Cover not available
Part of
Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 55–84

… every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong

Obama dialogically interacting in the last 2012 presidential debate

| University of Vlora “Ismail Qemali” (Albania)

This paper describes the function of some important metadiscoursal devices such as hedges, boosters, attitude markers and transition markers in Obama’s discourse in the last 2012 presidential debate. Given their relatively high frequency in his political discourse, I expect that these devices are used as productive resources to help the speaker build an effective personal ethos in the dialogical interaction with the electorate, an initial hypothesis already confirmed in the indicative bottom-up analysis part of this article. Also, the argumentative nature of Obama’s discourse gives even more prominence to the use of such metadiscoursal devices to strategically communicate with the electorate and to create the intended rhetorical effects on it for persuasive ends.

Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.04tos
References
Ädel, Annelie
2006 Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2006 Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M
1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, transl. by Mcgee, ed. by Caryl Emerson, and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bondi, Marina
2008 “Emphatics in Academic Discourse: Integrating Corpus and Discourse Tools in the Study of Cross-disciplinary Variation.” In Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, ed. by Annelie Ädel, and Randi Reppen, 31–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenhart, Christopher, and Barbara Johnstone
2008 “Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies.” In Rhetoric in Detail, ed. by Christopher Eisenhart, and Barbara Johnstone, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2003 Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fløttum, Kjersti, and Trine Dahl
2012 “Different Context, Different “Stories”? A Linguistic Comparison of Two Development Reports on Climate Change.” Language and Communication 32 (1): 14–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1996 “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Hedging in Political Discourse: The Bush 2007 Press Conferences.” In Perspectives in Politics and Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska, and Piotr Cap, 201–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael, and Christian Matthiessen
2004 An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Holly, Werner
1989 “Credibility and Political Language.” In Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse, ed. by Ruth Wodak, 115–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holquist, Michael
2002 Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1998a Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998b “Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge.” TEXT 18 (3): 349–382.Google Scholar
1998c “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998d “Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter.” Journal of Business Communication 35 (2): 224–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005a Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2005b “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Academic Discourse.” In The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ken Hyland, and Brian Paltridge, 171–184. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Jalilifar, Alireza, and Maryam Alavi-Nia
2012 “ We Are Surprised; Wasn’t Iran Disgraced There? A Functional Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Televised Iranian and American Presidential Debates.” Discourse and Communication 6 (2): 135–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John E
2006 Language and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise J. Phillips
2002 Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and David Rose
2007 Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg
2010 The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O’Barr, William M
1976 “The Study of Language and Politics.” In Language and Politics, ed. by William M. O’Barr, and Jean F. O’Barr, 1–27. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ongstad, Sigmund
2004 “Bakhtin’s Triadic Epistemology and Ideologies of Dialogism.” In Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language and Culture: Meaning in Language, Art and New Media, ed. by Finn Bostad, Craig Brandist, Lars Sigfred Evensen, and Hege Charlotte Faber, 65–88. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo
2008 “Television Dialogue and Natural Conversation: Linguistic Similarities and Functional Differences.” In Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, ed. by Annelie Ädel, and Randi Reppen, 189–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
1997 “Editorial: Political Speeches and Discourse Analysis.” In Analysing Political Speeches, ed. by Christina Schäffner, 1–4. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Discourse Marker Research and Theory: Revisiting and .” In Approaches to Discourse Particles, ed. by Kerstin Fischer, 315–338. Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
Sornig, Karl
1989 “Some Remarks on Language Strategies of Persuasion.” In Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse, ed. by Ruth Wodak, 95–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Third Presidential Debate: Full Transcript
[URL]
Toska, Bledar
2008 “Dialogizing Communication through Pragmatic Markers.” ELOPE 5 (1-2): 89–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Bakhtinian Dialogical Communication and Pragmatic Markers.” In Advances in Discourse Approaches, ed. by Marta Dynel, 227–244. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2012a “Connectivity and the Alternative Voice in Political Argumentative Texts.” In Voicing the Alternative: Essays in Language and Literary Studies, ed. by Aleksandra Nikčević-Batričević, and Marija Krivokapić, 33–40. Nikšić: Faculty of Philosophy.Google Scholar
2012b “Epistemic Hedges and Boosters as Stance Markers in Legal Argumentative Discourse.” Topics in Linguistics 10 (2): 57–62.Google Scholar
2012c “The Dialogic Paradigm of the Imaginary in Discourse: A Pragmalinguistic Perspective.” Language and Literature: European Landmarks of Identity 10: 26–34.Google Scholar
Vertessen, Dieter, and Christ’l Landtsheer
2008 “A Metaphorical Election Style: Use of Metaphor at Election Time.” In Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World, ed. by Terrell Carver, and Jernej Pikalo, 271–285. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vološhinov, Valentin. N
1973 Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, transl. by Matejka and Titunik. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waring, Hansun Z
2003 “Also as a Discourse Marker: Its Use in Disjunctive and Disaffiliative Environments.” Discourse Studies 5 (3): 415–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, Amanda
2008 “Disciplinary Rhetorics, Rhetorical Agency, and the Construction of Voice.” In Rhetoric in Detail, ed. by Christopher Eisenhart, and Barbara Johnstone, 227–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappen, James P
2004 The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Vasilyeva, Alena L.
2016. Confrontation and collaboration in the course of the election debate. Language and Dialogue 6:3 ► pp. 370 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.