LM1 1 March 2018 Prof. M. Boyd

Transcription

1 LM1 1 March 2018 Prof. M. Boyd

2 POLITICAL DISCOURSE is concerned with formal/informal political contexts and political actors with politicians, political institutions, governments, political media, and political supporters operating in political environments to achieve political goals (Wilson 2001: 398). Generally, it also refers to the use of language to do the business of politics and includes persuasive rhetoric, the use of implied meaning, the use of euphemisms, the exclusion of references to undesirable realities, the use of language to rouse political emotions, and the like (Chilton 2008: 226).

3 POLITICAL TEXTS are any texts that fulfil political functions and they include a number of different GENRES, such as bilateral and multilateral treaties, speeches made during an election campaign or at a political party congress, a contribution of a member an MP or congressman to a debate, editorial, reports or commentaries in newspapers, a press conference, a politicians memoirs (Schäffner 1997) as well as slogans, advertisements, leaflets used in electoral campaigns, home pages and blogs, special TV and radio programmes (Meet the Press, BBC Parliament), fictional films and TV shows about politics or political actors (JFK, The West Wing), etc.

4 GENRES are part of sociologically determined communicative activities. They are conventional or typical combinations of contextual (situational), communicative-functional, and structural (grammatical and thematic features). In the analysis of political discourse (as in any discourse) it is important to understand their role in the very definition of politics and political institutions (Chilton & Schäffner 2002: 20-21).

5 With its interest in ideology, power, dominance, social and institutional practice CDA naturally lends itself to the study of political discourse. Political differences have been constituted as differences in language (Fairclough 2000) The way people talk about themselves and others, both positively and negatively, reflect deeply ingrained power relations, and the texts they produce can serve to sustain or change ideologies (Fairclough 2003) Ideology can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between social classes, women and men, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities through the ways in which they represent things and position people (Fairclough & Wodak 1997)

6 Because Selma shows us that America is not the project of any one person. Because the single-most powerful word in our democracy is the word 'we.' We the People. We shall overcome. Yes we can. That word is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. President Barack Obama, 7 March 2015

7 Quote demonstrates the semiotic dimensions of power, injustice, abuse, and political-economic or cultural change in society (Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak, 2011, p. 357). Dimension of power clearly reflected in dominant role of speaker the president of the United States. Yet, the same speaker is a representative of the historically oppressed, and excluded, Black minority, and, therefore has also seemingly been a victim of a power system and discourse dominance perpetuating injustice and abuse against a minority group. The quote (and the entire speech) focuses on political and cultural change among African Americans in US society over the past 50 years. The speech, then, could be seen as an example of a discourse practice that aims to further transform social practices.

8 At first glance, example might appear different from typical CDA-inspired investigations: here the speaker is not producing or reproducing social inequalities, but rather he is extolling the virtues of the civil rights movement and the transformation of a formerly dominated minority group into a dominant one. No less salient for a CDA-inspired investigation, as it is an example of resistance and counter-power against such forms of discourse dominance (van Dijk, 1997) Obama exploits prominent and powerful position to spread perception of changed status quo among African Americans. It might also be argued that Obama is reshaping social practice through discourse practice, and, more specifically, the commemorative speech genre.

9 The immediate and wider contexts defining the text need to be considered: including co-text, situational context, socio-cultural and historical context, as such features, particularly those such as socially defined role, location, timing, are pivotal in the definition of political discourse (Chilton & Schäffner, 2002, p. 16). EX 1 is taken from a 32-minute speech given on 7 March 2015 to commemorate one of the most significant moments in the US civil rights movement: some 600 marchers who were attempting to leave Selma on their way to the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery to demand equal voting rights for African Americans were attacked on a bridge by state and local police with clubs and tear gas.

10 Both the location Obama chose for the speech, the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, and the timing, the 50th anniversary of one of the defining events in the civil rights movement, are crucial in defining the immediate and wider contexts. as part of the wider historical context we need to understand that these violent events sparked further protests, which culminated on 25 March 1965 in the final march of some 25,000 protesters, led by Martin Luther King, to the capitol. Selma events led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned unfair practices in voter registration. As noted by Combs (2013, p. 6), the events that began on 7 March 1965 represent a watershed moment for the American civil rights movement.

11 Obama refers to the events metonymically and metaphorically simply as Selma, strategically recontextualizing one part of a greater historical event as a turning point for African Americans. The metaphor is expanded to include all Americans, and specifically those who support to cite another line from the speech the idea of a just America and a fair America, an inclusive America. First person plural pronoun used eight times and, for the most part, with a shifting meaning, from the inclusive shows us, glorious task we are given and this great nation of ours to the historically recontextualized examples We the people from the preamble of the US Constitution, We shall overcome from the song widely used in the Civil Rights movement, and Yes we can from Obama s own PD.

12 The general effect of the first-person plural pronoun is textual and pragmatic cohesion that reinforces group identity and unity (Boyd, 2013; Filardo-Llamas, 2015). Cohesion is further strengthened through the recontextualization of various discourses: from Obama s own discourse and, on a more historical level, those drawn from the events at Selma and the civil rights movement. Such relocation of discourse (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999) can be a powerful tool in itself, allowing for the transformation of social or discursive practices and creating new ones (Busch, 2006, p. 613).

