The relevance of the topic is determined by the growing significance of political communication in public life, the intensification of information flows, and the need to identify linguistic mechanisms that enable political actors to create argumentative appeal, construct emotionally charged messages, and influence the interpretive frameworks of the audience. The aim of the article was to determine the functional potential of pragmatic markers and to clarify their role in implementing strategies of persuasion, manipulation, discursive positioning, and the regulation of communicative interaction within debate discourse. The methodological basis of the study included the method of pragmatic analysis, discourse and contextual methods, as well as elements of quantitative analysis, which made it possible to establish the frequency of use, typical positions within the structure of an utterance, and the functional load of different groups of markers. This approach enabled the identification of correlations between linguistic form and the speaker’s pragmatic intentions, as well as the determination of strategies in which pragmatic markers are most effective. The results of the study demonstrated that pragmatic markers perform a multifunctional role in political debates: they structure utterances, guide the audience’s attention, shape the emotional background, strengthen or soften arguments, ensure the expression of confidence or doubt, contribute to establishing and maintaining contact, and help politicians construct and reproduce their desired public image. The most effective groups of markers include modal, intensifying, contact, and positioning markers, which allow the optimisation of persuasive influence and ensure the achievement of communicative goals. The practical value of the research lies in the possibility of applying the results to the training of political communicators, improving the quality of political discourse analysis, optimising debate strategies, and developing educational courses in political linguistics, rhetoric, and strategic communication
Ivashcenko et al. (Wed,) studied this question.