kazm.cdr


“Politicized” 
Syntagms in Action

In the present article an attempt is made to study theinteraction of some lexical syntagms in the context of
political discourse, that is to observe them in action in
political reality. The analysis of these syntagms is intended to
reveal their role and function in political discourse. The
linguistic material is taken from selected speeches both by
world superpower and Armenian political leaders. The
extralinguistic reality present in the analyzed samples of
political discourse is the intersection of the big politics of
powerful and “small” countries with their own problems each
and, at the same time, common challenges that should be
negotiated upon and handled collectively, effeciently and

without delay. 
The modern political discourse is predominantly action-oriented and the linguistic

means typical of its construct should be up to its spirit and intent. Actually, any mature
professional politician who is going to deliver a speech has two intentions in mind and
two tasks set forward – to persuade and to influence. The first one is mainly realized
through logical arguments, while the second one considers human emotions and
expressiveness as priorities. With this end in view, a politician becomes highly selective
in the ways and means of his or her linguistic expression as this is largely representative
of his or her self-image, political ambitions and abilities. On the one hand, the statements
should be or seem truthful, unbiased and logical (the actual correlation of the message
with the objective reality is not relevant here). On the other hand, they should show the
speaker’s sincere concern and emotional involvement in the socially relevant matter and
his or her will-consistency to pursue its settlement in the way most beneficial to ordinary
citizens. Thus, it can be assumed that politicians need such linguistic units which are
logical-factive, emotional-evaluative, and, preferably, action-oriented (the latter refers to
the semantics of the lexical unit).

The study of our textual material, the speeches by the UK Prime Minister Tony
Blair, the US President George Bush, the RA President Robert Kocharian and the RA
Minister of Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian, has  revealed  that  the  lexical  syntagms
with  the  suffix - able / -ible are quite frequent and varied in this kind of discourse.

To begin with our analysis, we think that it is necessary to focus on the term-
concept “lexical syntagm”, proposed and defined by the representatives of the Russian
school of linguistics. Lexical syntagms are those words, which, being clearly divisible in
terms of derivation, may be coined, brought to life, regularly reproduced, or regenerated
by the speaker at will. In other words, lexical syntagmatics deals only with those

61

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika

Mara Baghdasaryan



derivative words, the creation or the very existence of which is based on the quite
definite, well-fixed rules of combining morphemes according to productive patterns, i.e.
rules determined by the lexical-morphological categories of the language under
investigation (Alexandrova, Ter-Minasova, 1987).

The lexical syntagms with the suffix -able/-ible express possibility of production
(realization) of action and clearly indicate the functional intent of the speeches under
research. This is apparently due to the combination of two semantic components in these
syntagms, those of action and emotional evaluation which is commonly inherent to the
class of adjectives. The semantic component of action turns these syntagms into carriers
of the notion of dynamism which is generally typical of active verbs. Our analysis comes
to prove that the lexical  syntagms  with  -able/-ible are the second in the frequency of
occurrence in the political speeches of the mentioned political leaders. Due to their
particularly high frequency some of these syntagms have even acquired certain value of
political terms, and collocated with other words tend to form clichéed political
expressions. 

Here are some minor contexts containing the above-mentioned type of syntagms.

1. The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice.
(G. Bush, 10 November 2001)

2. What is more, their alternative judgement is both entirely rational and arguable. (T.
Blair, 30 June 2004)

3. And it was driven not by a set of negotiable political demands, but by religious
fanaticism. (T. Blair, 30 June 2004)

4. The South Caucasus, as the boundary of the European continent, should be
considered an indivisible part of European security. (R. Kocharian, 22 November
2002)

5. Many of today’s social ills, and the economic ones, too, will be well on their way
to disappearing if human rights are accepted, absorbed, respected and implemented
as inarguable, inalienable, unalterable rights. (V. Oskanian, 15-16 March 2004)

6. As a result, this continent [Europe] has produced a reliable and unique system of
interdependence. (R. Kocharian, 25 January 2001)

Some lexical syntagms such as accountable, arguable, negotiable, reliable
express possibility of production of action, others, like inarguable, inalienable,
unalterable, indivisible, on the contrary, express impossibility of production of action,
that is rejection of that possibility by means of such negative prefixes as in- or un-. Taken
in isolation, these lexical units do not have any “political colouring” or “orientation”:
they belong to the common word-stock of the English language. Anyhow, as far as they
occur in a “political environment”, that is, in a political context, they become
“politicized”. When these linguistic elements are transposed and interwoven with
political discourse, they establish relationships with other linguistic and extralinguistic
elements of their new environment and change functionally. This means if we admit the

62

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



fact that the functional style defines the character of a lexical syntagm, we have to admit
the opposite assertion as valid, too: the character of a lexical syntagm can serve as a
distinctive feature of the functional style. 

