scholarly journals The pragmatics of hedges in political communication: A critical discourse analysis of the 2016 US presidential debates

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danqi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Presidential Debates

scholarly journals ARGUMENTATIVE STATEMENTS IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES OF THE U.S: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-174
Author(s):  
Rohmani Nur Indah ◽  
Andini Khoirunnisa
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Claim Data ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Self Presentation ◽  
Mind Control ◽  
Toulmin’S Model

This study investigates the argumentative statements of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the debates. By employing two theories, Van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Toulmin's model of argument, it aims to expose how various ideologies are expressed in the structure of arguments. It uses Toulmin (2003) model of argument to analyze the structures of argumentation during the debates constituting six elements (i.e. claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal). While Van Dijk’s framework covering three levels of discourse structure (the meaning, the argumentation and the rhetoric) is used to analyze the reproduction of racism, manipulation, and Islamophobia. The result indicates the discourse of the candidates contributes the reproduction of manipulation by focusing on the positive self-presentation of “us” (civilized) and negative other-presentationof “them” (terrorists) as a mind control of the audience.

scholarly journals The Conceptual Apparatus for a Critical Analysis of Speech: Discourse and Authority: الأجهزة المفهومية للتحليل النقدي للخطاب: الخطاب والسلطة

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hammani Hassane
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Analysis Theory ◽  
Communicative Theory ◽  
Linguistic Approach

This article sums up the discussion of a deep structural, linguistic and communicative theory. It is related to different but interconnected fields that enable a meticulous approach to the text, for it focuses on different aspects: starting with the outer layer, going through the structure and ending with its reception. It is the critical discourse analysis, which is a modern linguistic approach that works on the explanation and interpretation of language by going beyond the structure of a sentence and the textual interrelations to reach all the dominant social and historical contexts. Its goal is to analyze the discourse from a critical perspective through scrutiny, refutation and questioning. This approach has been part of the discourse analysis theory since the 60s as a body of knowledge that combines different fields, such as politics, sociology, psychoanalysis and rhetoric. It is concerned with studying political communication in society.

scholarly journals Oligarchical Populism; The Analysis of President Joko Widodo's Political Communication

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 446-458
Author(s):  
Andi Andi ◽  
Anang Sujoko ◽  
Wawan Sobari
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Capital City ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
Regional Area ◽  
First Impression

There are two perspectives toward the appearance of Joko Widodo (Jokowi) to a national political field. The first impression represents optimism towards political decentralization in Indonesia is by addressing Jokowi as a populist figure who can be a politician from a regional area to a capital city. Then, the second impression represents the oligarchy thesis, which is called the rise of Jokowi to a national political landscape because of oligarchies firmly rooted in Indonesia. This study aims to analyze Jokowi’s political communication through populism and oligarchy framework, and the domination of both. This study uses the transformative critical paradigm with the critical discourse analysis (CDA) Teun. A van Dijk’s model as method. The communication of Jokowi’s politics related to corruption eradication, investment escalation, and freedom of expression are analyzed critically by using that method. The result reveals that Jokowi is under two political concepts which contrast to one another, namely populism and oligarchy. These concepts make Jokowi a weak figure who fights the oligarchy’s will. Consequently, Jokowi is not sincerely fighting the KPK’s weakening strategy, inconsistency in developing investment, and the non-sense statement about freedom of expression. In this case, Jokowi (a populist) is being in the oligarchs’ co-optation or ‘oligarchical populism’.

scholarly journals Critical Discourse Analysis: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches

2019 ◽  
pp. 206-216
Author(s):  
Marina Matytsina
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Cognitive Theory ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Social Coordination ◽  
Methodological Approaches

