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

Journal:
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

Year of publication: 2021

Issue Title: Lenguaje y política / Language and politics

Issue: 26

Pages: 289-307

Type: Article

DOI: 10.6035/CLR.5858 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

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

Abstract

This paper explores two key domains of speaker’s stance in discourse: epistemic and effective stance (Marín-Arrese 2011, 2015, 2021). The framework draws on Langacker’s (2009, 2013) distinction between the epistemic and the effective level in the grammar,and the systematic opposition thereof between striving for control of conceptions of reality and control of relations at the level of reality. Epistemic strategies pertain to the epistemic legitimisation of assertions, by providing epistemic support and epistemic justification for the proposition (Boye 2012). Effective control is aimed at the legitimisation of actions and plans of action. The joint deployment of epistemic and effective stance acts effects a strategy of combined control over hearers/readers’ acceptance of conceptions of reality and of plans of action. This paper studies the strategic use of these resources in the discourse of war and presents a case study on their use by two politicians, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, in political speeches and statements during the build-up to the second Iraq war. Results indicate significant qualitative and quantitative differences in the preferred stance strategies in the discourse of the two politicians.

Bibliographic References

  • 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.
Data source: Dialnet