1887
Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The present study analyzes the discursive strategies of manipulation in the political genre of a discourse in Parliament with an aim to convince the audience that the Prime Minister and his party are innocent of receiving illegal cash donations from a slush fund run in the party. For that purpose, we have used Van Dijk’s (2006) scheme of strategies of manipulation at several levels of discourse (content, lexis, topics, syntax, rhetoric, and order of discourse). Findings of the study show that the Prime Minister’s speech presents characteristics of ideological discourse, since it follows a general strategy of positive in-group and negative out-group presentation, which has an overall legitimating function. At other levels of discourse, the denial of controversial actions is made manipulative by following strategies of emphasis of our positive and their negative actions with the final aim of self-legitimating himself and his discourse. The discourse is further made manipulative by using appropriate contextual constraints and defensible semantics of representation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.02cab
2017-06-29
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.27.2.02cab.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.02cab&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allott, Nicholas
    2013 “Relevance Theory.” InPerspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, ed. by Alessandro Capone , Franco Lo Piparo , and Marco Carapezza , Vol.2, 57–98. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01014‑4_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Blass, Regina
    2005 “Manipulation in the Speeches and Writings of Hitler and the NSDAP from a Relevance Theoretic Point of View.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, ed. by Louis de Saussure , and Peter Schulz , Vol.17, 169–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17.09bla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.09bla [Google Scholar]
  3. Brinker, Klaus
    1997Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einfuehrung in Grundbegriff und Methoden. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cué, Carlos E. , Miguel Jiménez , and Jose M. Moreno
    2013 “Rajoy Appears more often in Bárcenas’ Ledgers than other PP Officials.” InEl País. Available at: elpais.com/elpais/2013/02/03/inenglish/1359913280_152138.html (accessedApril 3rd, 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dörnyei, Zoltán
    2007Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Graham, Philip , Thomas Keenam , and Anne M. Dowd
    2004 “A Call to Arms at the End of History: A Discourse-Historical Analysis of George W. Bush’s Declaration of War of Terror.” Discourse and Society15 (2–3): 199–221. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041017
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041017 [Google Scholar]
  7. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2010Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Leech, Geoffrey
    1995Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Leudar, Ivan , Victoria Marsland , and Jirí Nekvapil
    2004 “On Membership Categorization: ‘Us’, ‘Them’ and ‘Doing Violence’ in Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society15 (2–3): 243–266. doi: 10.1177/0957926504041019
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504041019 [Google Scholar]
  11. Maillat, Didier , and Steve Oswald
    2007 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The Pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics1: 348–370. doi: 10.1163/187730909X12535267111651
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187730909X12535267111651 [Google Scholar]
  12. Martín Rojo, Luisa
    2000 “Enfrentamiento y consenso en los debates parlamentarios sobre política de inmigración en España [Confrontation and consensus in parliamentary debates about immigration policy in Spain].” Oralia3: 113–148.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Martín Rojo, Luisa , and Teun A. van Dijk
    1997 “’There was a Problem, and it was Solved!’: Legitimazing the Expulsion of ‘Illegal’ Migrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse.” Discourse and Society8 (4): 523–566. doi: 10.1177/0957926597008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005 [Google Scholar]
  14. Martin, James , and Peter R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Oddo, John
    2011 “War Legitimation Discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in Four US Presidential Addresses.” Discourse and Society22 (3): 287–314. doi: 10.1177/0957926510395442
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395442 [Google Scholar]
  16. Saussure, de Louis
    2005 “Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language and Mind, ed. by Louis Saussure and Peter Schultz , Vol.17, 113–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.07sau [Google Scholar]
  17. Saussure, de Louis , and Peter Schulz
    2005 “Introduction.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language and Mind, ed. by Louis Saussure , and Peter Schulz , Vol.17, 1–9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17.02sau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.02sau [Google Scholar]
  18. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  19. Şimon, Simona
    2008 “The Pragmatic Structure of Written Advertisements.” InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Professional Communication and Translation Studies: Politehnica University of Timişoara, ed. by R. Superceanu and Daniel Dejica , Vol.1, 51–58. Timişoara: Politehnica Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sperber, Dan
    1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” InWhat is Intelligence?ed. by Jean Khalfa , 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (ed.) 2000 “Introduction.” InMetarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, 3–16. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1995 [1986]Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Dijk, Teun
    1992 [1977]Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1998Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2000 “News Racism: A Discourse Analytical Approach.” InEthnic Minorities and the Media, ed. by Simon Cottle , 33–49. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2001 “Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak , and Michael Meyer , 95–120. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9780857028020.d7
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.d7 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2003Ideología y discurso: Una introducción multidisciplinaria [Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction]. 2ª edición. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005a “Contextualization in Parliamentary Discourse: Aznar, Iraq and the Pragmatics of Lying.” Congreso Discurso Oral, Almería24th–26thNovember 2005 Available at: www.discursos.org/ (accessed17th February 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2005b “War Rhetoric of a Little Ally.” Journal of Language and Politics4 (1): 65–91. doi: 10.1075/jlp.4.1.04dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.4.1.04dij [Google Scholar]
  30. 2006 “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse and Society17 (2): 359–383. doi: 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2012 “The Role of the Press in the Reproduction of Racism.” InMigrations: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Michi Messer , 15–29. Vienna: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑7091‑0950‑2_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0950-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Van Eemeren, Frans
    2005 “Foreword: Preview by Review.” InManipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language and Mind, ed. by Louis Saussure , and Peter Schulz , ix–xvi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.17.01eem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.17.01eem [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilson, Deirdre
    2000 “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication.” InMetarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Dan Sperber , 411–448. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.02cab
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.2.02cab
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ideological discourse , manipulation strategies , political speech and self-legitimation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error