Constructing the convincing political speech

The conditions and aims of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political language with special focus on the 'Sportpalastrede' of Joseph Goebbels

Nonfiction, Entertainment, Drama, Anthologies
Cover of the book Constructing the convincing political speech by Claudia Effenberger, GRIN Publishing
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Claudia Effenberger ISBN: 9783640212231
Publisher: GRIN Publishing Publication: November 17, 2008
Imprint: GRIN Publishing Language: English
Author: Claudia Effenberger
ISBN: 9783640212231
Publisher: GRIN Publishing
Publication: November 17, 2008
Imprint: GRIN Publishing
Language: English

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,0, University of Cologne (Englisches Seminar), course: Sociolinguistics, 8 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: If today one thinks of politics, politicians and their language there is one opinion that always comes first: All politicians are liars They are smooth-talkers who promise things they cannot fulfil only to get more votes in the coming-up election and they use beautiful words to paraphrase and disguise social injustices. And in some points this opinion is right. There really is a specific political language used by the politicians to follow certain aims but this has not always to be disguise or circumscription. What many of the citizens simply ignore is the fact, that politicians are dependent from the mass. Without the public there would be no need for politicians. And the same goes for political discussions. Politicians don't argue with each other because they like it. It is always the fact that a political actor starts political relations with another actor and at the same time with the public. If two politicians talk to each other on the television this is always orchestrated for the people who watch the show. (see Dieckmann 1981: 265) The main reason for every politician to lie or to use special vocabulary is for the purpose of being convincing. This paper analyses the language used by politicians in certain situations to convince people of the correctness of their point of view, in its' roots, mainly based on the book Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic analysis of Political Language by John Wilson. The main focus of this paper is put to the question of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political talk, under which conditions the one is used and when the other and what for. It is not arguable that politicians always have a reason for using ´I` or ´we` in different contexts, especially in written speeches that are planned and very well prepared. Also the difference between scripted and unscripted speeches will be touched in this paper. To employ the theoretical basis that is provided here, in the last section the famous 'Sportpalast'-speech of Joseph Goebbels from 1943 will be analysed with regard to the use of different pronominal forms. The final summary shall bundle the gained information to a logical minimum and draw some conclusions from it. It will show if political use of speech is intentionally manipulating and disguising facts, especially in the example of Goebbels or if the use of language in politics does not differ in great parts from the day-to-day use at home.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,0, University of Cologne (Englisches Seminar), course: Sociolinguistics, 8 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: If today one thinks of politics, politicians and their language there is one opinion that always comes first: All politicians are liars They are smooth-talkers who promise things they cannot fulfil only to get more votes in the coming-up election and they use beautiful words to paraphrase and disguise social injustices. And in some points this opinion is right. There really is a specific political language used by the politicians to follow certain aims but this has not always to be disguise or circumscription. What many of the citizens simply ignore is the fact, that politicians are dependent from the mass. Without the public there would be no need for politicians. And the same goes for political discussions. Politicians don't argue with each other because they like it. It is always the fact that a political actor starts political relations with another actor and at the same time with the public. If two politicians talk to each other on the television this is always orchestrated for the people who watch the show. (see Dieckmann 1981: 265) The main reason for every politician to lie or to use special vocabulary is for the purpose of being convincing. This paper analyses the language used by politicians in certain situations to convince people of the correctness of their point of view, in its' roots, mainly based on the book Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic analysis of Political Language by John Wilson. The main focus of this paper is put to the question of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political talk, under which conditions the one is used and when the other and what for. It is not arguable that politicians always have a reason for using ´I` or ´we` in different contexts, especially in written speeches that are planned and very well prepared. Also the difference between scripted and unscripted speeches will be touched in this paper. To employ the theoretical basis that is provided here, in the last section the famous 'Sportpalast'-speech of Joseph Goebbels from 1943 will be analysed with regard to the use of different pronominal forms. The final summary shall bundle the gained information to a logical minimum and draw some conclusions from it. It will show if political use of speech is intentionally manipulating and disguising facts, especially in the example of Goebbels or if the use of language in politics does not differ in great parts from the day-to-day use at home.

More books from GRIN Publishing

Cover of the book The function of food representation and eating in John Irving's 'The Cider House Rules' by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Social Deixis: The development of second person pronouns from Old English to the present by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Critical Analysis Of The Financing Policies of Tesco plc by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Anchored In The Absolute by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Sahibs with Black Faces? - Installing and Escaping Whiteness in Rudyard Kipling's 'Kim' by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Modernism in 'The Day of the Locust' (1939) by Nathanael West by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Drivers of Globalization: Integration of Theories and Models by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Investigation of environmental logistics strategies by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The lasting value of legal immigration for the United States of America by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Does an enlargement of the European Union inhibit the party establishment of a European party system? Case study of Turkey by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Typical English Food. Effects of History and Tradition by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The Democratic Republic of the Congo - Analysis, Initiatives and Recommendations to a Major Conflict in the Heart of Africa by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Ulysses and the Reader - A Fertile Relationship by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Peter Ackroyd and Metafiction. A Brief Introduction by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Accommodating growth: The concept of traditional neighborhood development in Westhaven by Claudia Effenberger
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy