CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign
В данной статье прослeживаются принципы членения политического дискурса американской президентской кампании 2008 года на дискурс маркеры. Данная проблема является недостаточно изученной и представляет интерес в сфере политологии и социолингвистики. Было выявлено, что для газетных статей,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Культура народов Причерноморья |
|---|---|
| Datum: | 2008 |
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Russian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Кримський науковий центр НАН України і МОН України
2008
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/24766 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign / О.А.Кроча, Л.К. Жукова // Культура народов Причерноморья. — 2008. — № 138. — С. 129-133. — Бібліогр.: 14 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-24766 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
Кроча, О.А. Жукова, Л.К. 2011-07-23T21:30:55Z 2011-07-23T21:30:55Z 2008 CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign / О.А.Кроча, Л.К. Жукова // Культура народов Причерноморья. — 2008. — № 138. — С. 129-133. — Бібліогр.: 14 назв. — англ. 1562-0808 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/24766 В данной статье прослeживаются принципы членения политического дискурса американской президентской кампании 2008 года на дискурс маркеры. Данная проблема является недостаточно изученной и представляет интерес в сфере политологии и социолингвистики. Было выявлено, что для газетных статей, служащих практическим материалом в изучении поднятой проблемы, наиболее характерна так называемая оппозиция «мы» – «они», благодаря которой и происходит манипулятивное воздействие политического дискурса на читателя. ru Кримський науковий центр НАН України і МОН України Культура народов Причерноморья Студенческие публикации CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign Article published earlier |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| title |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign |
| spellingShingle |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign Кроча, О.А. Жукова, Л.К. Студенческие публикации |
| title_short |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign |
| title_full |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign |
| title_fullStr |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign |
| title_full_unstemmed |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign |
| title_sort |
cda markers of the us 2008 presidential campaign |
| author |
Кроча, О.А. Жукова, Л.К. |
| author_facet |
Кроча, О.А. Жукова, Л.К. |
| topic |
Студенческие публикации |
| topic_facet |
Студенческие публикации |
| publishDate |
2008 |
| language |
Russian |
| container_title |
Культура народов Причерноморья |
| publisher |
Кримський науковий центр НАН України і МОН України |
| format |
Article |
| description |
В данной статье прослeживаются принципы членения политического дискурса
американской президентской
кампании 2008 года на дискурс маркеры. Данная проблема является недостаточно
изученной и представляет интерес в
сфере политологии и социолингвистики. Было выявлено, что для газетных статей,
служащих практическим
материалом в изучении поднятой проблемы, наиболее характерна так называемая
оппозиция «мы» – «они», благодаря
которой и происходит манипулятивное воздействие политического дискурса на
читателя.
|
| issn |
1562-0808 |
| url |
https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/24766 |
| citation_txt |
CDA markers of the US 2008 presidential campaign / О.А.Кроча, Л.К. Жукова // Культура народов Причерноморья. — 2008. — № 138. — С. 129-133. — Бібліогр.: 14 назв. — англ. |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT kročaoa cdamarkersoftheus2008presidentialcampaign AT žukovalk cdamarkersoftheus2008presidentialcampaign |
| first_indexed |
2025-11-26T07:17:31Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-11-26T07:17:31Z |
| _version_ |
1850616861141499904 |
| fulltext |
СТУДЕНЧЕСКИЕ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ
129
период своего пребывания на острове Робинзон называет «земным», затем он приобщается к «воздуху», и, в
конце концов, приходит к прославлению «солнца», культ которого характерен для всех первобытных людей.
По воле автора, Робинзон возвращается к пантеизму древних, к истокам развития цивилизации, сознательно
отказываясь идти вперед, эволюционировать и прогрессировать. Он воспаряет в «лимбы», вневременные,
населенные безгрешными душами, лимбы Тихого океана. [13, c.38].
Робинзон страдает от одиночества на необитаемом острове, но человек не менее одинок и в обществе
себе подобных. «Это все возрастающее чувство одиночества является самой злокачественной язвой
человека современного запада»[12, с.104], – пишет Турнье. Следовательно, чувство одиночества возникает
именно с развитием цивилизации. Появление Пятницы не избавляет Робинзона от одиночества – он по–
прежнему одинок в своей душе, и только когда он становится «естественным человеком», то есть сливается
с природой, то перестает быть одиноким: дикарям неведомо это ощущение, как писал еще Жан–Жак Руссо,
что наглядно демонстрирует Пятница, а вслед за ним и Робинзон.
Как альтернативу жизни в современном цивилизованном обществе, автор предлагает «бегство» в живую
природу, конечной целью которого станет рождение «естественного человека». Только таким путем, по
мнению Турнье, люди могут освободиться от «комплексов» западной цивилизации, родиться заново, чтобы
с новой силой ощутить все прелести жизни человека в естественной среде, найти гармонию с окружающим
миром.
Источники и литература
1. Ominus J. Pour lire Le Clézio.–P. : Presses universitaires de France, 1994. – 218 с.
2. Esine L.–L. Les écrivains sur la selette.–Paris, 1981. – 167 с.
3. De Beaumarchais J.–P., Couty D. Dictionnaire «Grandes oeuvres de la littérature française ».–P.: Larousse,
1997. – 628 с.
4. Горнфельд А.Г. Романы и романисты. – М.: Федерация, 1987. – 284 с.
5. Чавда П. Роман сегодня. – М.: Прогресс, 1975. – 254 с.
6. Колдфли Э. Каким будет роман грядущего. – М.: Прогресс, 1975. – 189с.
7. Мелетинский Е.М. От мифа к литературе. – М.: Рос.гос.гум.ун–т, 2001. – 289 с.
8. Ильин И. Постмодернизм от истоков до конца столетия: эволюция научного мифа. – М., 1998. – 327 с.
9. Уваров Ю.П. Современный французский роман (60–80 годы). – М., 1985. – 102 с.
10. Darcos X. Histoire de la littérature française. – P., 1992. – 528 с.
11. De Boisdeffre P. Les écrivains français d’aujourd’hui (1945–1995).–Vendôme : Presses universitaires de
France, 1994. – 326 с.
12. Иностранная литература: ежемесячный лит.–худ. журнал – 1999 – №4. – С.24–46.
Кроча О.А., Жукова Л.К.
CDA MARKERS OF THE US 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
В данной статье прослeживаются принципы членения политического дискурса американской президентской
кампании 2008 года на дискурс маркеры. Данная проблема является недостаточно изученной и представляет интерес в
сфере политологии и социолингвистики. Было выявлено, что для газетных статей, служащих практическим
материалом в изучении поднятой проблемы, наиболее характерна так называемая оппозиция «мы» – «они», благодаря
которой и происходит манипулятивное воздействие политического дискурса на читателя.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views "the
language as a form of social practice" and focuses on the ways social and political domination is reproduced by text
and talk. CDA developed within some disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, such as Critical Linguistics
[1, 137]. According to Webster's dictionary, the concept discourse has two major meanings: (a) formal
communication of thoughts about a serious subject through words (spoken or written) and (b) rationality or the
ability to reason [2].
`Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis articulates a three–dimensional framework for studying
discourse, "where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or
written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption)
and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice" [3]; [4, s. 25].
Fairclough notes "that language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology, and
through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power"articulates ideology as the basis of the social
representations of groups, and more generally advocates a sociocognitive interface between social structures and
discourse structures. Ruth Wodak emphasizes the importance of a historical dimension in critical discourse studies,
as she also has shown in her work on racism and antisemitism. There is a new way for discourse to evolve, the so
called “neocourse” [3].
Discourse analysis may be defined in the three main dimensions. 1. Concerned with language use beyond the
boundaries of a sentence/utterance; 2. Concerned with the interrelationships between language and society and; 3.
Concerned with the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication.
“The term discourse analysis refers to attempts of study the organisation of language above the sentence or above
the clause, and therefore to the study of larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It
Кроча О.А., Жукова Л.К.
CDA MARKERS OF THE US 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
130
follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language use in social contexts, and in particular with
interaction or dialogue between speakers” [5, s. 17].
Taking into consideration the fact that 2008 presidential campaign is regarded as an issue of the day, it is no
doubt quite critical to carry out the discourse analysis of the lexical markers characteristic of the current political news
covered in various sources. It is also important to mention that the problem is poorly studied in the course of
contemporary Linguistics and Linguistic Culturology as a newly born branch.
The State National Educational Program of Ukraine in the XXI century proclaimed the knowledge of foreign
languages as well as the culture of other countries an inherent part of the general educational strategy in Ukraine and
as one of the main factors intensifying the cultural exchange and integration [6].
This article gives an outline of American presidential campaign of 2008 important for understanding the Political
system of the United States on the material of the current events because it is next to impossible to underestimate the
obvious influence of the United States’ political, social, cultural, economic spheres of life on other countries. The
country itself is so unique, that it has engrossed the attention of other cultures for having no competitive opponent.
Moreover, the article involves the information of theoretical value: the concept of Discourse Analysis, Political
Discourse and discourse markers of political texts.
This work is aiming at systematizing the theoretical material on Political Discourse characteristic of American
presidential campaign, at giving a logical explanation to the opposition of “We” and “They” in the course of discourse
analysis and at fulfilling the outcoming tasks:
a) To define the stages of current presidential campaign and contestants involved in it
b) To spot and highlight the opposition “We” – “They” during the 2008 presidential campaign as revealed
through analyzing the documentation and making a sample of lexical markers with further semantic analysis.
c) To single out lexical markers in a political discourse and describe them.
A lot of discourse research nowadays can no longer be situated neatly within the received academic disciplines
(linguistics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.) and researcher affiliations are often determined rather by
accidental conditions of employment in a particular academic unit than by a singular disciplinary orientation which
characterizes their research output. A number of important elaborations of speech act theory lie in the work of John
Searle. One is that he allocates a central place to communicative intentions (this is based on the assumption that a
speaker has wants, beliefs and intentions which are indexed in the performance of utterances). At the same time, he
develops a typology of speech acts, which for him, is rooted in the range of illocutionary verbs that occur in a given
language. A third contribution of Searle is the development of a theory of indirect speech acts. This concept is
based on the observation that by uttering, say, what appears to be a statement (e.g. "It's hot in here."), language
users often indirectly perform another type of illocutionary act (in the case of the example: voice a request to open
the window).
The undeniable merit of speech act theory lies in advancing a view of language use as action. In Searle's words
“[A] theory of language is part of a theory of action, simply because speaking is a rule–governed form of behavior.
Now, being rule-governed, it has formal features which admit independent study. But a study purely of those
formal features, without a study of their role in speech acts, would be like a formal study of the currency and credit
systems of economies without a study of the role of currency and credit in economic transactions. A great deal can
be said in the study of language without studying speech acts, but any such purely formal theory is necessarily
incomplete. It would be as if baseball were studied only as a formal system of rules and not as a game”[4, s. 39].
There is a new distinction between three different "aspects" of an utterance against the background of a
generalized claim that all utterances are really performatives. This generalized claim is the key assumption of
speech act theory (the theory of "how to do things with words"), viz. by making an utterance, language users
perform one or more social acts. These are called 'speech acts'. The threefold distinction is that between different
types of action. For instance, by speaking an utterance locution, you may perform the social act of making a
promise illocution – what the speaker does by using the utterance) and, as a result, convince your audience of your
commitment perlocution – what the speaker has done, having made the utterance [4, s. 30]. Political discourse is
the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve
a societal problem. It is intended to involve all citizens in the making of the decision, persuade others (through valid
information and logic), and clarify what course of action would be most effective in solving the societal problem.
The purposes of political discourse include
(a) clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue,
(b) helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment as to which course of action will solve a problem,
(c) increasing citizen participation in the political process, and
(d) socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens.
A responsibility of psychology within a democratic society is to provide the theory, research, and normative
procedures needed to make political discourse constructive. Constructive controversy provides a theory, validated
by research, which has been operationalized into a normative procedure. Constructive controversy exists when one
person's ideas, information, conclusions, theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another, and the two
seek to reach an agreement. A political decision is reached through the following procedure. Citizens form
advocacy groups and present the best case possible for the alternative course of action they prefer. An open
discussion is held in which each citizens continue to advocate their position while trying to refute opposing
positions and rebutting attacks on their position. Citizens then step back, try to view the issue from the other points
of view, and then come to a joint decision based on the best reasoned judgment of all citizens. The theorizing about
and validating research provides an empirical base for political discourse and guidelines for conducting political
СТУДЕНЧЕСКИЕ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ
131
campaigns [5, s. 3].
A continuing issue with political campaigns is how to engage in political persuasion. The procedures used will
affect both the outcome of the elections and the ongoing health of American democracy and democracies (both
mature and developing) throughout the world. In addition, the procedures used will model for the next generation
how to engage in the political process and will affect their attitudes about done so.
Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders of the American Republic, considered political discourse to be the heart
of democracy. Jefferson believed that instead of the social rank within which a person was born, the basis of influence
within society should be discourse in a free and open discussion characterized by conflict among ideas and opinions.
He noted, "Differences of opinion lead to inquiry, and inquiry to truth" [7, s. 241].
While political discourse is essential to a democracy, and informed decisions may be impossible unless
political discourse occurs, elections can be conducted and decisions made in democracies without it. There are
dangers when political discussion becomes destructive rather than illuminating. Destructive political persuasion
exists when misleading, superficial, or irrelevant information is presented in ways that decrease citizens'
understanding of the issue,it results in an absence of thoughtful consideration of the issue, and decreases citizen
participation in the political process. Discourse may be replaced by other means of persuasion, such as using deceit
through misinformation, de-emphasizing and ignoring important issues, positioning, pandering to voters, and
focusing on the candidates (not the issues) through commercials (imagery and slogans) or argumentum ad
hominem. Argumentum ad hominem consists of directing arguments at the opponent rather than at his or her
ideas and proposals. Ad hominem arguments can involve questioning the motives of the opponent, accusing the
opponent of acting on personal interest, accusing the opponent of inconsistency, or accusing the opponent of past
misconduct. In essence, ad–hominem arguments communicate that the opponent is "bad," and therefore must be
wrong. By focusing attention on the candidates rather than the issues, such persuasive procedures may be markedly
unhelpful in clarifying which course of action society should adopt. In addition, ad–hominem arguments weaken
the moral bond underlying the democratic process, undermine tolerance (discouraging others from presenting
opposing positions), undermine trust in the political system, and undermine the overall positive interdependence
that holds society together. Negative persuasive procedures used under the guise of political discourse may
discredit political discourse and disillusion citizens about the political process. Political discourse may then be
ignored or rejected [5, s. 31].
The power of the personal attack rather than discourse in campaigning is illustrated by the negativity effect.
The negativity effect exists when a negative trait affects an impression more than a positive trait, everything else
being equal [8, s. 889]. There is evidence that individuals tend to pay special attention to negative information [9,
59] and weigh negative information more heavily than positive information [10, 49], especially in regard to moral
traits. In a wide variety of studies, ranging from forming impressions about other people to evaluating positive and
negative information to reach a decision or judgment, negative information figured more prominently than positive
information. Capitalizing on the power of negativity, however, may be inherently dangerous to the health of a
democracy. “Adlai Stevenson (1952), for example, noted that it is the American "tradition of critical inquiry and
discussion that informs our entire civilization" but critical inquiry only advances the general welfare when its
purpose is honest. He notes that "criticism, not as an instrument of inquiry and reform, but as an instrument of
power, quickly degenerates into the techniques of deceit and smear” [11, s. 892].
What Stevenson and others point out is that when negative personal attacks are used as an instrument of power,
they tend to (a) increase intolerance aimed at the other person and the views he or she represents (which is directly
opposite to the values of democracy which emphasize tolerance of others even if they are promoting unpopular
views), (b) undermine trust and other influences on political participation, and (c) undermine the overall positive
interdependence and moral bonds that hold society together. The more widespread the use of negative personal
attacks, the greater tends to be the disillusionment of citizens about the political process and a decrease in their
participation [5, s. 49].
The United States presidential election of 2008, to be held on November 4, 2008, will be the 55th consecutive
quadrennial election for president and vice president of the United States. The increasing interest in this political
event can be determined in many ways and first of all by general attention to the country and the American political
and cultural life being a quite explicable tendency for the United States of America are often in the “vanguard of the
process of modernization and reforms that take place in the rest of the world after some time” [12, s. 15].
As the indisputable condition for the very existence of the U.S. remains preservation and protection of freedom,
democracy and equal opportunities for further prosperity of the nation that moves to the other nations of the world.
Secondly, as laid out by the United States Constitution, the individual who receives a majority of votes for president
in the Electoral College – 270 are needed for a majority – will be the 44th president of the United States and the
American society is not the only one interested in the outcome. This election is the first to be without incumbents in
the primaries since 1928. Traditionally, when a United States President leaves office, his vice president is usually
considered a leading candidate and likely nominee to succeed him. However, current Vice President Dick Cheney
announced in 2001 that he would never run for president, a statement he reiterated in 2004.
Thirdly, this occasion is special and unique for the history of American presidential elections being the first
election with a lady and an Afro-American front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama respectively.
At the present stage of the presidential campaign we deal with the “front–runners”. “Front runner” status is
dependent on the news agency reporting, but by July 2007, the consensus listed about six candidates as leading the
pack. For example, Ted Rall lists Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Obama and Romney as the front runners. But
“The Washington Post” listed Clinton, Edwards and Obama as the Democratic front runners, “leading in the polls and
fundraising and well ahead of the other major candidates”. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd christened Giuliani and McCain
Кроча О.А., Жукова Л.К.
