Typological Classification of Threat and the Explicit and Implicit Forms of its Expression; Linguistic Markers of Stance

Abstract

The need to study one of the manifestations of a speech act and a form of communication is caused by the interest that has arisen in various fields, for instance, Sociology (Tedeschi, 1994), Theory of Power / Management, (Kellermann, 1996), Theory of Speech Acts (Salgueiro, 2010), The Art of Negotiation Shapiro, Debra L. and Kulik, Carol T. (2004), Workplace Violence (Jenkins, E., 1998; Elliott, R., & Jarrett, D., 1994) Political Linguistics (Sechser, 2010). Against this background, the English and Georgian linguistics contain very little theoretical material about the study of the semantic function of the stance and the discourse of threats. The need for a thorough study of the nature of the threat is also due to the fact that, as a result, it will become possible to determine the reality of the threat and predict the likely consequences of its execution. The present article deals with the typological classification of threats, used in the statements of Georgian and foreign politicians; it discusses how the threat is expressed - explicitly or implicitly, and which linguistic markers of stance affect its credibility.