pragmatics, illocutionary and perlocutionary force, direct and indirect speech acts, mass media communication


The topic of the present article concerns the ways of expressing the speaker's communicative intent and highlighting the perlocutionary effect of the discursive move in political discourse. The aim of the research is to study the ways of making an impact on the audience in the communicative context of mass media communication. For the purpose of analysis the transcript of a political interview published on the website of the news program Democracy Now is taken. The language material is analysed with the application of contextual-semantic and pragmatic methods of analysis. The study of the dialogic moves of the partners in the question-answer sequences provides ample grounds to suggest that the conversational unit under analysis can be interpreted as a case of macro-warning which creates the perlocutionary effect of alarming. Furthermore, both participants contribute to creating the integrative communicative intent of the interview.



Download data is not yet available.


Bach, K., & Harnish, R.M., (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: M.I.T Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (McGee W. Vern, Trans.) Austin: University of Texas Press.

Fairclough, N. (1996). Language and power. New York: Longman Inc.

Gasparyan, S., Paronyan, Sh., & Muradian G. (2019). The use and abuse of language in the legal domain. Montreal: Arod Books.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and semantics.Vol. 3. (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Ilchenko, S.N. (2002). Intervju v zhurnalistskom tvorchestve [Interviews in Journalism]. Saint-Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg University.

Kovtunenko, I.V., Bylkova, S.V., & Borisenko, V.A. (2018). Interview as a genre of new media communication: Rhetorical relations and pragmatic effects. Linguae, 11(2), 95-105. doi: 10.18355/XL.2018.11.02.08

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.

Madoyan, A. (2013). Asuiti perlokutiv imasti enkalman ev meknabanutian hartseri shurj. [On the problem of perceiving and interpreting the perlocutionary effect of the speech act]. Kantegh 2(5), 87-93.

O’Keefe, D.J. (2002). Persuasion: theory and research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

O'Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London and New York: Routledge.

Paronyan, Sh. (2012). Pragmatics. Yerevan: YSU Press.

Paronyan, Sh., & Bekaryan, L. (2001). The actualization of prescriptions in directive communicative situations. Kantegh, 5, 106-116.

Paronyan, Sh., & Ghaltakhchyan S. (2013). Hamozman gortsaruiti iragorcume artsants elektronayin khntragri vernagrum. [Realization of the function of persuasion in the headlines of online petitions]. Otar lezunere bartsraguin dprotsum. 14, 163-175.

Paronyan, Sh. (2020). The use of manipulative tactics in hate speech. Armenian Folia Anglistika, 2 (22), 143-161.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

Simon D., Grimes M., & Roche Sh. (2018). Communication for business professionals. Ontario: eCampusOntario. Retrieved September 23, 2021.

Verderber, R. F. (1988). Speech for effective communication. USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Verschueren, J.(1999). Understanding pragmatics. London, New York: Arnold.

Witosh, B. (2005). Linguistic study of genres. Problematic aspects. Katowice: University of Silesia.

Sources of Data

Conflagration. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Dictionary. Retrieved May 20, 2021.

Goodman, A. (2020, October 9). Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: why Turkey’s intervention could turn it into a “Proxy War”. Democracy Now. Retrieved March 23, 2022.




How to Cite

Paronyan, S. . (2022). REALIZATION OF IMPLICIT WARNING IN POLITICAL INTERVIEW . Armenian Folia Anglistika, 18(1 (25), 23–37.