CDA MARKERS OF THE US 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
132
the Republican front runners after the second Republican presidential campaign though another leader of this contest
should be mentioned. This is Mitt Romney a former Governor of Massachusetts.
As the purpose of discourse analysis is to reveal the principles of the text construction the main characteristics
of a political discourse is that the opposition “We” – “They” is apparent in the texts of newspapers. We deal not
only with a contest on an interparty or inner-Party level but also the one conducted with the representatives of mass
media and other non–political sides. The discourse analysis of the American press makes it possible to present the
mentioned above notions with the help of a diagram presenting the opponents from two points of view: on the one
hand, they appeal to public and on the other hand, they are alien to it. Arrows indicate contest between the sides
conveyed from the recent news coverage.
The first pattern introduces the ‘Fox News’ network and the Obama camp as the sides of opposition, with the
former being “We” and the latter being “They”. ‘Fox News’ reporters blame the Obama camp for “freezing out” the
network after they published the “erroneous Obama–the jihadist story” reported by ‘Insight’ magazine. It is not
difficult to imagine that the journalists make an attempt of sanitizing themselves, “suffering the most and doing
nothing wrong” pointing out that it was the Hillary Clinton’s camp which found out that Obama, as a child, was
educated at a Muslim madrassah in Indonesia. The mentioned above argumentum ad hominem carrying a negativity
effect is well traced from this example. The conflict involves the other participants, placed in the same context and
even within the same sentence boundaries, tracing the opposition more explicitly, highlighting the idea of contest
and the aspiration for obtaining justice. “One source familiar with the dynamic between ‘Fox’ and Obama , who
asked not to be named, said Obama and his staff are in for a rude awakening if they think they can write off ‘Fox
News’.” The further on developed narration suggests that the “icy conditions” are not permanent as “a thawing of
sorts may already have begun thanks to two telephone conversations ‘Fox News’ Channel CEO Roger Ailes (“We”)
had with Obama (“They”). And by the end of the given discourse the most biased reader would treat the Obama
campaign aide who stated that the senator “has not received any written apology”, as “They” [13].
The second pattern presents quite the reverse approach: the ‘Fox News’ Network being “They” and Barrack
Obama belonging to the notion “We”. It is pointed out that certainly the Fox News would be there after the
election, and the Obama campaign might not, but it is highly essential to consider their good name and stop
“bottom–fishing” as “Obama does have good reason to resent the way some of the people at ‘Fox’ tried to portray
him as a terrorist.”
The third pattern concerns the contest between the candidates of the Democratic Party: Hillary Clinton depicted
as “They” for “digging dirt on her opponent” and exposing Obama as a possible enemy not to be trusted” and
Barrack Obama (“We”) suffering from her negative campaigning.
Quite the opposite position is conveyed in the fourth pattern which is clearly meant to expose Obama as a weak
and badly informed politician and Hillary Clinton the most likely candidate to head the nation: “I would be scared
to death if President Obama had a summit with someone like Ahmadinejad. Naïve Obama would be eaten alive.
Hillary wouldn’t” [13].
Thus it is quite apparent that a political discourse of the American presidential campaign aims at manipulating
people’s attention and attitudes towards candidates, their platform, backers, the political parties, etc. This effect is
carried out through the opposition of “We” and “They” based on the essential knowledge of cognitive and social
psychology.
A lot of research works are devoted to the study of Discourse Analysis, although much more attention is paid
to the problems of definition and function of discourse markers. Discourse markers are usually understood as
lexical units, which signify a definite type of semantic relations in the contiguous segments of discourse. They also
serve as the instruction to a correct interpretation of discourse. From the syntactic point of view they are not a
homogenous class of lexical units and they are to be viewed as possible alternatives of paradigmatic choice [14].
The discourse markers coordinate the utterance in the course of speech, and therefore are defined as lexical
indexes carrying out a metacommunicational function in the text. Like other deictic elements the discourse markers
may be divided into two groups: proximal and distant depending on coordination of the deictic centre or the locus
of coordinates of the listener, the speaker, the time, the place. It is necessary to point out that the deictic centre is
determined by the discourse parameters and includes both the participants of communication and the text. The
Obama
camp
Media
Clinton
camp
СТУДЕНЧЕСКИЕ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ
133
discourse markers show that the utterance is centered on the speaker and this is the proxy group and on the listener
who represents the distant group.