The article is devoted to formation and development of discourse analysis as an effective method to study functional aspects of political communication in global political space. It reports on main theoretical and methodological approaches to critical analysis of political discourse. Mainly, it deals with theoretical and methodological perspectives of three leading schools of critical discourse analysis: discourse analysis of N. Fairclough, that presents a relational approach to considering social problems in their relation to textual analysis; socio-cognitive theory of T.A. van Dijk, oriented to investigating relations between cognitive structures, discourse and social coordination; discourse analysis of R. Wodak, that uses historical approach to discourse and is aimed at description of powerful language of the elite that helps to maintain dominance in society. The paper characterizes some frameworks of critical analysis of political discourse, including the Duisburg School of Critical Discourse Analysis (S. Jäger, F. Maier), System-Functional and Social-Semiotic Theory (M. Halliday, T. van Leeuwen), and Mediated Discourse Analysis (R. Scollon, S. Scollon). It is stated that within its boundaries critical discourse analysis includes a variety of approaches, analytical tools and methodologies. The author underlines that scientific consideration of critical discourse analysis will demonstrate its potential and prospects for integrating this interdisciplinary qualitative methodology into a set of empirical tools of modern political science.

scholarly journals War Metaphors in Political Communication on Covid-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunice Castro Seixas
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Crisis Communication ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Metaphor Analysis ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
War Metaphor

Although militaristic metaphors have been pervasive during health crisis in political and science communication, few works have examined how these linguistic devices may influence crisis communication. Drawing on critical discourse analysis (CDA) and on crisis communication literature, I show how political representatives have used the war metaphor for very different purposes in terms of crisis communication and management of the current Covid-19 pandemic. I suggest that these findings challenge previous criticisms of the war metaphor as inherently negative and damaging. Finally, I discuss possibilities of using CDA, and specifically, metaphor analysis to inform and expand crisis communication.

Acclaims, attacks, defenses: Critical discourse analysis of Ma Ying-jeou’s 2012 Taiwan presidential debates discourse

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-43
Author(s):  
Maria Cheng
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
New Era ◽  
Linguistic Strategies ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Attacks And Defenses ◽  
The Impact

Taiwan, under both domestic socio-political pressures and exogenous diplomatic shocks, underwent a democratization process since the 80s in the last century. Presidential debates became a part of the election benefiting from Taiwan’s media liberalization, and are closely related to the Taiwan’s democratization process. Ma Ying-jeou’s landslide victory in the 2008 Taiwan Presidential Election marked Taiwan’s second democratic transfer of power (with the first one taking place in 2000) and started a new era in cross-strait relations. Due to the Kuomintang (KMT) government’s performance falling short of the people’s expectations during Ma’s governance, however, Ma encountered a neck-and-neck challenge in his second term presidential election. This article adopts a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective to investigate Ma Ying-jeou’s deliberate manipulation of linguistic strategies including selective modality choices to formulate his acclaims, attacks and defenses in the 2012 Taiwan televised presidential debates. This analysis reveals his employment of negative and positive linguistic choices in addressing his opponents’ arguments and casting doubt on his key opponent as well as depicting his leadership and character traits and conveying his high degree of commitment to gain the support of the electorate to offer him an opportunity to continue his stewardship of the country. It examines also how us-you, in addition to us-them polarization, was used as a discursive tool of attack during the debates; and identifies the impact of his discourse on the election outcome in 2012. The investigation of Ma’s engagement in televised presidential debates thus offers a snapshot into Taiwan’s democratization process.

scholarly journals Iraq in the American Presidential Debate Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 260
Author(s):  
Huda H. Khalil ◽  
Nawal F. Abbas
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Speech Acts ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Presidential Debate

The present paper aims at identifying both the American Republican and Democratic presidential nominees’ (Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s) ideologies towards Iraq in the only three American presidential debates held before the presidential elections of 2016. The presidential nominees participated in the three debates have been the same (Clinton and Trump). These debates have synchronized with one of the toughest periods in which Iraq was fighting ISIS. To arrive at these ideologies, the three presidential debates discourse has been critically analyzed depending on Van Dijk’s socio- cognitive approach. The linguistic tools selected as means to manifest the ideologies are global topics, local semantics and speech acts. The analysis has shown that the three American presidential debates represent a rich ideology discourse and that both Clinton and Trump share certain ideologies towards Iraq but differ in the majority of these ideologies. Both presidential nominees have taken advantage of the issue of Iraq in the debates to achieve certain electoral benefits. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document