Mapping Political Strategies Over Rhetorical Devices in 2008 U.S. Pre-Presidential Debates: A Political Discourse Study

Document Type : Research article

Authors

1 Assistant professor, English Department, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran.

2 PhD in TEFL, English Department, Mashhhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

In this research, it was tried to follow the recent Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) approaches that map text over relevant context as supported by Van Dijk (2006). The main intention is to look at political discourse via the lenses of PDA to see whether ideologies and power relations of interlocutors in the target setting of this study could have possibly been aligned with linguistic elements -here rhetorical devices- and to see to what extent such text-context mapping is recognized as relevant to language tools within the selected datasets. Accordingly, the researcher tried to follow a sample of political talk -live 2008 US presidential debates- between two republic vs. democratic campaigns. To do so, some political strategies for argumentation including Van Dijk’s model representing 'Authority', 'Topos or burden', 'Future Representations’, ‘Comparison', 'Consensus', 'Counterfactuals', 'Populism’, 'Generalizations', and 'Number Games' were mapped over some linguistic rhetorical devices such as ‘Metaphor’, ‘Hyperbole’, ‘Irony’, ‘Euphemism’, etc.  The common discoursal moves in Obama’s vs. McCain's speech statements were compared and contrasted among similar strategies to find any emergent rhetorical devices. Findings indicate that 1) the political candidates had made use of rhetorical and political moves in tandem within the same propositional units, 2) some of the employed discourse devices were paralleled with the majority of political strategies like Repetition and Metaphor, and 3) some political strategies had been used to excess like 'Comparison’, 'Populism', and 'Future Representation’. 

Keywords

References

  1. Barton, E. (2002). Resources for discourse analysis in composition studies. Style, 36(4), 575-594. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.36.4.575
  2. Biria, R., & Mohammadi, A. (2012). The socio pragmatic functions of inaugural speech: A critical discourse analysis approach, Journal of pragmatics, 44(10), 1290-1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.013
  3. Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447-466.  
  4. Burke, K.  (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.
  5. Chilton, P., & Schaffner, C. (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. John Benjamins.
  6. Deciu Ritivoi, A. (2008). Talking the (political) talk Cold War refugees and their political legitimation through style. In B. Johnstone & C. Eisenhart (Eds.), Rhetoric in detail (pp. 32-56). John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  7. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
  8. Higgins, C., & Walker, R. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos:  Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports.  Accounting Forum, 36(3), 194-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2012.02.003
  9. Krzyzanowski, M. (2005). European identity wanted! In on discursive dimensions of the European convention. In R. Wodak & P. A. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity, (pp. 137-163). Benjamins Co.  
  10. Matlock, T. (2012). Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor. American Scientist, 100(6), 478-483. http://profpam4peace.pbworks.com
  11. Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315225593
  12. Rahimi, M., Amal Saheh, E., & Deghat, S. (2010). The CDA of 2008 pesidential campaign speeches of democratic candidates with respect to their gender & race. Iranian journal of applied linguistics, 13(2), 75-99.  https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=247564
  13. Van Dijk, T. A. (1985). A handbook of discourse analysis.  Academic Press Limited.
  14. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  15. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian journal of linguistics, 11(1), 11-52. https://e l.unifi.it/pluginfile.php
  16. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of political ideologies, 11(2), 115-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908
  17. Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse and ideology. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 379-407.            http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse%20and%20Ideology.pdf
  18. Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama's speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254-261. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.254-261
  19. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Mayer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, (pp. 1 -13). Sage publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020
  20. Wodak, R., & Weiss, G. (2005). Analyzing European Union discourses: Theories and applications. A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis, 13, 121-135.
  21. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to end. The Guilford Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics