Implicit and explicit tactics of evasion strategy in Russian and Chinese political interview

Abstract

The article reveals the general trends and national peculiarities of implicit and explicit tactics of evasion strategy used by politicians, the observasions being based on the analysis of 122 instances. Traditionally, either structural-semantic, or communicative method is used to analyze the subject. The present study combines cognitive-discursive methodology (introduced by E.S. Kubryakova) with the elements of communicative method. In the first part of the study, the authors differentiate between the explicit and the implicit types of evasion. In case of the former (explicit evasion), the politician refuses to cooperate more or less unambiguously. In the case of the latter (implicit evasion), evasion is not expressly manifest, as the politician does provide an answer (oftentimes, after a while), but this answer is not quite straightforward or unequivocal. The next part of the paper singles out the tactics typical of politicians trying to evade an answer. The following points of difference between Russian and Chinese political interviews are revealed: 1) Russian politicians use the evasion strategy twice as often as Chinese politicians; 2) Russian politicians more often disagree with the journalist's opinion rather than answer the question, which is not common for Chinese politicians; 3) Chinese politicians as compared to Russian politicians more frequently use the evasion tactics by paraphrasing the question.