COMMUNICATIVE MITIGATION AS A REGULATORY MECHANISM IN AMERICAN TELEVISION DEBATES

Abstract

This article examines communicative mitigation as a regulatory mechanism of American televised debates within the context of political media discourse. The theoretical framework is based on the interpretation of mitigation as an independent communicative-pragmatic category, correlated with norms and attitudes governing the choice of speech means for the sake of maintaining communicative balance. The analysis is based on the transcripts and media texts representing excerpts from US televised debates; the attention focus is on mitigating devices operating at the illocutionary, deictic, and expressive levels. It is shown that at the illocutionary level, indirect constructions, modal elements, inclusive forms, and standard formulas of respect reduce the imposition of directives and objections, while maintaining the possibility of critical evaluation within the framework of normative interaction. At the deictic level, the use of impersonal forms and the avoidance of direct reference to the actor redistribute responsibility and reduce personal targeting. At the expressive level, expressions of regret and respect regulate the tone of the utterance while maintaining the illocutionary focus. Taken together, the identified tools describe mitigation as a systemically organized model of debate participants' verbal behavior.