Search results

In this paper, we make a comparative analysis of two pre-electoral debates belonging to two different traditions ¿ the 2011 Rajoy¿Rubalcaba debate and the first 2008 Obama¿McCain debate ¿ in terms of the manipulative processes used. For that purpose, we compare the similarities and differences in the use of the genre contributing to manipulation in the two debate traditions. Also, we identify the manipulative devices employed following Rigotti¿s (2005) coding scheme, which is complemented with those fallacies often encountered in the field of politics (van Eemeren et al. 2009; Pirie 2006; Tindale 2007). Various similarities in the use of the genre between the two debate traditions have been identified, such as in the use of strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation that are inherently manipulative and that entail (de-)emphasizing Our/Their positive and Their/Our negative aspects (van Dijk 2006). The differences are related to the discursive strategies preferred, the role of the moderator in the debates, and the candidates¿ physical position in the confrontation, all of which may contribute to manipulation. Similarly, there are also similarities and differences in the candidates¿ use of manipulative processes as their strategy for winning the elections and a different preference for personal attacks and the dialectical battle.

In this article we examine the identity construction of two politicians in the 2011 Spanish pre-electoral debate, following four of Bucholtz & Hall's (2005) linguistic means: evaluation, implicatures, interactional negotiation, and complementary identity relations. For the analysis, Martin & White's (2005) evaluation model and Corpus Linguistics are adopted. The Socialist candidate's positive identity positions him as a defendant of laymen's interests (i.e. Nurturant Parent identity), while he contributes to Rajoy's emergent identity as a dishonest politician. However, the Conservative politician plays down the other candidate's identity inferences, casts his identity as a Nurturant Parent to attract the audience's sympathy and embodies an identity of change. This positive identity contributed to his ethos in the debate and resulted in an overwhelming win. ; En este artículo analizamos la construcción de la identidad de dos políticos en el debate preelectoral español de 2011 utilizando cuatro de las herramientas lingüísticas de Bucholtz y Hall (2005): evaluación, implicaturas, negociación interactiva y relaciones de identidad complementarias. Para el análisis adoptamos el modelo de evaluación de Martin y White (2005) y la Lingüística de Corpus. La identidad positiva del candidato socialista lo postula como defensor de la identidad de Padre Nutriente, al mismo tiempo que contribuye a crear una identidad emergente para Rajoy como político deshonesto. Sin embargo, el político conservador minimiza las inferencias de identidad del otro candidato, se presenta como Padre Nutriente y personifica la identidad del cambio. Esta identidad positiva contribuyó a la construcción de su ethos en el debate, lo que dio como resultado una victoria abrumadora.

The present study explores the language of evaluation in a sub-genre of political discourse, pre-electoral debates, and its potential persuasive function for gaining voters via a contraposition of positive self-evaluation and negative evaluation of the other candidate. A further aim of this research is to check whether the candidate¿s ideology has a bearing on the entities that get evaluated. After a brief examination of the characteristics of the sub-genre at hand, specifically in the Spanish context, we present the results of an evaluation analysis carried out in a corpus of 19,849 words, which is the extension of the most recent pre-electoral debate held in Spain between the candidates of the two main political parties. Taking into account Van Dijk¿s CDA framework (2005) for parliamentary debates as global semantic strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, Martin and White¿s (2005) method was adopted as an analytical tool. The results showed that, although each candidate had different preferences in the choice of evaluative devices, they both used them as a strategy to win electoral votes while deprecating the opposing party and, therefore, minimizing their chances of winning the elections. On the other hand, and despite their opposing ideology, they both seem to defend those policies that are more widely accepted in order not to risk losing voters: public services and egalitarian social policies.

The present study attempts to add to the existing body of literature on political rhetoric by analyzing in detail the cohesive devices used in three political texts - The Gettysburg Address, I have a dream and Obama"s Inaugural Address and their potential persuasive function. We first carry out an analysis of cohesion in these three masterpieces of political writing, applying our own model based on the combination and adaptation of those found in Halliday & Hasan"s (1976) and Beaugrande & Dressler"s (1981), in order to cover a wider range of devices and, at the same time, ameliorate some flaws ascribed by critics to Halliday & Hasan"s (1976). The results reveal that, although they share similarities, the texts also showed differences in the cohesive devices employed. We then suggest a new dimension for the analysis of cohesion: what we have termed intertextual cohesion, a device to extend the scope of cohesion beyond the limits of the text. This tool has proved to be very effective to show the resonance of content and form among the three speeches analyzed.