1 / 9

Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Discourse in political television shows.

Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Discourse in political television shows. SLS 480U Kaan Ustun 04-25-2012. Outline. Reasons for choosing this topic Research questions Method Findings & Data Discussion & Conclusion Strengths & Weaknesses Suggestions for future

tender
Download Presentation

Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Discourse in political television shows.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Discourse in political television shows. SLS 480U KaanUstun 04-25-2012

  2. Outline • Reasons for choosing this topic • Research questions • Method • Findings & Data • Discussion & Conclusion • Strengths & Weaknesses • Suggestions for future • Last thoughts & questions

  3. Reasons for choosing this topic • Presidential Election 2012 • various mechanisms of political discourse. • Perceptions are often transformed into realities for the greater public • “Political ads tend to be about one thing: pushing people’s buttons. Get a voter in the gut, and you’ve got him at the polls” (Cottle, 2012)

  4. Research questions • How do political television shows and their host(s) participate in the framing and maintenance of a political climate through the use of different political discourse and linguistic strategies. • Who says what to whom when, where and how? • Context? Formal/Informal? Social Identity? Networking?

  5. Method • CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) • According to Janet Holmes (2008), “CDA is explicitly concerned with investigating how language is used to construct and maintain power relationships in society; the aim is to show up connections between language and power, and between language and ideology” (p. 389) • Nothing is said randomly; each word, each sentence, each question is uttered to have a calculated and specific goal.

  6. Some Findings from Data • Framing: Journalistic Interview (Ekstrom, 2001, 563) • Setting the agenda (Ekstrom, 2001, 565) • Rapport Management: Face saving strategies (Spencer-Oatey,2004,14) • Political Equivocation: • What is said vs what is meant • Negotiation of validity • Validity of an argument & shifting responsibility (Ekstrom, 2001, 564)

  7. More Findings from Data • Pronominal shift • The use of “WE” (Fetzer & Bull; 2008; 275) • Participants Number • “The talk is in effect designed for an overhearing audience potentially of millions” (Fetzer& Bull; 2008, 272) • Neutrality: “The interviewer is expected to be neutral” (Fetzer & Bull; 2008, 273) • Question- Response = Turn Taking

  8. Discussion • Strengths & Weaknesses • Relative short amount of data • Necessity to analyze deeperBigger & more general trends • Draw attention to linguistic tricks used by TV show hosts • Suggestions for future • Read more about the relation between politics & rhetoric • We must be unwilling to submit to the media’s framing power • Last thoughts & questions

  9. References • Coe, K. (2011). George W. Bush, Television News, and Rationales for the Iraq War. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(3), 307-324. • Cottle, M. (2012). A loud backfire in Michigan. Newsweek, February 20th, 5. • Ekstrom, M. (2001). Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society. SAGE publications: London, Thousand Oaks: CA, New Delhi, 12(5), 563-584. • Fetzer, A., Bull, P. (2008). The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews. Journal of language and politics, 7(2), 271-289. • Lundell, A.K. (2010). The fragility of visuals: how politicians manage their mediated visibility in the press. Journal of language and politics, 9(2), 219-236. • Poggi, I. (2005). The goals of persuasion. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13(2), 297-336. • Spencer-Oatey, H. (2004). Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport. Culturally Speaking: Managing rapport through talk across culture.Biddles, Ltd, King’s Lynn, Norfolk. • Van Dijk, T.A. (?). Critical Discourse Analysis (18). Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf on March 30th 2012.

More Related