13 Chilton on PD: If a politician wishes to tell his or her electorate that taxes are to be raised, unemployment figures are up, inflation is spiralling, and the enemy is massing on the border, then these face-threatening acts (requesting sacrifices, issuing bad news, giving warnings) are verbalised in a strategic fashion, in order to lessen the affront. The politician has to achieve a balance between positive-face strategies and negative-face strategies. On the one hand it will be necessary to address positive face appealing to patriotism, to pulling together, brotherhood, the cause of the proletariat, civilised values, and similar concepts that have as part of their frame some notion of the special characteristics of the self s group. It will follow that linguistic choices of particular kinds are made (Chilton, 2004, p. 40).

14 Goffman (1967) breaks down the notion of politeness into positive and negative face: In interpersonal communication, people pay attention to, and have to achieve a balancing act between, the positive need to be accepted as an insider and to establish common ground on the one hand and on the other hand the negative need to have freedom of action and not to have one s territory encroached upon. Brown and Levinson (1987) adapted Goffman s explication of face-threatening acts (FTAs) as performed through speech acts, constructing a detailed classification of the linguistic formulations (syntactic and lexical) which speakers draw on, in order to mitigate their FTAs. The effect of various mitigation strategies is a function of the relations of power and intimacy between speakers.

15 Some examples of balancing positve and negative face: A classic example is the repeated use of the first-person plural inclusive pronoun ( we in English). On the other hand, such a politician will have to address negative-face risks seeking to minimise the dangers to the freedom and security of both the collectivity and of the individuals that constitute it. This motivation will be matched by verbal behaviour of particular kinds simply not referring to threatening referents, for example, or referring to them obliquely or by euphemism.

16 Some Important Features of Political Language use of euphemism or euphemizing strategies to soften or change perception of reality; to legitimise or delegitimize someone or something Euphemism has the cognitive effect of conceptually blurring or defocusing unwanted referents, be they objects or actions (Chilton, 2004, p. 46) euphemisms versus hyperboles; e.g., slay, kill, murder, slaughter, exterminate; collateral damage vs. civilian deaths vs. massacre

17 a particular ideology (or indexicality) can be expressed through lexical choice, accent, forms of address, etc.) which always signal some political distinction: Language-in-use consists of utterances generated and interpreted in relation to the situation in which the utterer(s) and interpreter(s) are positioned. positioned can be understood as a spatial metaphor conceptualising the speaker s and/or hearer s relationship to their interlocutor(s), to their physical location, to the point in time of the ongoing utterance, and to where they are in the ongoing discourse.

18 Indexical expressions or deictic expressions are linguistic resources used to perform deixis that is, to prompt the interpreter to relate the uttered indexical expression to various situational features. pronouns: For example, in political discourse the first person plural (we, us, our) can be used to induce interpreters to conceptualise group identity, coalitions, parties, and the like, either as insiders or as outsiders. Social indexicals arise from social structure and power relations, and not just from personal distance. Spatial indexicals relate to political or geopolitical space. Temporal indexicals can require one to assume a particular historical periodisation for example nowadays, today, or just now could require to be understood as after the revolution, after the fall of the Berlin Wall

19 metaphorical reasoning is common in political discourse (as is the use of other rhetorical tropes such as metonymy and synecdoche) in cognitive terms metaphor is understood as a part of human conceptualisation and not simply a linguistic expression: a well understood source domain of experience is mapped onto more schematic ones For example: political concepts involving leadership and political action conceptualised by movement or journey metaphors. This is why, for example, political discourse often includes systematic expressions like coming to a crossroads, moving ahead towards a better future, overcoming obstacles on the way, not deviating from its plans, and so forth.

20 use of formulaic utterances or institutionalized procedures (e.g., I beg to moveñ ) in specific situations (Parliamentary discussions, speeches, question & answer sessions, debates, etc.) modal forms are used strategically by politicians to remain vague, or frame claims for truth, confidence, trust, credibility and legitimization: epistemic modality: having to do with a degree of certainty deontic modality: having to do with permission and obligation negation use of informal language to change the tone or to stress the manner (such as an apparent closer relation between speaker and public)

21 prominent use of pronouns to reflect personal and ideological points of view (creating closeness, distance, a sense of responsibility, group identity, coalitions, parties, etc.) pronouns can indicate (or obscure) collectivity and individuality, or they can be used for (positive) self or (negative) other referencing or as a way to polarize representations of in-groups and out groups. Most important pronominal distinctions are I vs. we, inclusive vs. exclusive-we, and us vs. them. The use of I/we is clearly marked depending on how much responsibility the speaker wants to claim: I is used to gain the people s allegiance, while we is often used to evade complete responsibility (Wilson 1990: 50). Third-person pronouns can be used for distance, a relation of contrast and other referencing from the so-called deictic centre. the naming of politicians or other social actors by linguistic means (nomination) the framing of questions to stress the availability of alternative models (in a democracy) repetition and other rhetorical means to reinforce a message