Addressee orientation in political speeches: tracing the dialogical 'other' in argumentative monologue

This article suggests that the addressees as the dialogical ‘other’ loom large in monological political speeches. However, political speeches are produced under conditions of addressee heterogeneity, i.e. the speakers do not actually know who they will be talking to. It will be argued that the addressees are nevertheless a crucial element in speakers’ context models, that speakers orientate towards imagined addressees and that certain aspects – what possible addressees may do, think or believe and that they are a part of an imagined community – are particularly relevant from the speakers’ point of view. An analysis of addressee orientation in political speeches aims at reconstructing speakers’ conceptualisations of possible addressees. The analysis reveals patterns of addressee orientation which suggest that the addressees are framed in terms of presumed nearness (i.e. agreement) or distance (i.e. disagreement) to the speakers. Both presumed agreement and disagreement will be discussed in terms of how the speakers aim to impose their default perspectives on the addressees. The analysis is based on examples from a substantial corpus of German chancellors’ political speeches from 1951-2001.

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

The notion of equivalence and lexical cohesion in the translation of political speeches

Abstract This dissertation investigates the notion of equivalence with particular reference to lexical cohesion in the translation of political speeches. Lexical cohesion poses a particular challenge to the translators of political speeches and thus preserving lexical cohesion elements as one of the major elements of cohesion is undoubtedly crucial to their translation equivalence. We rely on Halliday’s (1994) classification of lexical cohesion which comprises: repetition, synonymy, antonymy, meronymy and hyponymy. Other traditional models of lexical cohesion are examined. We include Grammatical Parallelism for its role in creating textual semantic unity which is what cohesion is all about. The study shed light on the function of lexical cohesion elements as rhetorical device. The study also deals with lexical problems resulting from the transfer of lexical cohesion elements from the SL into the TL, which is often beset by many problems that most often result from the differences between languages. Three key issues are identified as being fundamental to equivalence and lexical cohesion in the translation of political speeches: sociosemiotic approach, register analysis, rhetoric, and poetic function. The study also investigates the lexical cohesion elements in the translation of political speeches from English into Arabic, Italian and French in relation to ideology, and its control, through bias and distortion. The findings are discussed, implications examined and topics for further research suggested.

Analysing political speeches

This volume deals with political speeches, particularly commemorative addresses, from the perspective of critical discourse analysis. Critical consideration is given to the role of rhetoric within political discourse analysis.

Australian political discourse: Pronominal choice in campaign speeches

The intention behind language used by candidates during an election campaign is to persuade voters to vote for a particular political party. Fundamental to the political arena is construction of identity, group membership and ways of talking about self, others, and the polarizing categories of 'us' and 'them'. This paper will investigate the pragmatics of pronominal choice and the way in which politicians construct and convey their own identities and those of their political opponents within political speeches. Taking six speeches by John Howard and Mark Latham across the course of the 2004 federal election campaign, I look at the ways in which pronominal choice indicates a shifting scope of reference to creat pragmatic effects and serve political functions.

Educação fisica e hegemonia

Universidade Estadual de Campinas . Faculdade de Educação Física

Direitos de participação das crianças: estudo de caso num jardim de Infância em contexto do movimento da escola moderna

Dissertação apresentada à Escola Superior de Educação de Lisboa para a obtenção de grau de mestre em Ciências da Educação, Especialização em Intervenção Precoce

Da 'portugalidade' à lusofonia

Tese de Doutoramento em Ciências da Comunicação (Especialidade em Teoria da Cultura)

Discursos para a Independência: a Escócia e o Referendo de 2014

Dissertação de mestrado em Ciência Política

Collective victimisation and collective guilt in the former Yugoslavia : the interplay between individual, local and societal levels