Now an attempt will be made to examine the examples adduced above in terms of
the opposition message vs impact and in terms of the system of categories and
parameters (Alexandrova, Ter-Minasova, 1987; Òåð-Ìèíàñîâà, 1980).

In the first, second, third and fourth mini-contexts the lexical syntagms
accountable, arguable, negotiable, indivisible represent the objective, logical, formal,
direct and real aspects of the opposition message vs impact. Obviously, the intellective
function of transmitting information, which is carried out with the help of these
syntagms, dominates in the contexts under observation. 

The analysis of these syntagms according to the system of categories and
parameters shows that these lexical units possess the characteristics of such categories
as reproducibility (clichéedness), sociolinguistic and conceptual determination. The
presence of the category of reproducibility clearly indicates that the realization of these
syntagms in these specific contexts is quite natural, usual and corresponds to language
norm. In political discourse these syntagms very often occur in such collocations as
accountable to justice, judgement is both entirely rational and arguable, negotiable
political demands, indivisible part and the like. This is largely due to the
sociolinguistic and conceptual determination of the lexical syntagms accountable,
arguable, negotiable, indivisible whose semantic contents, conceptual meanings and
the extralinguistic reality they reflect are in one to one correspondence. This
predetermines the reign supreme of the function of message rejecting any
connotativeness, the latter being in the domain of the function of impact. Thus, the
information passed on via these four utterances is presented as strictly logical and
objective, and the utterances themselves realize the intellective function of speech. 

We would like to stop for a while on the conceptual and socioliguistic contents of
the selected lexical syntagms. The conceptual contents of the syntagm accountable
becomes  condensed due to the lexical intensifier equally. At the same time, the lexical
unit accountable seems to have somewhat lost its semantic content and it is due to its
collocation with the intensifier equally that it regains its meaning at full. This semantic
change is largely conditioned, on the one hand, by a linguistic factor and, on the other
hand, by an extralinguistic one: firstly, since the syntagm accountable has frequently
been used in the context of political discourse it has become clichéed, and clichéed
words, as it is known, are not expressive enough; secondly, though this syntagm is
frequently used by G. Bush, T. Blair and other world leaders, terror, terrorists and their
allies do not decrease. Hence, as we see, the action underlying the concept of this lexical
unit, for this or that reason, is not very often realized in our reality. It can be assumed
that the conceptual determination of the syntagm accountable has weakened because of
its current specific sociolinguistic determination.

The combination of the lexical syntagm negotiable with the expression political
demands is, to a great extent, sociolinguistically burdened. Nowadays the world faces

63

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



numerous and various challenges which are often presented in the form of different
political demands. The concept of negotiation and, consequently, also the concept of
negotiable political demands, are cultivated in the social-political life of the modern
progressive society. Thus, when a demand is political and negotiable, it can be handled
and met. Being negotiable is already considered a positive start for the solution to the
problem, as opposed to religious fanaticism which is considered uncontrollable and
impossible to be perceived and overcome rationally. 

The second example is an utterance made by Tony Blair in which the lexical
syntagm arguable is used. This lexical unit is quite frequent  in political discourse. So,
it could be said that it is observed in a natural environment presented via the following
mini-context: “…judgement is both entirely rational and arguable”. Though the
syntagm arguable does not stand next to the syntagm judgement, the former is directly
attributed to the latter on the conceptual-semantic level. So, it can be transferred into the
combination arguable judgement which is politically marked and is considerably
reproducible, sociolinguistically and conceptually determined. The discussed expression
is used by Mr Blair in reference to his opponents’ standpoint on the matter of the war in
Iraq, which the UK took part in. He does not criticize his opponents for their opposite
judgement but, on the contrary, qualifies it as arguable and gives objective, logical
reasons for that. Further he also gives a reason justifying his own judgement and
decision. As a result, the speaker’s reason acquires more persuasive force against the
background of his rational approach to his opponents’ standpoint. The use of the lexical
unit arguable is a diplomatically justified step for, on the one hand, it calms down the
people opposed to the decision, and, on the other one, supports the very decision. 

