Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 23 Ноября 2013 в 19:19, дипломная работа
Political speech, as a subset of late Modern English, is an interesting entity. Many of its linguistic features attempt to mimic those of conversational, scholarly or formal English, but the defining differences ultimately stem from the fact that it is all carefully crafted to persuade or even manipulate its intended audience.
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….2
CHAPTER 1
Theory of Political Discourse ……………………………………………………………4
1.1. The Nature of Political Discourse ………………………………………………………….4
1.2. Language of Politics and Critical Discourse Analysis…………………………………...11
CHAPTER 2
Political Discourse and Translation …………………………………………...…........14
2.1. Translation of the Language of Politics ………………………………………………… 14
2.2. Political Discourse Translation ………………………………………………………….15
CHAPTER 3
Political Discourse analysis of British and American politicians’ speeches and their translation into Armenian ………………………………………………..19
3.1. Comparative analysis of English and American pre-election speeches and their translation into Armenian …….………………………………………………………………19
3.2. The Use of Syntactical Stylistic Devices in Creating Expressiveness in British and American Politicians’ Speeches and Their Translation into Armenian ………………..…31
3.3.God and biblical themes in the speeches of American Presidents …………………..…43
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………...................51
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………………54
3) Given the power of the written and spoken discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis can be used for describing, interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing social life reflected in text. CDA aims to systematically explore relationships between discursive practices, texts, and events and wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes. Precise analysis and descriptions of the materiality of language are factors which are always characteristic of CDA. It strives to explore how these non-transparent relationships are a factor in securing power and hegemony, and it draws attention to power imbalances, social inequities, nondemocratic practices, and other injustices in hopes of spurring people to corrective actions. It tries to illuminate ways in which the dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favour their interests.
4) The methodological approach we have employed to examine the language of politics is known broadly as critical discourse analysis. This approach is at once both a technique for analysing specific texts or speech acts, and a way of understanding the relationship between discourse and social and political phenomena. By engaging in concrete, linguistic textual analysis—that is, by doing systematic analyses of spoken and written language—critical discourse analysis aims to shed light on the links between texts and societal practices and structures, or, the linguistic-discursive dimension of social action.
5) The translation of political literature can be considered in two ways: as a field of linguistic activity and as a separate field in science. As a field of linguistic activity translation of political literature represents one of the types of special translations possessing as objects of its activity different materials of political character. The translation of political language comes out into a special field of study due to its specific features of written and verbal speech on political topics, which is specified by its essential character and the knowledge of this science.
6) The main peculiarity of political discourse is that it contains mostly those text types which have a manipulative intention as a prevailing one. Among the political text types of a manipulative kind we can see political interviews, slogans, announcements, articles in special party papers and certain messages in electronic mass media. Nevertheless, the most remarkable type of manipulative messages which function within political discourse is the text type of pre-election propaganda speeches. As a rule, the texts of such speeches have some structural and intentional characteristic features which make it possible to consider these speeches as a definite text type. All speeches contain special etiquette phrases (greetings and words of appreciation), they have prognostic character, the main communicative intention of such speeches is that of promise. In addition to that, pre-election propaganda speeches have one more interesting peculiarity: the collective recipient of the speech is fully or partly aware of the manipulative character of the message. In other words, recipients guess or understand which effect is planned to be achieved by the producers of pre-election propaganda speeches before the election. One of the most frequently used rhetorical devices is the use of first-person plural widely used in pre-election speeches. Political speeches, especially those delivered at party conventions or other collections of listeners who share the platform or party of the speaker, are generally delivered in the first-person plural, rather than singular.
7) The research we have tried to carry out shows that the speeches of American and British politicians are characterized by a great number of devices which make the speech sound more persuasive and expressive. The research shows that mostly the following stylistic devices are used in political speeches: parallel constructions, repetition, enumeration, antithesis, gradation, polysyndeton, asyndeton, inversion, and rhetorical question.
8) It is customary in American political discourse to employ biblical language, which is an inherent part of American public speaking. When speaking of history of American politics it is easy to digress into the field of religion. Christianity has a given place as the normative faith in many politicians’ speeches, although some politicians never forget to mention that U.S.A. is a nation of many different religions (leaving out some minorities, while including others). Nearly all the speeches of American presidents show that their language can easily be associated with the Christian faith. Other than that, the references to God, God's will and God's promises, cannot exclusively be tied to Christianity, rather these references are applicable to various faiths that recognize the existence of one God. Nearly all American presidents end their speeches with the words “God bless America”.
9) The Political History of Great Britain shows that Tony Blair’s attempt to end his speech, an address to the nation with “God bless Britain” was not welcomed warmly, especially by the representatives of Mass Media. However, the former Prime Minister said his suggestion provoked such strong concern from civil servants that he was forced to drop the idea. Mr Blair said he had intended to echo the traditional closing remark of Presidents in the United States, who typically sign-off television broadcasts by saying, “God Bless America”.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ali M. The Political Sociology of the English Language. The Netherlands; Monton and
Co., 1975.
2. Antonova A. V. How politicians do things with words: Intentional analysis of pre-election speeches:Orenburg State University, Orenburg, 2011.
3. Carbó T. Discurso politico: Lectura y analisis (Cuadernos de la Casa Chata .) Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologia Social, 1984.
York: Praeger, 1989.
24. Stuckey M. E. Playing the game: the presidential rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. New York: Praeger, 1990.
of Alaska Press, 1990.
Windt T., & Ingold B., eds. Essays in presidencial rhetoric. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt, 1987.