Pronominal Choice in Political Interviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22364/BJELLC.01.2011.05Keywords:
media rhetoric, persuasive discourse, political interviews, personal pronouns, linguistic strategy, discourse analysisAbstract
Ways of achieving interactional goals of interpersonal involvement, responsibility and trustworthiness are fundamental to the political arena. The aim of this paper was to investigate the pragmatics of the pronominal choice in two political interviews. Discourse analysis was used to determine if personal pronouns functioned exclusively pertaining to the speakers’ interactional goals and to evaluate their use in the light of what the interlocutor expected. The results revealed that the politician who created interpersonal involvement with the audience and used comprehensible and clear language established credibility, and such a strategy was more likely to receive positive evaluation. It may be concluded that the politician’s communicative success may depend on the extent to which the applied linguistic strategy meets the expectations of the interlocutor. In such a case, the interactional goals of interpersonal involvement with its sub-components of responsibility and trustworthiness may be evaluated positively. Thus, the lack of trustworthiness may be experienced due to the politician’s failure to communicate important meaning components.
References
Atkinson, J.M. (1984) Public speaking and audience responses: some techniques for inviting applause. In J.Maxwell and J.Heritage (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. (pp. 370-410) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1989) Sociolinguisic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Cockcroft, R. and Cockcroft, S. (2005) Persuading People. London: Macmillan.
Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds) Evaluation in Text (pp. 56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Druszak, A. (2010) Re-reading the communist past in Poland: The dynamics of Us and Them. In Druszak, A., House J., Kumiega, L. (eds.) Globalization, Discourse, Media: in a Critical Perspective (pp.191-209). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.
Durant, A. and Lambrou, M. (2009) Language and Media. A Resource Book for Students. London and New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gumperz, J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maitland, K. and Wilson, J. (1987) Pronominal selection and ideological conflict. Journal of Pragmatics, 11: 495-512.
McCarthy, M. (1994) It, this and that. In Coulthard, M. (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis (pp. 266-275. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pennycook, A. (1994) The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2):173-8.
O’Keeffe, A. (2007) Investigating Media Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
O’Keeffe, A. (2002) Exploring indices of national identity in a corpus of radio phone-in data from Irish radio. In Macarro, A.S. (ed.) Windows on the World: Media Discourse in England (pp. 91-113). Valencia: University of Valencia Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994) Making a list. Discourse Processes, 17: 377-406.
Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wales, K. (1996) Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muhlhausler, P. and Harre, R. (1990) Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
