Tutorial. History of political discourse
1. Kazakh Abylai khan University of International Relations and Foreign languagestutorial
done by: foreign philology Serikova
checked by : Rozieva Dilfuza
Selmahunovna senior teacher Phd
2. History of political discourse
3. The study of political discourse• The study of political discourse, like
that of other areas of discourse
covers a broad range of subject
draws on a wide range of analytic
4. The term is suggestive of at least two possibilities:1. a discourse which is itself political;
2. an analysis of political discourse as
simply an example discourse type,
without explicit reference to political
content or political context.
5. political discourse has been around for as long as politics itself• The emphasis the Greeks placed on
rhetoric is a case in point. From
Cicero (1971) to Aristotle (1991) the
concern was basically with particular
methods of social and political
competence in achieving specific
6. Political discourse may express:group ideologies
other beliefs, especially in collective forms of text talk
such as party programs.
But many forms of political discourse are produced by:
• and the ways they `personalize' the group beliefs under
the more particular properties of political discourse.
That is, between social beliefs and discourse weneed a
cognitive interface that represents personal beliefs,
opinions or experiences.
• Orwell who first drew our attention to the
political potential of language. This is seen
in his classic article “Politics and the English
Language,” where he considers the way in
which language may be used to manipulate
thought and suggests, for example, that
“political speech and writing are largely the
defence of the indefensible”
8. Political Discourse: TransformationThe general principle here is one of transformation. Similar words and
phrases may come to be reinterpreted within different ideological
frameworks. Linked directly to this process is the concept of
Representation refers to the issue of how language is employed in different
ways to represent what we can know, believe, and perhaps think.
There are basically two views of representation: the universalist and the
relativist (Montgomery 1992).
The universalist view assumes that we understand our world in relation to a
set of universal conceptual primes. Language, in this view, simply reflects
these universal possibilities. Language is the vehicle for expressing our system
of thought, with this system being independent of the language itself.
The relativist position sees language and thought as inextricably intertwined.
Our understanding of the world within a relativist perspective is affected by
available linguistic resources. The consequences here, within a political
context, seem obvious enough. To have others believe you, do what you
want them to do, and generally view the world in the way most favorable for
your goals, you need to manipulate, or, at the very least, pay attention to the
linguistic limits of forms of representation.
9. Sounds political• It may be initially difficult to grasp how specific
sounds come to be interpreted as political,
although where one sees politics as tied directly
to forms of ideology, the issue becomes a central
plank of variationist sociolinguistics, and beyond).
Research on accent clearly indicates that selected
phonological variables can carry political loading.
By their very nature, phonological variables have
been tied to issues such as class, gender, and
ethnicity, and, in turn, to the social and political
implications of the use of such variables (at both
macro- and microlevels; Wilson and O Brian
variationist sociolinguistics and political and social facts, there
have been few studies of the potential of phono logy in the direct
construction of political discourse. There is no reason to
presuppose, however, that this level of linguistic structure may
not also be available for political orientation. There is general
evidence, for example, that Margaret Thatcher modified her
speech in very particular ways in order to make herself more
attractive to voters. And in the work of Gunn (1989; Wilson and
Gunn 1983) it is claimed that leading politicians and political
supporters may make adjustments within their phonological
systems for political effect. For example, Gerry Adams is said to
have adopted phono logical forms as representative of southern
Irish dialect alternatives, and placed these within his own Belfast
11. types of political discourse:• - Institutional political discourse, in the framework
of which are used only texts directly created by
politicians and used in political
communication(Parliamentary transcripts, policy
documents, performances and interviews with
political leaders, etc.)
• - Mass media (the media), political discourse in
under which texts are used by journalists and
disseminated through the press, television, radio.
12. types of political discourse:• - Official business political discourse related
• with hardware communication, within
• texts intended for public employees
13. classification of the political discourseSPEECH
• TO the number of oral sources
are, in particular, parliaments
• mentary debates, speeches of
political leaders in meetings
• voters, rallies, and other official
• sources - are programs of
political parties and
message of the president to
parliament, speeches of
• in the press, and others. A
distinction is also of direct
• log and material intended for
broadcasting by means of
• MASS MEDIA.
14. METHODS OF POLITICAL DISCOURSECRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE
• aims to study of the ways in
which political power is
exercised its dominance in
• The material for the critical
political texts are created in
situations of social risk and
• describe and explain the
phenomena of political
discourse, while avoiding
their own (especially related
with the political beliefs of
the subject studies),
ideological estimates that, of
course, is not due to the lack
of civil and notions of
scientific objectivity criteria
15. CONTEXT OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE
overall domain (e.g., politics)
- overall societal action (legislation)
- current setting (time, location)
current circumstances (bill to be discussed)
- current interaction (political debate)
- current discourse genre (speech)
- the various types of role of participants (speaker, MP,
member of the
• Conservative Party, white, male, elderly, etc.),
• - the cognitions of the participants (goals, knowledge,
16. STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE• 1) TOPICS
• What information is defined and
emphasized to be important or topical in
(political and other) discourse, is a
function of the event and context models
17. STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE• 2)SCHEMATA
• The global schematic organization of discourse is
conventional and hence not directly variable because of
context constraints: Thus, a parliamentary speech has
the same constituent categories whether engaged in by
a Conservative or Labour MP. It is especially the order,
prominence, kind and extent of the information
included in these categories that may vary, and hence
be highlighted or mitigated as a function of positive
self-presentation and negative other-presentation.
18. STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE• 3) LOCAL SEMANTICS
An important context category controlling
this selection is the political ideology of the speaker
and the recipients, which also may influence the
complexity of local meanings. Thus, the simplicity
of And conversely, specific semantic structures
thus construed may influence the 'preferred'
models of recipients who have no alternative
knowledge sources (Lau, Smith and Fiske 1991).
19. STRUCTURE OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE• 4) STYLE AND RHETORIC
Finally semantic representations are expressed
in variable surface structures, that is through
specific lexicalization, syntactic structures and
specific features of sound, printing or images,
as well as by rhetorical devices that are geared
towards the emphasis or de-emphasis of
20. CONCLUSION• In other words, political discourse can only be
adequately described and explained when we
spell out the socio-cognitive interface that
relates it to the socially shared political
representations that control political
actions,processes and systems.
Argyle, M., A. Furnham and J. A. Graham. 1981. Social Situations. Cambridge, Cambridge
Billig, M. 1991a. Consistency and Group Ideology: towards a Rhetorical Approach to the
Study of Justice. In R. Vermunt and H. Steensma (eds.), Social Justice in Human
Relations. Plenum Press, New York: 169-94
130g, M. 199 lb. Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London, Sage.
Britton, B. K., and A. C. Graesser (eds.). 1996. Models of Understanding Text. Mahwah,
Garb& T. 1992. Towards an Interpretation of Interruptions in Mexican Parliamentary
Discourse. Discourse and Society, 3(1):25-45.
CarbO, T. 1995. El discurso parlamentario mexicano entre 1920 y 1950. Un estudio de caso
en metodologia de analisis de discurso. (Mexican parliamentary discourse between
1920 and 1950. A Case Study in the Methodology of Discourse Analysis). 2 vols.
Mexico, CIESAS and Colegio de Mexico.
Chilton, P. and C. Schaffner. 1997. Discourse and Politics. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.),
Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction. vol. 2: Discourse as Social Interaction.
London, Sage: 206-30.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Converse, P. E. 1964. The nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. International Yearbook
of Political Behavior Research, 5: 206-62.