Linguistic Devices of Identity Representation in English Political Discourse with a Focus on Personal Pronouns: Power and Solidarity
محورهای موضوعی : English Language Teaching (ELT)
لیلا علی اکبری حامد
1
,
بیوک بهنام
2
1 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
2 - گروه انگلیسی، واحد تبریز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تبریز، ایران
کلید واژه: Power, solidarity, identity representation, English political discourse, personal pronouns,
چکیده مقاله :
The present study was aimed at exploring the use of pronominal reference for identity representation in terms of power and solidarity in English political discourse. The investigation was based on a corpus of four political interviews and debates amounting 26,500 words. The analysis was both qualitative and quantitative. In the qualitative analysis, a discourse-analytic approach was used to find out the pronouns, their references and their identity load, and in the quantitative analysis, the distribution of different representations of identity were calculated. A nonparametric test, that is, Chi-Square was run in SPSS as the statistical operation needed for the current study. The analysis showed that most of the personal pronouns represented identity in the form of solidarity. The results also showed that political figures use I-pronoun and its variants to represent their identity in terms of power. The representation of identity in terms of power was also found to be correlated with the use of certain terms such as veto and active voice constructions. Furthermore, the results showed that when making claims, instead of giving pronominal reference to self, political figures use first-person plurals. In order to show solidarity, the speakers may also make use of discoursal proximity. Considering the important role that discourses play in constructing reality, it is important for CDA researchers to reveal sources of power, inequality and prejudice in discourses and interpret their hidden meanings. Pronominal choice and academic voice as linguistic constructions that are ideologically loaded need to be brought into the spotlight.
هدف مطالعه حاضر بررسی ضمایر شخصی در نشان دادن هویت در کلام سیاسی زبان انگلیسی از بعد قدرت و همبستگی است. در مجموع چهار مصاحبه و مناظره انتخاباتی با تعداد کل کلمات 26500 کلمه انتخاب شد. روش تجزیه و تحلیل کمی و کیفی بود. در تجزیه کیفی از روش آنالیز کلام برای یافتن ضمایر، مرجع آنها و بار هویتی آنها و در تجزیه کمی توزیع و پراکنش اشکال مختلف نمایانگر هویت محاسبه شد. از آزمون غیر پارامتری مربع کای در نرم افزار SPSS برای آنالیز آماری استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که بیشتر ضمایر هویت را از بعد همبستگی نشان می دهند و چهره های سیاسی از ضمیر "من" و وابسته های آن برای نشان دادن قدرت استفاده می کنند. همچنین، هویت از بعد قدرت با استفاده از کلماتی مانند "وتو" و جملات معلوم نمود می یابد. نتایج همچنین نشان داد که به هنگام طرح یک ادعا، چهره های سیاسی از ضمیر "ما" به جای اشاره به مرجع ضمیر استفاده می کنند. طبق نتایج، برای نشان دادن همبستگی، سیاستمداران از قرابت کلامی نیز استفاده می کنند. با توجه به اهمیت نقش کلام در شکل گیری واقعیت، محققین تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی باید منابع قدرت، نابرابری و تبعیض را مشخص کرده و زوایای پنهان معانی آنها را تعبیر نمایند. بدین ترتیب لازم است تا در کلام سیاسی، انتخاب ضمایر مناسب و ساختار دستوری متناسب با آن به عنوان ساختارهای زبانشناسی دارای بار ایدئولوژیکی مورد توجه ویژه قرار گیرند.
Allen, W. (2007). Australian political discourse: Pronominal choice in campaign speeches.
Beard, A. (2000). The language of politics. Routledge : London.
Behnam, B., & Moghtadi, L. (2008). A Critical Study of Selected Political Elites' Discourse in English. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 1(Inaugural Issue), 14-33.
Bello, U. (2013). " If I Could Make It, You Too Can Make It!" Personal Pronouns in Political Discourse: A CDA of President Jonathan's Presidential Declaration Speech. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(6), 84-96.
Benoit, W. L., & Benoit-Bryan, J. M. (2014). A functional analysis of UK debates in Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. Western Journal of Communication, 78(5), 653-667.
Bramley, N. R. (2001). Pronouns of politics: the use of pronouns in the construction of'self'and'other'in political interviews.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language (pp. 253–76). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity press.
Fairclough, N., Wodak, R., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2, 258-284.
Green, C. (2008). Discursive strategies in political speech: the words of Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika. Issues in Political Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 59–74.
Gyuró, M. (2015). Construction of national identity: Power in acceptance speeches. Discourse and interaction, 8(1), 21-36.
Jibrin, C. C. (2003). A political discourse analysis of the state-of-the-nation addresses of five Philippine presidents. (Unpublished PhD Dissertation). De La Salle University.
Kaewrungruang, K., & Yaoharee, O. (2018). The Use of Personal Pronoun in Political Discourse: A Case Study of the Final 2016 United States Presidential Election Debate. rEFLections, 25(1), 85-96.
Karapetjana, I. (2011). Pronominal choice in political interviews. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature and Culture, 1(1), 36-45.
Krapivkina, O. A. (2014). Pronominal choice in academic discourse. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 20(7), 833-843.
Kuo, S.-H. (2002). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text & Talk, 22(1), 29-55.
Makutis, T. (2016). First person pronouns in political speeches: United nations on situation in Ukraine. Thesis: Vilnius University.
Ndambuki, J., & Janks, H. (2010). Political discourses, women’s voices: Mismatches in representation. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 4(1), 73-92.
Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS) (Vol. 55). John Benjamins Publishing.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173–178.
Qadeer, A., & Shehzad, W. (2018). Language and Power Nexus: A Critical Study of Pakistani Political Discourse. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(2), 207-214.
Reilly, J., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R. F. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: the development of stance. Journal of pragmatics, 37(2), 185-208.
Schäffner, C. (Ed.). (1997). Analysing political speeches (Vol. 3, No. 3). Multilingual Matters Limited.
Scott, M. (2015). WordSmith Tools Users’ Manual Version 6.0. In: Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.
Sharndama, E. C. (2016). Discursive strategies in political speech: a critical discourse analysis of selected inaugural speeches of the 2015 Nigeria’s gubernatorial inaugurals. European Journal of English Language, Linguistics and Literature, 3(2), 15-28.
Soles, D. (2009). The essentials of academic writing. Toronto, Ontario : Nelson Education
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, 63(3), 224-237.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work (Vol. 6): John Benjamins Publishing.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of political ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (Vol. 13). John Benjamins Publishing.
