Linguacultural Profile of Diplomatic Discourse

Effective international politics depends on the international communication encoded in the language of diplomacy. Diplomatic discourse is a communicative instrument of political influence in constructing the image or cultural tradition behind a particular political power. This article offers a new typology of modern international communication based on English-language reports, resolutions, and briefings published by the United Nations online. A review of domestic and foreign publications on the theory and typology of discourse, cultural linguistics, political linguistics, diplomacy, and media communication made it possible to determine the linguacultural profile and institutional status of diplomatic discourse. The methods of stylistic, semantic-syntactic, pragmatic, communicative, and structural analyses revealed the institutional aspect of diplomatic discourse, describing its position as a mediator for other types of communication. The methods of comparative and contextual analyses highlighted the specific profile and pragmatic semantics of diplomatic discourse. Diplomatic discourse proved to be a discourse of international communication that combines the features of business, scientific, and political communication. While lacking linguacultural and emotive components, its linguacultural profile included a rigid structure, a robust intertextuality, and an intense precision, reflected in a reliable glossary of political, military, or diplomatic terms. 

1. Abdullaev А. А. Actual linking, text, and discourse. Baku: Zardabi, 2011, 272. (In Russ.)

2. Egorov V. P., Slinkov A. V. Diplomatic protocol and etiquette. 4th ed. St. Petersburg: Lan, 2025, 204. (In Russ.)

3. Zagainova E. L., Ishchenko I. G. Special lexis in American diplomatic discourse in the press briefings published by the U.S. State Department. Vestnik Amurskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Gumanitarnye nauiki, 2017, (78): 165–169. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/znhvcv

4. Kalyuzhnaya V. V. Style of English documents of international organizations. Kiev: Nauk. Dumka, 1982, 122. (In Russ.)

5. Karasik V. I. Linguistic circle: Personality, concepts, and discourse. Moscow: Gnozis, 2004, 390. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qqwtkl

6. Lamraui M. N. Peculiarities of the language of Russian diplomacy. Vestnik magistratury, 2018, (3-1): 15–18. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ahiivb

7. Liu X. The mechanisms of cross-cultural communication on the basis of the Chinese cultural tradition in contemporary Chinese diplomatic discourse. Political Linguistics, 2024, (6): 216–222. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xkfnsj

8. Matakova M. V. Genres of public speech at United Nations. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 2020, (8): 191–203. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qfrnpo

9. Austin J. Word as action. New in foreign linguistics. Iss. 17. Theory of speech acts, ed. Gorodetskiy B. Yu. Moscow: Progress, 1986, 22–129. (In Russ.)

10. Popov V. I. Contemporary diplomacy: Theory and practice. Diplomacy as an art and science. 3th ed. Moscow: Mezhdunar. otnosheniia, 2022, 576. (In Russ.)

11. Ryabova M. Yu. The concept of "hybrid warfare" in modern Russian media discourse. Dinamika iazykovykh i kulturnykh protsessov v sovremennoi Rossii, 2024, (8): 330–335. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vlrzgc

12. Ryabova M. Yu., Karukovets N. S. Speech etiquette in the discourse of diplomatic communication (based on the British Foreign Secretary’s speech). Philology. Theory & Practice, 2025, 18(3): 928–932. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20250132

13. Samedova I. A. Functional-stylistic analysis of English-language texts of UN Security Council resolutions (by the example of resolutions 853, 874 and 884). Philology. Theory & Practice, 2013, (4-2): 167–170. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/pxsmcj

14. Song X. Cognitive-pragmatic aspects of diplomatic discourse and the construction of national image in the era of digitalization. Political Linguistics, 2024, (5): 303–309. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/hfzrlq

15. Terentiy L. M. Diplomatic discourse as a specific form of scientific communication. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2015, (24): 176–185. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/txixer

16. Firstov M. S. Oratorical hyperstyle in the system of functional styles. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University, 2014, (8): 89–97. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/sgerop

17. Chernyak L. Yu. Nature of diplomatic etiquette. Sibirskii iuridicheskii vestnik, 2013, (4): 136–143. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ruzhdh

18. Akhmetzyanova P. A. British political discourse: Strategies and tactics of mitigation in debates. Political Linguistics, 2024, (6): 35–41. https://elibrary.ru/odguuj

19. Bekulard B. Etiquette, diplomatic protocol and savoir-vivre as the code of conduct for police officers. Internal Scrutiny, 2020, 12(2): 287–300. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.6701

20. Bhatia A. Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, 2006, 17(2): 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058057

21. Dijk T. A. van. Discourse and power. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 162. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813090030020

22. Rafalovitch A., Dale R. United Nations Assembly Resolutions: A six-language parallel corpus. Machine Translation Summit: 12th Conf., Ottawa, 26–30 Aug 2009. Ottawa, 2009, 150–158.

23. Wodak R. The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: SAGE Publications, 2015, 24. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270073