical frames and founding documents, reflecting significant differences in institutional structure and debate format.