scholarly journals Manipulating De/Legitimation in Translation of Political Discourse

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasool Moradi-Joz
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Communicative Action ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Discourse Studies ◽  
Political Speeches ◽  
Discursive Strategy ◽  
Field Of Inquiry

This study seeks to gain an insight into political speech subtitle, focusing on de/legitimation as a macro-linguistic discursive strategy reflecting micro-linguistic discursive strategies so as to exemplify as to how such a discursive representation could be mediated through translation as a socio-communicative action and translation studies as a growing interdisciplinary field of inquiry. To this end, a twofold theoretical framework at both macro-linguistic and micro-linguistic levels is employed – consisting of a quadruple categorization of legitimation developed by Leeuwen (2008) on political discourse (PD) and Fairclough’s (2003) critical discourse analysis (CDA) model on linguistic modality – to analyze one of the political speeches delivered by the Iranian former president Mahmood Ahmadinejad and subtitled into English by MEMRITV (Middle East Media Research Institute TV). The results, confirming political discourse and its translation as a means of de/legitimation, indicate that although there are no overt manipulations regarding the discourse of de/legitimation in the target text (TT), the manipulation of micro-linguistic device of modality constitutes a degree of covert manipulation of de-legitimizing discourse, altering the author's (the source text enunciator’s) commitment to truth. It is concluded that viewing translation of political discourse as a means of de/legitimization in the context of micro-linguistic aspects such as modality could probably open a fruitful avenue to discourse studies in general and translation studies in particular.

Representation, conceptualization and positioning in Critical Discourse Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-294
Author(s):  
Piotr Cap
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Space Theory ◽  
Discourse Studies

Abstract The present paper explores the current nexus between Cognitive Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), focusing on theories of conceptual positioning, distancing and perspective-taking in discourse space. It assesses the strengths, limitations, and prospects for further operationalization of positioning as a valid methodology in CDA, and political discourse studies in particular. In the first part, I review the cognitive models of positioning that have made the most significant contribution to CDA. Discussing Deictic Space Theory and Text World Theory, among others, I argue that these models reveal further theoretical potential which has not been exploited yet. While they offer a comprehensive and plausible account of how representations and ideologically charged worldviews are established, they fail to deliver a pragmatic explanation of how addressees are made to establish a worldview, in the service of speaker’s goals. The second part of the paper outlines Proximization Theory, a discursive model of crisis and conflict construction in political discourse. I argue that, unlike the other models, it fully captures the complex geopolitical and ideological positioning in political discourse space, providing a viable handle on the dynamics of conflict between the opposing ideologies of the space.

scholarly journals Unknown agents in translated political discourse

Target ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Schäffner
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
Translation Studies ◽  
Critical Discourse

This article investigates the role of translation and interpreting in political discourse. It illustrates discursive events in the domain of politics and the resulting discourse types, such as jointly produced texts, press conferences and speeches. It shows that methods of Critical Discourse Analysis can be used effectively to reveal translation and interpreting strategies as well as transformations that occur in recontextualisation processes across languages, cultures, and discourse domains, in particular recontextualisation in mass media. It argues that the complexity of translational activities in the field of politics has not yet seen sufficient attention within Translation Studies. The article concludes by outlining a research programme for investigating political discourse in translation.

scholarly journals ‘And we are Stuck in One Place, Minister.’ A Study of Evasiveness in Replies to Face-Threatening Questions in Slovak Political Interviews on Scandals (A Combined Approach)

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 690-704
Author(s):  
Jana Lokajová
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Cognitive Frames ◽  
Communicative Strategies ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Conceptual Background ◽  
Political Argumentation ◽  
Discourse Studies

Abstract The phenomenon of political evasiveness in the genre of a political interview has been the focus of several discourse studies employing conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis and the social psychology approach. Most of the above-mentioned studies focus on a detailed qualitative analysis of political discourse identifying a wide range of communication strategies that permit politicians to ambiguate their agency and at the same time boost their positive face. Since these strategies may change over time and also be subject to a culture specific environment, the aim of this paper is to discover a) which evasive communicative strategies were employed by Slovak politicians in 2012–2016, b) which lexical substitutions were most frequently used by them to avoid negative connotations of face-threatening questions, and finally, c) which cognitive frames formed a frequent conceptual background of their evasive political argumentation. The paper will draw on a combination of quantitative and qualitative approach to the analysis of non-replies devised by Bull and Mayer (1993) and critical discourse analysis in the sample of five Slovak radio interviews aired on the Rádio Express. The selection of interviews was not random- in each interview the politician was asked highly conflictual questions about bribery, embezzlement or disputes in the coalition. Based on qualitative research of Russian-Slovak political discourse (2009) by Dulebová it is hypothesized that a) the evasive strategy of ‘attack’ on the opposition and ‘attack on the interviewer’ would occur in our sample with the highest prominence in the speech of the former Prime Minister Fico, and b) the politicians accused of direct involvement in scandals would be the most evasive ones.

scholarly journals Critical Metaphor Analysis of Political Discourse in Nigeria

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Isaiah I. Agbo ◽  
Goodluck C. Kadiri ◽  
Blessing Ugo Ijem
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Metaphor Analysis ◽  
Linguistic Style ◽  
The People ◽  
Critical Metaphor Analysis ◽  
Figure Of Speech ◽  
Political Speeches ◽  
Identification Analysis

