Some functions of self-reference in UNESCO addresses

Vol.1,No.1(2008)

Abstract
This paper investigates some functions of pronominal self-reference in political speeches in an international institutional context, thus aiming to contribute to the study of evaluation in political discourse. A total of thirty speeches by the last three Directors-General of UNESCO is used as a corpus for the present research. The analysis – which is undertaken from the point of view of pragmatics and stylistics – studies the role of personal pronouns used for self-referencing and the expressions with which they typically collocate as markers of positioning the self, expressing stance and organizing discourse. Furthermore, it addresses idiosyncratic variation in the choice of self-reference devices in the addresses of the three speakers.
References

Bhatia, V. A. (1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London:
Longman


Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of
Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.


Brown, G., Levinson, S. C. (1987) Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Bull, P., Fetzer, A. (2006) ‘Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of
address in political interviews.’ Text & Talk 26-1, 3-37. DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.002


Carter, R., McCarthy, M. (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press


Donahue, R. T., Prosser, M. H. (1997) Diplomatic Discourse: International Confl ict at the
United Nations – Addresses and Analysis. Greenwich, CT, London: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.


Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2007) ‘On coherence in written discourse.’ In: Schmied, J.,
Haase, C., Povolná, R. (eds) Complexity and Coherence. Approaches to Linguistics
Research and Language Teaching. REAL Studies 3. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag
Göttingen. 127-145.


Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2007) ‘Some aspects of politeness in public speaking.’ Topics
in Linguistics 1. Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University, 52-63.


Duranti, A. (2006) ‘Narrating the political self in a campaign for U.S. Congress.’ Language
in Society 35, 467-497.


Gosden, H. (1993) ‘Discourse functions of subject in scientifi c research articles.’ Applied
Linguistics 14/1, 56-75. DOI: 10.1093/applin/14.1.56


Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.


Halliday M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1989) Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in
a Social-Semiotic Perspective. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Hatim, B. (1997) Communication across Cultures. Translation Theory and Contrastive
Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.


Hodge, R., Kress, G. (1993) Language as Ideology. London and New York: Routledge.
Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind. London: Harper
Collins Business.


Holmes, J. (2005) ‘Leadership talk: How do leaders do ‘mentoring’ and is gender relevant.’
Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1325-1353. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.013


Hunston, S. (1993) ‘Evaluation and organization in academic discourse.’ In: Coulthard,
M. (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
191-218.


Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (2000) ‘Evaluation: An introduction.’ In: Hunston, S.,
Thompson, G. (eds) Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-27.


Hyland, K. (2005) ‘Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.’
Discourse Studies, Vol. 7 (2), 173-192.


Ifantidou, E. (2005) ‘The semantics and pragmatics of metadiscourse.’ Journal of
Pragmatics 37, 1325-1353. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.11.006


Jaworski, A., Galasinski, D. (2000) ‘Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization
in political debates.’ Discourse Stiudies, Vol. 2(1), 35-53.


Kačmárová, A. (2006) On Conveying Strong Judgments in Conversational English.
Prešov: University of Presov.


Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Maingeuneau, D. (2002) ‘Analysis of an academic genre.’ Discourse Studies Vol. 4(3),
319-342.


Martin, J. R. (2000) ‘Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English.’ In: Hunston, S.,
Thompson, G. (eds) Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142-175.


Miššíková, G. (2005) ‘Stylistic analysis of a text as a discourse analysis.’ In: Slovak
Studies in English I. Bratislava: Comenius University. 140-149.


Miššíková, G. (2007) ‘Maxim hedges in political discourse: A contrastive perspective.’
Topics in Linguistics 1, Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University, 145-152.

Ng, S. H., Bradac, J. J. (1993) Power in Language. Newbury Park/London/New Delhi:
Sage.


Poldauf, I. (1964) ‘The third syntactical plan.’ Travaux Linguistic de Prague. Vol. 1.
Prague: Academia. 241-255.


Povolná, R. (2006) ‘Interaction in spoken discourse.’ In: Povolná, R., Dontcheva-Navratilova,
O. (eds) Discourse and Interaction 2. Brno: Masaryk University. 131-142.


Povolná, R. (2007) ‘Aspects of coherence in spoken discourse.’ In: Schmied, J., Haase,
C., Povolná, R. (eds) Complexity and Coherence. Approaches to Linguistics Research
and Language Teaching. REAL Studies 3. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag. 107-125.


Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Thompson, G., Zhou, J. (2000) ‘Evaluation in text: The structuring role of evaluative
disjuncts.’ In: Hunston, S., Thompson, G. (eds) Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 121-141.


Urbanová, L., Oakland, A. (2002) Úvod do anglické stylistiky. Brno: Barrister & Principal.
Wilson, J. (1990) Politically Speaking. Oxford: Blackwell.

Metrics

263

Views

186

PDF views