The thesis examines the impact of collective war victimization on individuals' readiness to accept or assign collective guilt for past war atrocities. As a complement to previous studies, its aim is to articulate an integrated approach to collective victimization, which distinguishes between individual-, communal-, and societal-level consequences of warfare. Building on a social representation approach, it is guided by the assumption that individuals form beliefs about a conflict through their personal experiences of victimization, communal experiences of warfare that occur in their proximal surrounding, and the mass- mediatised narratives that circulate in a society's public sphere. Four empirical studies test the hypothesis that individuals' beliefs about the conflict depend on the level and type of war experiences to which they have been exposed, that is, on informative and normative micro and macro contexts in which they are embedded. The studies have been conducted in the context of the Yugoslav wars that attended the breakup of Yugoslavia, a series of wars fought between 1991 and 2001 during which numerous war atrocities were perpetrated causing a massive victimisation of population. To examine the content and impact of war experiences at each level of analysis, the empirical studies employed various methodological strategies, from quantitative analyses of a representative public opinion survey, to qualitative analyses of media content and political speeches. Study 1 examines the impact of individual- and communal- level war experiences on individuals' acceptance and assignment of collective guilt. It further examines the impact of the type of communal level victimization: exposure to symmetric (i.e., violence that similarly affects members of different ethnic groups, including adversaries) and asymmetric violence. The main goal of Study 2 is to examine the structural and political circumstances that enhance collective guilt assignment. While the previous studies emphasize the role of past victimisation, Study 2 tests the assumption that the political demobilisation strategy employed by elites facing public discontent in the collective system-threatening circumstances can fuel out-group blame. Studies 3 and 4 have been conducted predominantly in the context of Croatia and examine rhetoric construction of the dominant politicized narrative of war in a public sphere (Study 3) and its maintenance through public delegitimization of alternative (critical) representations (Study 4). Study 4 further examines the likelihood that highly identified group members adhere to publicly delegitimized critical stances on war. - Cette thèse étudie l'impact de la victimisation collective de guerre sur la capacité des individus à accepter ou à attribuer une culpabilité collective liée à des atrocités commises en temps de guerre. En compléments aux recherches existantes, le but de ce travail est de définir une approche intégrative de la victimisation collective, qui distingue les conséquences de la guerre aux niveaux individuel, régional et sociétal. En partant de l'approche des représentations sociales, cette thèse repose sur le postulat que les individus forment des croyances sur un conflit au travers de leurs expériences personnelles de victimisation, de leurs expériences de guerre lorsque celle-ci se déroule près d'eux, ainsi qu'au travers des récits relayés par les mass media. Quatre études testent l'hypothèse que les croyances des individus dépendent des niveaux et des types d'expériences de guerre auxquels ils ont été exposés, c'est-à-dire, des contextes informatifs et normatifs, micro et macro dans lesquels ils sont insérés. Ces études ont été réalisées dans le contexte des guerres qui, entre 1991 et 2001, ont suivi la dissolution de la Yougoslavie et durant lesquelles de nombreuses atrocités de guerre ont été commises, causant une victimisation massive de la population. Afin d'étudier le contenu et l'impact des expériences de guerre sur chaque niveau d'analyse, différentes stratégies méthodologiques ont été utilisées, des analyses quantitatives sur une enquête représentative d'opinion publique aux analyses qualitatives de contenu de médias et de discours politiques. L'étude 1 étudie l'impact des expériences de guerre individuelles et régionales sur l'acceptation et l'attribution de la culpabilité collective par les individus. Elle examine aussi l'impact du type de victimisation régionale : exposition à la violence symétrique (i.e., violence qui touche les membres de différents groupes ethniques, y compris les adversaires) et asymétrique. L'étude 2 se penche sur les circonstances structurelles et politiques qui augmentent l'attribution de culpabilité collective. Alors que les recherches précédentes ont mis l'accent sur le rôle de la victimisation passée, l'étude 2 teste l'hypothèse que la stratégie de démobilisation politique utilisée par les élites pour faire face à l'insatisfaction publique peut encourager l'attribution de la culpabilité à l'exogroupe. Les études 3 et 4 étudient, principalement dans le contexte croate, la construction rhétorique du récit de guerre politisé dominant (étude 3) et son entretien à travers la délégitimation publique des représentations alternatives (critiques] (étude 4). L'étude 4 examine aussi la probabilité qu'ont les membres de groupe fortement identifiés d'adhérer à des points de vue sur la guerre critiques et publiquement délégitimés.

Hispanité, Hispanophonie : étude de la rhétorique des discours et de l'agir

Cette thèse de doctorat a été réalisée en cotutelle internationale entre l'Université de Montréal (Canada) et l'Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 (France).