In political discourse, participants rely on the force of language to (re-)construct and negotiate their identities, social roles and views, and to (re-)define their interpersonal and institutional relations. Therefore, politicians try to impose on the audience an interpretative perception of the semantic unity and purposefulness of their discourse which reflects their communicative intentions with regard to the situational, socio-cultural and pragmatic context in which the interaction takes place.
This paper explores the resources available for building a coherent subjective representation of a discourse world by investigating some markers of modality in speeches delivered by three Directors-General of UNESCO at the opening of international conferences and meetings.
Words must be our force: Exploring modality markers in political speeches
Autoři:
Číslo v periodiku:
4
Vydavatel:
Místo vydání:
Rok vydání:
Strany:
13-19
ISBN/ISSN:
1337-7590 (vyhledej v knihovnách)
Typ publikace:
Jazyk:
Klíčová slova:
Typ záznamu:
Abstrakt:
Bibliografie:
Bublitz, W. 1997. “Introduction: Views on coherence.” In: Bublitz, W., Lenk, U. and Ventola, E. (eds.) Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1997. 1-7. ISBN 0893910988.
Bybee, J., Fleischman, S. 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1995. ISBN 9027229260.
Donahue, R. T., Prosser, M. H. 1997. Diplomatic Discourse: International Conflict at the United Nations – Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich, CT, London: Ablex. 1997. ISBN 1-56750-291-1.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. 2007. ‘On coherence in written discourse .’ In: Schmied, J., Haase, Ch., Povolná, R. (eds) Complexity and Coherence: Approaches to Linguistic Research and Language Teaching. REAL Studies 3. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag Göttingen, 2007. 127-145. ISBN 9783867272155.
Duranti, A. 2006. ‘Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. Congress.’ Language in Society 35, 467-497. ISSN 0047-4045.
Cap, P. 2007. Proximization: A methodological account of Legitimization strategies in the Post-9/11 US political discourse. Topics in Linguistics 1, 13-17. ISSN 3836/2007.
Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. London/New York: Routledge. 2004. ISBN 9780415314725.
Chung, S., Timberlake, A. 1985. ‘Tense, aspect and mood.’ In: Shopen, T. (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3 Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1985. 202-258. ISBN 0521588553.
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1992. ISBN 0805810757.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1981. ISBN 0631127887.
Halliday M. A. K. 1970. ‘Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English.’ Foundations of Language 6, 322-361. 1970. ISSN 0015-900X.
Halliday M. A. K., Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman. 1976. ISBN 0582550416
Halliday M. A. K., Hasan, R. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989. ISBN 0415070015.
Hodge, R., Kress, G. 1993. Language as Ideology. London and New York: Routledge. 1993. ISBN 0415070015.
Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. ISBN 0194371425.
Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. ISBN 0521431468.
Hunston, S. 2007. ‘Using corpus to investigate stance quantatively and qualitatively.’ In Englebretson, R. (ed). Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2007. 27-48. ISBN 978 90 272 5408 5.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1980. ISBN 0226468011.
Langacker, R. 1990. ‘Subjectification.’ Cognitive Linguistics 1-1, 5-38. ISSN 0936-5907.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1977. ISBN 0521291860.
Miššíková, G. 2005. “Background knowledge in interpretation of discourse.” In: Discourse and Interaction 1. Brno seminar on linguistic studies in English: Proceedings 2005. Brno: Masaryk University. 85-98. ISSN 8021039167.
Palmer, F. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986. ISBN 052131930.
Palmer, F. 2003. ‘Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues.’ In: Facchinetti, R., Krug, M, Palmer, R. (eds) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2003. 1-17. ISBN 3110176866.
Povolná, R. 2007. ‘Aspects of coherence in spoken discourse.’ In Schmied, J., Haase, C., Povolná, R. (Eds.). Complexity and Coherence: Approaches to Linguistic Research and Language Teaching. REAL Studies 3. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag. 107-125. ISBN 9783867272155.
Thompson, S. 1994. “Cohesion in monologue”. Applied Linguistics 15/1. 58-75. ISSN 0142-6001.
Thompson, G., Zhou, J. 2000. ‘Evaluation in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts.’ In: Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (eds) Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. 121-141. ISBN 0198299869.
Seidlhofer, B., Widdowson, H. G. 1997. “Coherence in summary: The contexts of appropriate discourse.” In: Bublitz, W., Lenk, U., Ventola, E. (eds.) Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1997. 205-219. ISBN 0893910988.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. 1997. ‘Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account.’ Language Sciences, vol. 19/4. 341-356. ISSN 0388-0001.
Stubbs, M. 1993. Discourse Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1993. ISBN 9780226778334.
Van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. 1977. ISBN 0582550858.
Verstraete, J.-C. 2001. ‘Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system.’ Journal of Pragmatics 33, 1505-1528. ISSN 0378-2166.
Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwell. 1990. ISBN 0-631-16502-9.