In the fourth example the collocation of the lexical units indivisible and part is
analyzed. This collocation is very usual in political discourse: indivisible part of a
country; indivisible part of territorial integrity; indivisible part of the European family;
indivisible part of European security. The lexical syntagm indivisible and its
combination with part have become clichés that vividly express the modern political
mentality of the world. This means that they reflect the extralinguistic reality by means
of their sociolinguistic determination. In this case the extralinguistic reality is the
geopolitical position of the South Caucasus Region and the European Continent and the
social-political situation in these areas. Though the South Caucasus is a geographically
indivisible part of the European Continent, and this requires no proof, it is not an
indivisible part of European security, while the opposite state of things would be logical
with respect to the first part of Robert Kocharian’s statement. Here we deal with the
pragmatic presuppositional aspect of the utterance: “the South Caucasus … should be
considered an indivisible part of European security” but, actually, it is not and this is
not right or fair on the part of the other European countries that consider themselves as
indivisible parts of the European family and security and do not consider the South
Caucasus as an equally indivisible part of the European security. 

In the fifth example a frequent use of syntagms with the suffix -able is observed:
“human rights …as inarguable, inalienable, unalterable rights”. Mr Vartan Oskanian

64

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



tends to be maximum objective and logical in his evaluation of human rights. He also
tends to present this in a direct and factive manner. The use of these lexical units in the
given context is both sociolinguistically and conceptually determined, and it is even the
demand of the time - the 21st century, and the occasion - the 60th session of the
Commission on Human Rights, on which the speech was presented. The use of such
attributes with the word-combination human rights which has already become one of
the key social-political terms is quite reproducible (clichéed) in political discourse. The
adjectives inarguable, inalienable, unalterable have so frequently been used to modify
the above-mentioned word-combination that have become somewhat hackneyed and
tend to lose their full semantic meaning. But when these three adjectives occur in
immediate succession they become a kind of intensifiers for one another and contribute
to the reconstruction of the meaning of the underlying concepts at full. The clichéed
environment gives way to the emotional-expressive o ne, and this brings about a pathetic
element introduced into the speech. As a rule, in such cases the speech becomes brighter
and the target-audience more liable to perceive it. This peculiar interchange of the
objective-logical and emotional-evaluative elements in these lexical syntagms comes to
prove that these lexical units are “politicized”, that is, they are politically marked and
have a specific functional value. The simultaneous coexistence of different parameters
in a linguistic unit obviously shows that no hard line between the categories can be
drawn, and what is relevant to speak about in this context is the balance, the proportion
of the categories present  in this or that particular case. Actually, there can be found not
only purely connotative or clichéed lexical syntagms, but also a great variety of
intermediate cases. 

In the sixth example the lexical syntagm reliable is under study. It is realised in the
following lexical-syntactic environment: “… a reliable and unique system of
interdependence”. If we compress the environment even more, the combination of
immediate constituents reliable system will be left. This word-combination is typical of
social-political discourse. Reliable system is what is sought for in every country, every
region, every organization nowadays. The adjective reliable is used to attach objective,
logical evaluation to the reality denoted by the lexical unit system. But, at the same time,
we should bear in mind that this evaluation is made by one individual and, thus, it cannot
be regarded purely objective even if this opinion is shared by other individuals. Also, it
should be taken into account that the criteria for reliability may be different for different
individuals, groups of people, political parties and nations. 

According to President Robert Kocharian, Europe has produced a reliable and
unique system of interdependence. On the part of the speaker this can be regarded quite
an objective, factive statement which may have its supporters and opponents. But it is
not a secret that a number of politicians and political scientists in the world think that the
system of the European family has to some extent consumed itself and does not fully
meet the everchanging challenges the countries and nations of the continent face at
present. Hence, the syntagm reliable synthesizes both the components of objectivity and
subjectivity in its semantic content. The coexistence of these oppositional elements

65

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika



indicates that the relations of the lexical syntagm reliable to the linguistic environment
it is found in and to the extralinguistic reality it refers to are not identical. The use of this
syntagm in the given context is by all means sociolinguistically determined. 

