The article provides analysis of the interrupted communication as part of the communication in the election discourse. The authors explored the most typical reasons for the interrupted communication in the electoral discourse analyzed communication failures as a kind of ineffective communication. Communication failures are presented as a result of interrupted communication, which may be determined by several reasons. The paper disclosed the key reason of these failures - the intention of the speaker - the reluctance to continue the conversation for one reason or another. The communication failures in terms of the election discourse were typical largely for the election debate, characterized by the impossibility of predicting future responses, uncomfortable questions that often required non-standard speech decisions on the part of the speaker. The study established the relationship between the ability of a politician to maintain effective communication and the creation of his positive or negative political image. Psychological causes of interrupted speech present a separate group: the emotional state of the speaker, his perception or non-perception of the opponent, the ability to transfer the required opinion in an expressive way.

Akhatova, B. A. (2005). Communication Technologies in the political discourse. Bulletin of Al-Farabi KazNU, 7(89), 20-22.

Baranov, A. N. (2001). Introduction to applied linguistics. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 360 p.

Barthes, G. R. (1987). Elements of Semiotics. Lavers, A. & Smith, C, (Eds.). New York: Hill & Wang, 540 p.

Cameron, D. (1998). Gender, Language and Discourse. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 23(4), 945-973.

Chudinov, A. P. (2012). Discourse characteristics of political communication. Political linguistics, 2 (40), 53-59.

Chudinov, A. P. (2013). Essays on the Modern Political Metaphor Studies. Ekaterinburg: USPU, 176 p.

Formanovskaya, N. I. (2002). Speech communication: communicative and pragmatic approach. Moscow: Russian language, 216 p.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things: An archeology of human sciences. New York: Tavistock, 422 p.

Geis, M. L. (1987). The Language of politics. New-York: Springer, 89 p.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 41–58.

Issers, O. S. (2006). Communicative strategies and tactics of the Russian language. Moscow: URSS, 288 p.

Martel, M. (1983). Political campaign debates. London: Longmanyu, 269 p.

Maslova, A. Y. (2007). Introduction to Pragmalinguistics: Training book. Moscow: Flinta. Nauka, 152 p.

Pocock, J. G. (1971). Politics, language and time. New-York: Atheneum, 123 p.

Rassinskaya, O. V. (2015). Speech features of political communication. Young scientist, 1, 412-413.

Seidel, G. (1985). Political discourse analysis. Washington: Blackwell Publishers, 874 p.

Sheigal, E .I. (2000). Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 367 p.

Sheigal, E. I. (2010). Genre space of political discourse. Direct access: http://www.filologija.vukhf.lt/510/doc/1.2%20Sheigal%20RED_VM.doc.

Sineokaya, N. A. (2013). Characteristics of election discourse. Political Science, 7, 128-134.

Temirgazina, Z. K. (2007). Interrupted communication as part of communication. Problems of language in the modern scientific paradigm. VII Sedelnikovsky readings, 128-132.

Van Dijk, T. (1996). Discourse, power and access. London: Routledge, 307 p.