🗊Презентация Tutorial. History of political discourse

Kazakh Abylai khan University of International Relations and Foreign languages tutorial

History of political discourse

The study of political discourse The study of political discourse, like that of other areas of discourse analysis, covers a broad range of subject matter draws on a wide range of analytic methods.

The term is suggestive of at least two possibilities: a discourse which is itself political; an analysis of political discourse as simply an example discourse type, without explicit reference to political content or political context.

political discourse has been around for as long as politics itself The emphasis the Greeks placed on rhetoric is a case in point. From Cicero (1971) to Aristotle (1991) the concern was basically with particular methods of social and political competence in achieving specific objectives

Political discourse may express: group ideologies other beliefs, especially in collective forms of text talk such as party programs. But many forms of political discourse are produced by: individual speakers and the ways they `personalize' the group beliefs under the more particular properties of political discourse. That is, between social beliefs and discourse weneed a cognitive interface that represents personal beliefs, opinions or experiences.

Political Discourse: Representation Orwell who first drew our attention to the political potential of language. This is seen in his classic article “Politics and the English Language,” where he considers the way in which language may be used to manipulate thought and suggests, for example, that “political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible”

Political Discourse: Transformation The general principle here is one of transformation. Similar words and phrases may come to be reinterpreted within different ideological frameworks. Linked directly to this process is the concept of “representation.” Representation refers to the issue of how language is employed in different ways to represent what we can know, believe, and perhaps think. There are basically two views of representation: the universalist and the relativist (Montgomery 1992). The universalist view assumes that we understand our world in relation to a set of universal conceptual primes. Language, in this view, simply reflects these universal possibilities. Language is the vehicle for expressing our system of thought, with this system being independent of the language itself. The relativist position sees language and thought as inextricably intertwined. Our understanding of the world within a relativist perspective is affected by available linguistic resources. The consequences here, within a political context, seem obvious enough. To have others believe you, do what you want them to do, and generally view the world in the way most favorable for your goals, you need to manipulate, or, at the very least, pay attention to the linguistic limits of forms of representation.

Sounds political It may be initially difficult to grasp how specific sounds come to be interpreted as political, although where one sees politics as tied directly to forms of ideology, the issue becomes a central plank of variationist sociolinguistics, and beyond). Research on accent clearly indicates that selected phonological variables can carry political loading. By their very nature, phonological variables have been tied to issues such as class, gender, and ethnicity, and, in turn, to the social and political implications of the use of such variables (at both macro- and microlevels; Wilson and O Brian 1998).

Despite this natural link between phonological work in variationist sociolinguistics and political and social facts, there have been few studies of the potential of phono logy in the direct construction of political discourse. There is no reason to presuppose, however, that this level of linguistic structure may not also be available for political orientation. There is general evidence, for example, that Margaret Thatcher modified her speech in very particular ways in order to make herself more attractive to voters. And in the work of Gunn (1989; Wilson and Gunn 1983) it is claimed that leading politicians and political supporters may make adjustments within their phonological systems for political effect. For example, Gerry Adams is said to have adopted phono logical forms as representative of southern Irish dialect alternatives, and placed these within his own Belfast phonological system Despite this natural link between phonological work in variationist sociolinguistics and political and social facts, there have been few studies of the potential of phono logy in the direct construction of political discourse. There is no reason to presuppose, however, that this level of linguistic structure may not also be available for political orientation. There is general evidence, for example, that Margaret Thatcher modified her speech in very particular ways in order to make herself more attractive to voters. And in the work of Gunn (1989; Wilson and Gunn 1983) it is claimed that leading politicians and political supporters may make adjustments within their phonological systems for political effect. For example, Gerry Adams is said to have adopted phono logical forms as representative of southern Irish dialect alternatives, and placed these within his own Belfast phonological system

types of political discourse: - Institutional political discourse, in the framework of which are used only texts directly created by politicians and used in political communication(Parliamentary transcripts, policy documents, performances and interviews with political leaders, etc.) - Mass media (the media), political discourse in under which texts are used by journalists and disseminated through the press, television, radio.

types of political discourse: - Official business political discourse related with hardware communication, within which are texts intended for public employees

classification of the political discourse SPEECH

METHODS OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE

CONTEXT OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE overall domain (e.g., politics) - overall societal action (legislation) - current setting (time, location) current circumstances (bill to be discussed) - current interaction (political debate) - current discourse genre (speech) - the various types of role of participants (speaker, MP, member of the Conservative Party, white, male, elderly, etc.), - the cognitions of the participants (goals, knowledge, beliefs, etc.).

STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE 1) TOPICS What information is defined and emphasized to be important or topical in (political and other) discourse, is a function of the event and context models of speakers

STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE 2)SCHEMATA The global schematic organization of discourse is conventional and hence not directly variable because of context constraints: Thus, a parliamentary speech has the same constituent categories whether engaged in by a Conservative or Labour MP. It is especially the order, prominence, kind and extent of the information included in these categories that may vary, and hence be highlighted or mitigated as a function of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.

STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE 3) LOCAL SEMANTICS An important context category controlling this selection is the political ideology of the speaker and the recipients, which also may influence the complexity of local meanings. Thus, the simplicity of And conversely, specific semantic structures thus construed may influence the 'preferred' models of recipients who have no alternative knowledge sources (Lau, Smith and Fiske 1991).

STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE 4) STYLE AND RHETORIC Finally semantic representations are expressed in variable surface structures, that is through specific lexicalization, syntactic structures and specific features of sound, printing or images, as well as by rhetorical devices that are geared towards the emphasis or de-emphasis of underlying meanings.

CONCLUSION In other words, political discourse can only be adequately described and explained when we spell out the socio-cognitive interface that relates it to the socially shared political representations that control political actions,processes and systems.

References Argyle, M., A. Furnham and J. A. Graham. 1981. Social Situations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Billig, M. 1991a. Consistency and Group Ideology: towards a Rhetorical Approach to the Study of Justice. In R. Vermunt and H. Steensma (eds.), Social Justice in Human Relations. Plenum Press, New York: 169-94 130g, M. 199 lb. Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London, Sage. Britton, B. K., and A. C. Graesser (eds.). 1996. Models of Understanding Text. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. Garb& T. 1992. Towards an Interpretation of Interruptions in Mexican Parliamentary Discourse. Discourse and Society, 3(1):25-45. CarbO, T. 1995. El discurso parlamentario mexicano entre 1920 y 1950. Un estudio de caso en metodologia de analisis de discurso. (Mexican parliamentary discourse between 1920 and 1950. A Case Study in the Methodology of Discourse Analysis). 2 vols. Mexico, CIESAS and Colegio de Mexico. Chilton, P. and C. Schaffner. 1997. Discourse and Politics. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction. London, Sage: 206-30. Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Converse, P. E. 1964. The nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research, 5: 206-62.