The lexical syntagms with -able/-ible really form a specific group of adjectives in
the English language. Being originated on mostly verbal bases, they realize the category
of possibility of production of action and the category of quality that are actually present
in a great variety of pure and intermediate forms in real speech situations. In these
syntagms the verbal component of meaning accounts for the semantic element of process
which makes them carriers of dynamism and action. This is an essential characteristics
for the functional context these syntagms are observed in. Political discourse, or,
speaking more accurately, political speeches have a definite functional orientation –
persuasion and impact on the audience, that is logical argumentation and emotional
influence, promoting the hearers to certain activity “encoded” in the speeches. Hence,
the speeches themselves should also have a dynamic and action-oriented content. This
makes the politician’s speech lively and effective. 

Our  observations  come  to show that  a  large  variety  of  lexical  syntagms with
-able / -ible due to their high frequency of use in political discourse, have already
acquired the value of political terms or, in other words, they have become “politicized”
and tend to form clichéed political expressions in collocation with other lexical units.
The above-mentioned lexical syntagms have acquired a distinctive feature of the
functional substyle of political discourse. But this is only realized via and owing to
certain functional linguistic environment and the transactions of the lexical units with the
concepts of the social reality and the reflections of the latter in these lexical units.

References:

1. Halliday M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London, 1973. 
2. Halliday M. A. K. Language As Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of

Language and Meaning. London, 1978.
3. Alexandrova O., Ter-Minasova S. English Syntax: Collocation, Colligation and

Discourse. M., 1987.
4. Âèíîãðàäîâ Â. Â. Èòîãè îáñóæäåíèÿ âîïðîñîâ ñòèëèñòèêè. // Â.ß. , ¹1, 1955.
5. Êîæèíà Ì.Í.  Ê îñíîâàíèÿì ôóíêöèîíàëüíîé ñòèëèñòèêè. Ïåðìü, 1968.
6. Ìèêîÿí À.Ñ., Òåð-Ìèíàñîâà Ñ.Ã. Ìàëûé ñèíòàêñèñ êàê ñðåäñòâî

ðàçãðàíè÷åíèÿ ñòèëåé. Ì., 1981.
7. Ðàçèíêèíà Í.Ì. Ôóíêöèîíàëüíàÿ ñòèëèñòèêà. Ì., 1989.
8. Ñìèðíèöêèé À.È. Ìîðôîëîãèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà. Ì., 1959.
9.    Òåð-Ìèíàñîâà Ñ.Ã. Ñèíòàãìàòèêà ðå÷è: îíòîëîãèÿ è ýâðèñòèêà. Ì., 1980.
10. ×àêîâñêàÿ Ì.Ñ. Òåêñò êàê ñîîáùåíèå è âîçäåéñòâèå. Ì., 1986.

66

Armenian  Folia  Anglistika Linguistics



§ø²Ô²ø²Î²Ü²òì²Ì¦ 
Þ²ðàôÚÂܺðÀ ¶àðÌàÔàôÂÚ²Ü Øºæ

êáõÛÝ ³ß˳ï³ÝùáõÙ ÷áñÓ ¿ ³ñíáõÙ ùÝÝ»Éáõ áñáß μ³é³ÛÇÝ ß³ñáõÛÃÝ»ñÇ
÷áËÝ»ñó÷³ÝóáõÙÁ ¨ ¹»ñÁ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ¹ÇëÏáõñëáõÙ, ³ÛëÇÝùÝ ¹Çï³ñÏ»-
Éáõ, û ÇÝãå»ë »Ý ¹ñ³Ýù ·áñÍÇ ¹ñíáõÙ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝ»Éáõ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý Çñ³Ï³-
ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ: àõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝÁ óáõÛó ¿ ï³ÉÇë, áñ ¹Çï³ñÏíáÕ μ³é³ÛÇÝ ß³-
ñáõÛÃÝ»ñÁ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ¹ÇëÏáõñëÇ ïíÛ³É ï»ë³ÏáõÙ ÏÇñ³éÙ³Ý μ³ñÓñ ѳ-
׳˳ϳÝáõÃÛ³Ý ßÝáñÑÇí Ó»éù »Ý μ»ñ»É ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ï»ñÙÇÝÝ»ñÇ ³ñÅ»ù
ϳÙ, ³ÛÉ Ï»ñå ³ë³Í, §ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý³óí»É¦ »Ý ¨, ³ÛÉ μ³é³ÛÇÝ ÙdzíáñÝ»ñÇ
Ñ»ï ·áñͳÍí»Éáí, ÙÇïáõÙ áõÝ»Ý Ó¨³íáñ»Éáõ í»ñ³ñï³¹ñ»ÉÇ Ï³Ù Ï³Õ³å³-
ñ³ÛÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ:

67

Linguistics Armenian  Folia  Anglistika