Metaphor is an important figure of speech copiously deployed in political discourse. In this study, we adopted the framework of Charteris-Black’s (2004) Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) which derives from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).This framework is interested in exploring the implicit intentions of language users, the ideological configurations and the hidden power relations within socio-political and cultural contexts. It captures the ideological and conceptual nature of metaphor, and transmits truth alive into the hearts of the people by passion. The thrust of this study is the identification, analysis and interpretation of the ideological and conceptual metaphors in the speeches we studied that create a particular linguistic style, conceptualize the speakers’ experiences and transmit their ideologies for rhetoric and argumentation purposes. The corpus of this study is limited to the political speeches of Brigadier Sani Abacha in 1984 and 1993, General Ibrahim Babangida in 1985 and 1993, M.K.O. Abiola in 1993 and 1994, and Goodluck Ebele Jonathan in 2013. The study reveals that the speakers use metaphors as tools to enact power and wield influence on their audience. There is further the use of metaphors for the purpose of argumentation thereby promoting self-ideologies and power asymmetric. Furthermore, the study shows that the speakers in the speeches we analysed use metaphors as a strategy to identify with the people so as to create a bond between them. Finally, our speakers use metaphors to manipulate their audience both mentally and conceptually, polarize between them and the conceived enemies, and dominate their audience; and conceal and conceptualize experience in order to reframe realities to suit their interests.

Unpacking the worlds in our words: Critical discourse analysis and social work inquiry

2021 ◽  
pp. 147332502199086
Author(s):  
Sandra M Leotti ◽  
Erin P Sugrue ◽  
Nichole (Nick) Winges-Yanez
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Social Phenomena ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Field Of Inquiry ◽  
The Way

Critical discourse analysis is a rapidly growing, interdisciplinary field of inquiry that combines linguistic analysis and social theory to address the way power and dominance are enacted and reproduced in text. Critical discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the construction of social phenomena and involves a focus on the wider social, political, and historical contexts in which talk and text occur, exploring the way in which theories of reality and relations of power are encoded and enacted in language. Critical discourse analysis moves beyond considering what the text says to examining what the text does. As an interdisciplinary and eclectic field of inquiry, critical discourse analysis has no unifying theoretical perspective, standard formula, or essential methods. As such, there is much confusion around what critical discourse analysis is, what it is not, and the types of projects for which it can be fruitfully employed. This article seeks to provide clarity on critical discourse analysis as an approach to research and to highlight its relevance to social work scholarship, particularly in relation to its vital role in identifying and analyzing how discursive practices establish, maintain, and promote dominance and inequality.

scholarly journals WHO ARE AMERICANS? ANALYSIS OF OBAMA AND TRUMP’S POLITICAL SPEECHES ON IMMIGRATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-87
Author(s):  
Sonia Tinshe ◽  
Junaidi Junaidi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Political ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Speeches ◽  
American Society

Immigration has been a crucial discussion in the American politics ever since the nation was still writing its constitution. Seeing how immigrants have shaped the American society, it is important to see how they are perceived, as minorities, by significant political figures, such as the president. The objective of this paper is to understand the ideology behind Obama and Trump’s political speeches about immigration, as well as its relevance to the political discourse and social context in America. Five political speeches from Obama (2009-2014), as well as two political speeches from Trump (2016-2017) are analyzed, as the primary data, using Critical Discourse Analysis, particularly Fairclough’s (1993) three-dimensional framework. The finding shows that Obama’s and Trump’s ideology on immigration is related with their idea of the immigrant’s identity in American society. It is shown through their word choice, such as pejorative adjective, and the theme related with the issue of immigration. Seen from the political discourse, the speeches are showing perceived superiority that the presidents have over immigrants. Moreover, from the social perspective, it dehumanizes and reduces the identity of immigrants.

scholarly journals WHO ARE AMERICANS? ANALYSIS OF OBAMA AND TRUMP’S POLITICAL SPEECHES ON IMMIGRATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Sonia Tinshe ◽  
Junaidi Junaidi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Political ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Speeches ◽  
American Society

Immigration has been a crucial discussion in the American politics ever since the nation was still writing its constitution. Seeing how immigrants have shaped the American society, it is important to see how they are perceived, as minorities, by significant political figures, such as the president. The objective of this paper is to understand the ideology behind Obama and Trump’s political speeches about immigration, as well as its relevance to the political discourse and social context in America. Five political speeches from Obama (2009-2014), as well as two political speeches from Trump (2016-2017) are analyzed, as the primary data, using Critical Discourse Analysis, particularly Fairclough’s (1993) three-dimensional framework. The finding shows that Obama’s and Trump’s ideology on immigration is related with their idea of the immigrant’s identity in American society. It is shown through their word choice, such as pejorative adjective, and the theme related with the issue of immigration. Seen from the political discourse, the speeches are showing perceived superiority that the presidents have over immigrants. Moreover, from the social perspective, it dehumanizes and reduces the identity of immigrants.

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Grace Natalie Louisa’s Speech

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adib Rifqi Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Political Purpose

The Critical Discourse Analysis is often applied to analyze political discourse including the political speech. This article analyzes Grace Natalie Louisa’s Speech, mainly in Festival 11 by Partai Solidaritas Indonesia (PSI), that is exclusively based on the perspective of Teun Adrianus van Dijk. It reveals that we can learn how to deliver our ideology to public. Moreover, we can have a better understanding of the political purpose of these speeches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document