The speaker may aim at bringing the listener nearer, involve him in his anticipations like Tom Bevan from
“The Daily Clinton” does. To shorten the distance he uses political slang as “memo” standing for “memorandum”,
the phrase “her beating Obama 49% to 23%” and this ingratiating way of presentation can by all means gain the
adherents. Though the deictic center changes and we trace the distant discourse markers of the quoted sources,
these include: The Daily News, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times of London, USA Today, The
Guardian. The quotations play a significant role in manipulative discourse, seeming to be the most convincing
devices. Though, when referring to the connection of the previous utterance with the further one, the former
discourse markers become proximal and the latter – distant. Hence, the above mentioned distant markers become
proximal followed by the utterances which supplement them: “… the ‘Washington Post’ writes that Clinton’s
appearance yesterday gives a glimpse of how she’ll cast herself as a Presidential candidate (proxy group): “the
mother of a daughter, as a serious student of policy and as a two–term senator from New York”(distant group).
“USA Today revisits the issue of Clinton’s electability (proxy group) – or lack thereof – calling the former First
Lady a “complicated package”(distant group). ‘The Times’ of London (proxy group): “Clinton aims to show she is
tough and a bit tender” (distant group) [13], [14].
The discourse markers may occur on different language levels and may involve various language aspects.
The survey shows the stylistic devices like anaphora “Clinton will be a worthy winner with the potential to be
the worthy president”, zeugma: “… candidates are either raising money or raising questions about why they aren’t
raising money”, personification: “Iowa always tends to punish the front–runner right down at the end of the
campaign”, etc., serve as discourse markers or “contextual coordinates for utterances” according to Schiffrin.
The syntactic markers as conditionals may highlight implicit criticism of the participants or their actions : “If a
candidate is serious about running for president, he or she is going to need a network like ‘Fox’ to reach out to all
those voters in the red and purple states”. The author of this article, Mary Ann Akers, aims at expressing her idea of
Obama’s being inappropriate and unserious candidate, pointing out that his position is unstable and conventional.
Most discourse markers are traced on the lexical level. These are words with strong connotational components
such as “feuds [between candidates]”, implying the highest level of animosity and in this way attracting the readers’
attention by its unusual application in the political discourse, where the word “contest” is commonly more
frequently used. The negative emotive charge is apparent in the examples: “icy conditions”, “candidate is trailing
by 20 points in the polls”, “zero knowledge of foreign policy” etc.
Phraseological units usually serve as discourse markers of the political discourse: “[aides] weren’t breaking
their backs to go ask”, “white elephant”, “take boots on the ground”, “loose steam” etc. and these markers are
inherent components of the political texts [13].
Hence, the objects of discourse analysis – discourse, writing, talk, conversation, communicative event, etc. –
are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech acts or turns–at–talk.
Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use “beyond the sentence
boundary”, but also prefer to analyze “naturally occurring” language use, and not invented examples. US 2008
Presidential campaign with so many front runners and such extraordinary Democratic front runners is a bountiful
field for Critical Discourse Analysis.
The Main Sources Used:
1. Хроленко А.Т. Основы лингвокультурологии. М.: «Флинта», «Наука», 2005. – 181с.
2. Webser’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary / – A Merriam–Webster Inc. Publishers , Springfield ,
Massachusetts , USA , 1991. – 1566 p.
3. www.http://en.wikipedia.org
4. Norman Fairclough. Critical Discourse Analysis University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 1995 – 188p.
5. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson Civil Political Discourse In A Democracy: The Contribution Of
Psychology University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, April, 2000; Revised May, 2000– 225p.
6. Державна національна програма “Освіта” в Україні століття/ Постановление Кабинета Министров
Украины от 3 ноября 1993г. №896 (896 – 93 –п).
7. Carter Smith. Presidents: Every Question Answered. – New York, Hylas Publising, 2004. – 400p
8. Fiske, S. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, № 38, Р.: 889–906.
9. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Constructive controversy and learning.
Review of Educational Research, № 49, Р.: 51–61.
10. Coovert, M., & Reeder, G. (1990). Negativity effects in impression formation: The role of unit formation and
schematic expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, № 26, Р.: 49–62.
11. Ames, G., & Murray, F. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social
conflict. Developmental Psychology, № 18, Р.: 892–895.
12. Жукова Л.К. , Смирнова Н.С. Windows on USA : Учебное пособие по Лингвострановедению США .
Симф., 2003.– 464с.
13. www.usatoday.com
14. www.erudition.ru
|