THE CATEGORY OF EVALUATION IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108550

Keywords:

appraisal, evaluation, discourse, engagement, judgement

Abstract

Political discourse is a popular area of research because it penetrates a modern society. Being usually delivered by politicians, political discourse is a complex linguistic phenomenon which is directly or indirectly aimed at distributing, exercising the political power and winning the majority of votes during elections. This article deals with the category of evaluation which is considered to be a semantic and pragmatic category and can be one of the most powerful means of influence on the audience. This study focuses on the evaluative means used by Hillary Clinton as one of the presidential candidates in the USA in her speeches during the presidential campaign. Under the Appraisal theory framework, this paper discusses a variety of meaning-making resources used by the speaker to express her evaluative involvement in communication. The categories of engagement and graduation are also analysed. The attention is also paid to the interrelations between evaluation and values. Of special interest is a wide use of metaphors as well as the semantic polarisation of evaluative components in the speeches of the politician. The results show that the attitudinal meanings are mostly conveyed by judgements. 

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Tatiana Ananko, Kyiv National Linguistic University

Ph.D., Department of the English Language and Translation, Faculty of Oriental Studies

References

  1. Arutyunova, N.D. (1988). Tipy iazykovyh znacheniiy. Otsenka. Sobytie. Fakt [Types of Language Meanings. Evaluation. Event. Fact]. Moscow: Nauka.
  2. Bednarek, M. (2009). Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 146-175. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed
  3. Belova, A. D. (2003). Lingvisticheskie aspecty argumentatsii [Linguistic Aspects of Argumentation]. Kyiv: Logos.
  4. Byessonova, O. (2012). Reconstruction of Value Concepts in the Language Model of the World. In: Ferencik, M. & Bednarova-Gibova, K. (Eds.), Language, Literature and Culture in a Changing Transatlantic World II. Part I: Lingustics, Translation and Cultural Studies (pp.7-14). Preskov, Bulgaria.
  5. Cherednichenko, A. I. (2007). Pro movu i pereklad [On Language and Translation]. Kyiv: Lybid'.
  6. Clinton, H. (July 29, 2016a). Speech at the Democratic Convention. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html
  7. Clinton, H. (August, 11, 2016b). Economic Speech. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-full-transcript-economic-speech-489602html
  8. Clinton, H & Trump, D. (September, 26, 2016c). The First Debate transcript. Retrieved July 21, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.3bcb8204b2a9
  9. Clinton, H. & Trump, D. (October, 09, 2016d). The Second Debate. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/transcript-second-debate.hml
  10. Clinton, H. & Trump, D. (October, 19, 2016e). The Final Debate transcript. Retrieved July 19, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/?utm_term=.386b4336abeb
  11. Clinton, H. (November 09, 2016f). Concession Speech. Retrieved July 20, 2017, from http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-concession-speech-transcript/
  12. Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  13. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
  14. Fitzwater, M. (2016). I do not think there is a quick fix. Civility in Presidential Election Discourse. Rindge, New Hampshire: Franklin Pierce University, 6-7.
  15. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.2.03fra
  16. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. (2002). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. In: Webster J. (Ed.), The collected works of M.A.K. Halliday Series, V. 2. London, New York: Continuum.
  18. Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London, New York: Academic.
  19. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  20. Hooper J.B. & Thompson, S.A. (1973). On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 4 (4), 465-497.
  21. Karasik, V. (2004). Iazykovoi Krug: Lichnost', Kontsepty, Diskurs [Language Circle: Personality, Concepts, Discourse]. Moscow: Gnosis.
  22. Kovecses, Z. (2004). Metaphor and Emotion. Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
  24. Malrieu, J. P. (1999). Evaluative Semantics. Cognition, Language, and Ideology. London, New York: Routledge.
  25. Martin, J. R., White P. R.R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  26. Maslow, A. H., (1999). Motivatsia i lichnost [Motivation and Personality]. Saint Petersberg, Russia: Euroasia.
  27. McKeever, K. (2016). Words Matter: The Why, When, and Where of Civil Discourse. In Civility in Presidential election Discourse (pp.3-4). Rindge, New Hampshire: Franklin Pierce University.
  28. Mio, J. S. (1997). Metaphor and Politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(2), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2
  29. Mulligan, K. (1998). From Appropriate Emotions to Values. The Monist, 81(1), 161-188. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist199881114
  30. Perez, R. Q. (2008). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Heart Metaphors. Revista Alicantina de Estudies Ingleses, 21, 25 -56. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2008.21.03
  31. Pryhod'ko, G.I. (2013). Otsinka i komunikatsiia [Evaluation and Communication] . Vinnytsa: Nova Knyha.
  32. Sillars, M. O., Ganer, P. (1982). Values and Beliefs: A Systemic Basis for Argumentation. In: Cox J. R., Charles A. W. (Eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research (pp.184-201). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  33. Sinclair, J.M. (2004). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203594070
  34. Schaffner, C., Wenden, A. (1995). Language and peace. Dartmouth: Aldershot.
  35. Sheigal, E. (2000). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of Political Discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena.
  36. Short, M., Semino, E. (2008). Evaluation and Stylistic Analysis. In: Van Peer W. (Ed.), The Quality of Literature: Linguistic Studies in Literary Evaluation (pp.117-138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.4.09sho
  37. Stepanov, Y. (1981). Imena, Predikaty, Predlozheniya [Names, Predicates, Sentences]. Moscow: Nauka.
  38. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Thompson, S. (1996). Politics without metaphors is like a fish without water. In: Mio J.S., Kats A.N. (Eds.), Metaphor: Implications and Applications (pp.185-201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  40. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is Political Discourse Analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
  41. Vignaux, G. (1992). From Negation to Notion: Cognitive Process and Argumentative Strategies. Argumentation, 6 (1), 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154257
  42. White, P. R.R., (2015). Appraisal Theory. In: Tracy, K. (Ed.). The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. John Wiley & Sons. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi041
  43. Wolf, E. (2002). Funktsionalnaia semantika otsenki [Functional Semantics of Evaluation]. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
  44. Zhabotynska, S. (2013). Imya kak tekst: kontseptualnaya set' leksicheskogo znacheniya (analiz imeni emotsii) [The name as a text: conceptual network of lexical meaning (analysis of the name of emotion)]. Kognitsiya, Kommunikatsia, Diskurs, 6, 47-76.

Downloads

Published

2017-12-27

How to Cite

Ananko, T. (2017). THE CATEGORY OF EVALUATION IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE. Advanced Education, 4(8), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.108550

Issue

2017: Issue 8

Section

Linguistics

License

Copyright (c) 2017 Tatiana Rudolfovna Ananko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).