In the discourse of political speeches, reference to co-participants and the audience reflects strategic choices on the part of the speaker in the (re-)construction and negotiation of identities and social roles and the (re-)definition of participants’ interpersonal and institutional relations (Bull and Fetzer 2006, Donahue and Proser 1997, Wilson 1990). Implicit reference by personal pronouns and other indexical expressions is context-sensitive and thus less determinate; therefore it can be used to imply shifts of footing, evaluation and politeness considerations and, consequently, to manipulate the attitudes which people adopt in relation to one another.
This paper aims to contribute to the study of discourse strategies indicating the speaker’s relations with the audience in political discourse by investigating some functions of pronominal other-reference in diplomatic communication, a field of research which is still somewhat neglected in discourse studies. The study is applied to a corpus of thirty speeches delivered by the last three Directors-General of UNESCO at the opening of international conferences and meetings. The analysis - which is undertaken from the points of view of pragmatics and stylistics - studies the role of personal pronouns used for other-reference as markers for positioning the speaker with regard to the audience and expressing evaluation, while contributing to a coherent interpretation of discourse.
Strategic forms of other-reference in political speeches
Autoři:
Editoři:
Vydavatel:
Místo vydání:
Rok vydání:
Strany:
79-99
ISBN/ISSN:
1-4438-2063-6 (vyhledej v knihovnách)
978-1-4438-2063-9 (vyhledej v knihovnách)
Typ publikace:
Jazyk:
Klíčová slova:
Typ záznamu:
Abstrakt:
Bibliografie:
Brown, G. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bavelas, J. et al. 1988. Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Vol. 7(2,) 137-145.
Bublitz, W. 1997. Introduction: Views on coherence. In Bublitz, W. et al. (eds). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-7.
Bull, P. and A. Fetzer. 2006. Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text and Talk 26-1, 3-37.
Cap, P. 2007. Proximization: A methodological account of Legitimization strategies in the Post-9/11 US political discourse. Topics in Linguistics 1, 13-17.
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
Chovanec, J. 2007. The role of nationality contrasts in the discursive construction of an ingroup member: The Woodward case in The Telegraph. Brno Studies in English, 27-44.
Cornish, F. 2008. How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and a one Neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 997-1018.
Donahue, R. T. and M. H. Prosser. 1997. Diplomatic Discourse: International Conflict at the United Nations – Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich, CT, London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. 2007. Some aspects of politeness in public speaking. Topics in Linguistics 1, 52-63.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. 2007. Some functions of self-reference in UNESCO addresses. Discourse and Interaction 1/1, 7-24.
Duranti, A. 2006. Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. Congress. Language in Society 35, 467-497.
Fairclaugh, N. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hatim, B. 1997. Communication across cultures. Translation theory and contrastive text linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Hodge, R. and G. Kress. 1993. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge. 2nd ed.
Honoban, I. 2008. Metaphors of solidarity. In Carver, T. and J. Pikalo (eds). Political Language and Metaphor. London and New York: Routledge. 69-82.
Hunston, S. 2007. Using corpus to investigate stance quantatively and qualitatively. In Englebretson, R. (ed). Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 27-48.
Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuo, S.-H. 2002. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular ronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22(1), 29-55.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Leech, G. and J. Svartvik. 1975. A Communicative Grammar of English. London: Longman.
Miššíková, G. 2005. Background knowledge in interpretation of discourse. In Povolná, R. and O. Dontcheva-Navratilova (eds). Discourse and Interaction 1. Brno Seminar on Linguistic Studies in English: Proceedings 2005. Sborník prací Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity. Vol. 187. Brno: Masaryk University. 85-97.
Mühlhäusler, P. and R. Harré. 1990. Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ng, S.-H. and J. J. Bradac. 1993. Power in Language. Newbury Park/ London/ New Delhi: Sage.
Povolná, R. 2006. Interaction in spoken discourse. In Povolná, R. and O. Dontcheva-Navratilova (eds). Discourse and Interaction 2. . Sborník prací Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity. Vol. 198. Brno: Masaryk University. 131-142.
Prosser, M. H. (ed). 1970. Sow the Wind, Reap the Whirlwind: Heads of State Address the United Nations. New York: William Morrow.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Seidlhofer, B. and H. G. Widdowson. 1997. Coherence in summary: The contexts of appropriate discourse. In Bublitz, W. et al. (eds). Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 205-219.
Van Dijk, T. 1997. Political discourse and racism. Describing Others in Western Parliaments. In Riggins, S. H. (ed.) The Language and Politics of Exclusion. Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pp. 31-64.
Van Dijk, T. 2002. Political discourse and political cognition. In Chilton, P. and C. Schäffner (eds). Politics as Text and Talk. Analytical approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 204-236.
Van De Mieroop, D. 2007. The complementarity of two identities and two approaches: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of institutional and professional identity. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1120-1142.
Van Leeuwen, T. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Caldas-Coulthard, R. and M. Coulthard (eds). Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 32-70.
Van Leeuwen, T. 2007. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication Vol.1(1), 91-112.
Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wodak, R. 2007. Discourse in European Union organizations: Aspects of access, participation and exclusion. Text and Talk 27-5/6, 655-680.
