The use of the pronouns we, us, and our in political speeches : A comparative study of the inaugural addresses of Bush and Obama

Pronouns carry considerable importance in language. The speaker’s identity and connection to the audience emerges through the consistent use of certain pronouns (De Fina, 1995). This research is about the use of we, us, and our in political discourse. Specifically, their use will be examined in the inaugural addresses of George W. Bush in 2005 and Barack Obama in 2009. The aim of this research is to examine the frequencies and the co-occurrences of these pronouns and then compare their use in these two speeches. More specifically, how do the pronouns examined affect the message and enhance hearer credibility. This is done by applying (a) a quantitative corpus linguistics analysis and (b) qualitative analysis of the context of use. The results show that there is a difference in frequency of pronoun use; however, the usage of pronouns is rather similar in the two speeches

Towards Presidential Rule in Ukraine : Hybrid Regime Dynamics under Semi-Presidentialism

This article sets out to analyse recent regime developments in Ukraine in relation to semi-presidentialism. The article asks: to what extent and in what ways theoretical arguments against semi-presidentialism (premier-presidential and president-parliamentary systems) are relevant for understanding the changing directions of the Ukrainian regime since the 1990s? The article also reviews the by now overwhelming evidence suggesting that President Yanukovych is turning Ukraine into a more authoritarian hybrid regime and raises the question to what extent the president-parliamentary system might serve this end. The article argues that both kinds of semi-presidentialism have, in different ways, exacerbated rather than mitigated institutional conflict and political stalemate. The return to the president-parliamentary system in 2010 – the constitutional arrangement with the most dismal record of democratisation – was a step in the wrong direction. The premier-presidential regime was by no means ideal, but it had at least two advantages. It weakened the presidential dominance and it explicitly anchored the survival of the government in parliament. The return to the 1996 constitution ties in well with the notion that President Viktor Yanukovych has embarked on an outright authoritarian path.

Ett rikare språk med bildmunta : Vad är ett rikt språk och kan bildskapande stimulera till ett rikare språk

A richer language when painting before speaking? – What is a rich language and can painting stimulate towards a richer language?In this work I seek to answer two questions. What may a “richer” language mean and does it become richer when the informants, as a preparation, paint what they are going to talk about in front of the class, than when they do not paint? This I try to do by studying earlyer research about how to measure the richness in languages and by analysing video recordings of speeches when the students in an sfi-class (Swedish for foreigners) painted or did not paint before the speech, and by analysing the richness in their language. The result is my own definition of what rich language is in this context, and a conclusion that painting stimulates the students to use more words and to use specific words that they need to bring the audience their message.

Pro-premiär eller pro-president? : Om distinktionen mellan parlamentarism, presidentialism och semi-presidentialism

Propremiar or pro-president? On the distinction between parliamentarism, presitentialism and semi-presidentialism. From comparative research on the constitutional development in Central and Eastern Europe and also from the longstanding debate on whether parliamentarism or presidentialism best facilitates democracy, it is apparent that there has been and continues to be, a certain degree of confusion concerning the concepts of semi-presidentialism and presidentialism. Different scholars mean different things by the terms and therefore classify countries differently. In this article I argue that the conceptual dichotomy between pro-premiär (premier-presidentialism) and pro-president systems (presidentparliamentary systems) provide the best solution to several of the problems related to categorising constitutional types, most importantly perhaps to the presidential power dilemma. I, furthermore, employ these concepts on the post-communist constitutional systems and try to reveal patterns with regard to presidential power, geographical region and democratisation.

Demokrati eller presidentdiktatur? : Konstitutionella vägval i postkommunistiska länder

While authoritarian presidents prevail under heavily president-oriented constitutions throughout the post-Soviet region, democracy along parliamentary lines triumphs in Central Europe. This article discusses the constitutional pattern among the post-communist countries on the basis of two general questions: First, how can we explain why strong presidential constitutions dominate throughout the post-Soviet region whereas constrained presidencies and governments anchored in parliament have become the prevailing option in Central Europe? Second, and interlinked with the first question, why have so many post-communist countries (in the post-Soviet region as well as in Central Europe) chosen neither parliamentarism nor presidentialism, but instead semi-presidential arrangements whereby a directly elected president is provided with considerable powers and coexists with a prime minister? The analysis indicates that both historical-institutional and actor-oriented factors are relevant here. Key factors have been regime transition, pre-communist era constitutions and leaders, as well as short-term economic and political considerations. With differing strengths and in partly different ways, these factors seem to have affected the actors’ preferences and final constitutional compromises.

Ukrainas konstitutionella sicksackande : Regimförändring och partiutveckling under semipresidentialism

Ukraine has repeatedly shifted between the two sub-types of semi-presidentialism, i.e. between premier-presidentialism and president-parliamentarism. The aim of this article is to discuss to what extent theoretical arguments against premier-presidential and president-parliamentary systems are relevant for understanding the shifting directions of the Ukrainian regime. As a point of departure, I formulate three main claims from the literature: 1) “President-parliamentarism is less conducive to democratization than premier-presidentialism.”; 2) “Semi-presidentialism in both its variants have built-in incitements for intra-executive conflict between the president and the prime minister.”; 3) “Semi-presidentialism in general, and president-parliamentarism in particular, encourages presidentialization of political parties.” I conclude from the study’s empirical overview that the president-parliamentary system– the constitutional arrangement with the most dismal record of democratization – has been instrumental in strengthening presidential dominance and authoritarian tendencies. The premier-presidential period 2006–2010 was by no means smooth and stable, but the presidential dominance weakened and the survival of the government was firmly anchored in the parliament. During this period, there were also indications of a gradual strengthening of institutional capacity among the main political parties and the parliament began to emerge as a significant political arena.

The hand of God is over their hands (Q. 48:10) : on the notion of covenant in al-Ṭabarī’s account of Karbalāʾ

This article is an analysis of the story of the killing of Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī at Karbalāʾ in 61/680, as it is presented by Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923). The main argument is that the notion of the divine covenant, which permeates the Qur’an, constitutes a framework through which al-Ṭabarī views this event. The Qur’anic idea of the covenant is read in structural/thematic continuity with the Hebrew Bible account of the covenant between Yahweh and the Hebrew people, which has, in turn, been traced back in its basic form to Late Bronze Era treaties between rulers and their vassals.   The present study focusses on four speeches ascribed to Ḥusayn during the encounter he and his group had with the vanguard of the Kūfan army led by al-Ḥurr. These are analysed in accordance with their use of Qur’anic covenant vocabulary. They are also categorised within the broader framework of the eight standard characteristics of Ancient West Asian and Biblical covenants, as presented by George Mendenhall and Gary Herion, which have recently been developed in a Qur’anic context by Rosalind Ward Gwynne. This article argues that al-Ṭabarī’s Karbalāʾ narrative presents the pact of loyalty to Ḥusayn as a clear extension of the divine covenant.