Abstract. This article is an overview of strategies and techniques used in teaching the advanced ESP course for students of International relations in the English Department № 1 of the Moscow State University of International Relations. It focuses on purposes, specific needs and functions MGIMO graduates are expected to perform in pursuit of their career as diplomats. Teaching this course is currently a challenge as there are too few guidebooks that are comprehensive enough to encompass the specifics and subtleties of the diplomatic discourse. The findings are based on the practical experience of the author as a co-ordinator of ESP undergraduate programmes and focuses on the description of the linguo-didactic dominants at the core of the Language of Diplomacy course which the author has taught for more than two decades. The aim of the course is to help students develop linguistic skills which are essential for effective presentation, persuasion and negotiation. It deals with the issues that are central to diplomatic endeavour: diplomatic language as a form of action, how can we best built relationships and secure agreements by minimizing imposition and maximizing feel-good, what is the role of ambiguity and how can we manipulate the meaningful silences and understand the unsaid, among other things. It is no less important to teach students recognize the relevance of framing devices, such as metaphors and assertions, to politics and use them to shape new ways of seeing the world, determine the discussion and influence the decisions. Teaching how to use logical fallacies as framing devices is equally important as they are a very powerful emotional tool of persuasion used both in spin and debating techniques. There is no ignoring the fact that combining force and grace is a key factor in diplomatic negotiations which considerably enhances credibility and authority, helps stay collected under attack and gracious while standing firm. These “tricks of the trade” are indeed numerous and require further deliberation and study, but the awareness of their existence per se, attention to and interest in how to use them and how to decode linguistic signals the other side is sending undoubtedly proves helpful.
Keywords: Language as action, understanding the unsaid, framing devices, logical fallacies, face-saving
Ekaterina D. Prodayvoda
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) Moscow, Russia
ORCID id: 0000-0002-4682-9653
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, 174 pp. Bubnova, I. A., Terentyi, L. M., 2011. Psycholinguistic aspects of diplomatic discourse analysis, “Vestnik. Novosibirsk State University”, Vol. 10, N. 1. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ diplomaticheskiy-diskurs-v-psiholingvisticheskomaspekte/viewer, [Accessed February 20, 2020] Donahue &Prosser. 1997. Diplomatic discourse: International conflict at the United Nations. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport, Connecticut, 385 pp. Graves, K. 2000. Designing Language Courses: A Guide for Teachers, Heinle & Heinle, Boston, 308 pp. Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. CUP, Cambridge 183 pp. Malley, W. 2008. Global Governance and Diplomacy: Worlds Apart? Palgrave Macmilla London, UK, 330 pp. Nicolson, H. 1939. Diplomacy, Oxford University Press, London, 151 pp. Pehar, D. 2005. Diplomatic ambiguity: from the power-centric practice to a reasoned theory. Polemos 8 (15-16): 153-182. Scott, B. 2010. Metaphor and analogy. Language and Diplomacy, Lecture 7. Malta: DiploFoundation. URL: https://www.diplomacy.edu/language [Accessed February 20, 2020]. Scott, B. 2012 .What is left unsaid is often more powerful and poetic, The Guardian. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/12/whatleft-unsaid-powerful-poetic [Accessed February 20, 2020].