Vientos de guerracontrol epistémico y efectivo en el discurso político

  1. Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Revista:
Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

ISSN: 1697-7750

Año de publicación: 2021

Título del ejemplar: Lenguaje y política / Language and politics

Número: 26

Páginas: 289-307

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6035/CLR.5858 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Cultura, lenguaje y representación = Culture, language and representation: revista de estudios culturales de la Universitat Jaume I = cultural studies journal of Universitat Jaume I

Resumen

Este artículo explora dos dominios clave del posicionamiento del hablante en el discurso: posicionamiento epistémico y efectivo (Marín-Arrese 2011, 2015, 2021). Las estrategias epistémicas conciernen la legitimación epistémica de las aserciones, al contribuir soporte epistémico y justificación epistémica para la proposición (Boye 2012). el control efectivo se dirige a la legitimación de acciones y planes de acción. El despliegue estratégico conjunto de actos de posicionamiento epistémico y efectivo realiza una estrategia combinada de control sobre la aceptación por parte de oyente/lector de concepciones de la realidad y de planes de acción. Este artículo estudia el uso estratégico de estos recursos en el discurso de la Guerra, y presenta un estudio de caso sobre su uso por dos politicos, el Presidente George Bush y el Primer Ministro Tony Blair, en discursos politicos e intervenciones durante los preparativos para la segunda Guerra de Irak. Los resultados indican diferencias cualitativas y cuantitativas en las estrategías de posicionamiento preferidas por los dos politicos.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ädel, Annelie. 2010. "Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going": A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9 (2): 69-97.
  • Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Anderson, Lloyd. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 273-312.
  • Biber, Douglas. 2015. Stance and grammatical complexity: an unlikely partnership discovered through corpus analysis. Corpus Linguistics Research, 1: 1–19.
  • Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 1: 93–124.
  • Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finnegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  • Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Brandt, Per Aage. 2004. Evidentiality and Enunciation. A Cognitive and Semiotic Approach. In Juana I. Marín-Arrese (ed.) Perspectives on Evidentiality and Modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense. 3-10.
  • Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (eds.) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. New York: Ablex. 261-272.
  • Charteris-Black, Jonathan 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave MacMillan
  • Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge.
  • Chilton, Paul. 2011. Still something missing in CDA. Discourse Studies, 13 (6): 769-781.
  • Cosmides, Leda (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31: 187-276.
  • Cosmides, Leda and John Tooby (2000). Consider the source: The evolution of adaptations for decoupling and metarepresentations. In D. Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentation: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 53-116.
  • Diewald, Gabriele and Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • DuBois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 139-182.
  • DuBois, John W. and Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32 (4): 433-451.
  • Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Introduction. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-26.
  • Fairclough, Norman, 1989. Language and Power. Longman, London.
  • Hart, Christopher. 2011. Legitimising Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration. Discourse Studies, 13 (6): 751-769.
  • Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson. (eds.) 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Jaffe, Alexandra. (ed.) 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  • Johnstone, Barbara. 2007. Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 49–68.
  • Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Manfred Bierwisch and Karl E. Heidolph (eds.) Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 143–73.
  • Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: a corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Modals: Striving for control. In J.I. Marín-Arrese, M. Carretero, J. Arús and J. van der Auwera (eds.), English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. 3-55.
  • Leech, Geoffrey N. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961-1992. In Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug and Frank R. Palmer (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 223-240.
  • Lucy, John. 1993. Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In J. Lucy (ed.) Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2011. Effective vs. Epistemic Stance and Subjectivity in Political Discourse: Legitimising Strategies and Mystification of Responsibility. In Christopher Hart (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 193-223.
  • Marín Arrese, Juana I. 2015a Epistemicity and Stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Discourse Studies, 17 (2): 210-225.
  • Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2015b. Epistemic Legitimisation and Inter/Subjectivity in the Discourse of Parliamentary and Public Inquiries: A contrastive case study. Critical Discourse Studies, 12 (3): 261-278.
  • Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2021. Stance, Emotion and Persuasion: Terrorism and the Press. Journal of Pragmatics, 177: 135-148.
  • Oswald, S. 2011. From interpretation to consent: Arguments, beliefs and meaning. Discourse Studies, 13 (6): 806-814.
  • Saussure, Louis (de). 2005. Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics. Preliminary hypotheses. In L. (de) Saussure, L. and P. Schulz (eds.) Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 113-145.
  • Sorlin, Sandrine. 2017. The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories. Journal of Pragmatics, 121: 132-146.
  • Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clement, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25 (4): 359-393.
  • Thompson, Geoff and Alba-Juez, Laura. (eds.) 2014. Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • van der Auwera, Johan and Vladimir Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2 (1): 79-124.
  • van Dijk, Teun. 2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17 (3): 359-383.
  • van Dijk, Teun. 2011. Discourse, knowledge, power and politics. In C. Hart (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27-63.
  • White, Peter R.R. 2006. Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse: A new framework for analysis. In I. Lassen, J. Strunck and T. Vestergaard (eds.), Mediating Ideology in Text and Image. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 37-67.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet