Author :
Abstract
This study provides a framework for the way stance and evaluation function to construct identity in political discourse. The approach adopted in this study is mixed method paradigm where tools of corpus linguistics are used including keyness and concordance reading. The analysis shows the association between evaluative expressions and the construction of the political self on the one hand, and stance resources and how the way they index subjectivity through identifying their co-selections on the other. It investigates the way politicians exercise epistemic control to enhance or mitigate the certainty of their assertions; such as (im) personal factive predicates (e.g. I know) and epistemic expressions of subjective beliefs (e.g. I believe). It reveals that positive evaluation is used to express stance attributed to identity-related terms in defining Obama’s administration. Co-occurring with identity-related words, ‘we believe’ co-occurs with deontic modalityand backgrounding of social actors in making altruistic promises. ‘I believe’ co-occurs with epistemic stance, but the evaluation is attributed to the political self. The parenthetical ‘we know’ is associated with hypothetical future and prediction expressed with certainty in legitimating policies. Similarly, ‘I know’ is used to emphasise the epistemic stance in a linguistic context where cause conjunctions are co-selected as a legitimating strategy for positive self- presentation. Thus, evaluating an action and taking a stance are accompanied either with manipulative or legitimating strategies which is a new insight into the study of political discourse and this is what makes this study significant as it fills a gap in knowledge. Based on the findings, the study presents a new model illustrating the intersection of stance and evaluation in constructing attitudinal identity and representing the role played by these two linguistic resources in legitimating claimsand expressing attitudes.
Keywords
Abstract
This study provides a framework for the way stance and evaluation function to construct identity in political discourse. The approach adopted in this study is mixed method paradigm where tools of corpus linguistics are used including keyness and concordance reading. The analysis shows the association between evaluative expressions and the construction of the political self on the one hand, and stance resources and how the way they index subjectivity through identifying their co-selections on the other. It investigates the way politicians exercise epistemic control to enhance or mitigate the certainty of their assertions; such as (im) personal factive predicates (e.g. I know) and epistemic expressions of subjective beliefs (e.g. I believe). It reveals that positive evaluation is used to express stance attributed to identity-related terms in defining Obama’s administration. Co-occurring with identity-related words, ‘we believe’ co-occurs with deontic modalityand backgrounding of social actors in making altruistic promises. ‘I believe’ co-occurs with epistemic stance, but the evaluation is attributed to the political self. The parenthetical ‘we know’ is associated with hypothetical future and prediction expressed with certainty in legitimating policies. Similarly, ‘I know’ is used to emphasise the epistemic stance in a linguistic context where cause conjunctions are co-selected as a legitimating strategy for positive self- presentation. Thus, evaluating an action and taking a stance are accompanied either with manipulative or legitimating strategies which is a new insight into the study of political discourse and this is what makes this study significant as it fills a gap in knowledge. Based on the findings, the study presents a new model illustrating the intersection of stance and evaluation in constructing attitudinal identity and representing the role played by these two linguistic resources in legitimating claimsand expressing attitudes.
Keywords
- Adolphs, S. (2006). Introducing Electronic Text Analysis. London: Routledge
- Anagnostou, N. K. and Weir, G. R. (2006). ‘From corpus-based collocation frequencies to readability measure’. In ICT in the Analysis, Teaching and Learning of Languages. Preprints of the ICTATLL Workshop, 21-22 August 2006, pp. 33-46.
- Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: A&C Black.
- Bamberg, M. (2009). ‘Positioning Emotion–connecting the there-and-then of the story world with the interactive here-and-now’. Paper Presented at 11thInternational Pragmatics Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 12-17 July
- Barlow, M. (2013). Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443-478.
- Beard, A. (2000). Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
- Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: A&C Black.
- Bednarek, M. (2008). Emotion Talk across Corpora. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Bednarek, M. (2015). ‘What we contrarians already know’. In N. Groom, M. Charles and S. John (eds.) Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 257-281.
- Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
- Bucholtz, M. (2011). White Kids: Language, Race and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Cheng, W. (2012). Exploring Corpus Linguistics: Language in Action. London: Routledge
- Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (1999). ‘Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing’. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. New York: Oxford UP, pp. 56-73.
- Du Bois, J. (2007) ‘The Stance Triangle’. In: R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp.130-182
- Fairclough, N. (2003). Language and power. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Education Ltd.
- Fetzer, A. (2014). ‘I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution’. In K. Aijmer and A. Fetzer (eds.) Discourse linguistics: Theory and Practice. Special Issue of Functions of Language 21(1): 67–94.
- Fetzer, A. and Bull, P. (2012). ‘Doing leadership in political speech: Semantic processes and pragmatic inferences’. Discourse & Society 23(2): 127-144.
- Flowerdew, L. (2004). ‘The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language’. In U. Conner and T. Upton (eds.) Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11-33.
- Hunston, S. (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. London: Routledge.
- Johnstone, B. (2009). ‘Stance, Style, and the linguistic Individual’. In A. Jaffe (ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance. New York: Oxford UP., pp. 29-52.
- Koester, A. (2010). ‘Building small specialised corpora’. In A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 66-79.
- Martin, J. R. and White, P. (2005). The Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan.
- McEnery, T., Xiao, R. and Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An Advanced Research Book. London: Routledge.
- O’keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating Media Discourse. London: Routledge.
- Pennycook, A. (1994). ‘The politics of pronouns’, ELT journal 48(2): 173-178.
- Schütz, A. (1998). ‘Audience perceptions of politicians’ self-presentational behaviors concerning their own abilities’, The Journal of Social Psychology 138(2): 173-188.
- Sinclair, J. and Mauranen, A. (2006). Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (2000). ‘Evaluation: An introduction’. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial Stance and the construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford UP, pp. 1-27.
- van Leeuwen, T. (1996). ‘The representation of social actors’, Discourse & Society 6(1): 81- 106.
- Warren, A. (2009). ‘Realisation of Intertextuality, Interdiscursivity, and Hybridisation in the Discourse of Professionals’. In G. Garzone and M Gotti (eds.) Discourse, Communication and the Enterprise Genres and Trends. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp 91-110.
