Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Perspectives on Political Discourse
Edited by Pascal Fischer and Christoph Schubert
[Journal of Language and Politics 13:2] 2014
► pp. 289–312

Addressee orientation in political speeches

Tracing the dialogical ‘other’ in argumentative monologue

| University of Reading |
This article suggests that the addressees as the dialogical ‘other’ loom large in monological political speeches. However, political speeches are produced under conditions of addressee heterogeneity, i.e. the speakers do not actually know who they will be talking to. It will be argued that the addressees are nevertheless a crucial element in speakers’ context models, that speakers orientate towards imagined addressees and that certain aspects – what possible addressees may do, think or believe and that they are a part of an imagined community – are particularly relevant from the speakers’ point of view. An analysis of addressee orientation in political speeches aims at reconstructing speakers’ conceptualisations of possible addressees. The analysis reveals patterns of addressee orientation which suggest that the addressees are framed in terms of epistemic proximity, i.e. presumed nearness (agreement) or distance (disagreement) to the speakers. Both presumed agreement and disagreement will be discussed in terms of how the speakers aim to impose their default perspectives on the addressees. The analysis is based on examples from a substantial corpus of German chancellors’ political speeches from 1951–2001.
Keywords: addressees, political speeches, German chancellors, framing, stance, appraisal theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The addressees – who?!
    • 2.1Conceptualising the addressees as part of the context
    • 2.2Framing the addressees in political speeches
    • 2.3Tracing the addressees in political speeches
  • 3.What’s on their minds?
    • 3.1Presuming nearness/agreement
    • 3.2Dealing with distance/disagreement
  • 4.What are they doing?
    • 4.1Presuming nearness/agreement
    • 4.2Dealing with distance/disagreement
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.05sch
References (38)
References
Bakthin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language Style as Audience Design.” Language in Society 131: 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Thomas B. Carlson. 1982. “Hearers and Speech Acts.” Language 58 (2): 332–373.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Angelo, Paul. 2002. “News Framing as a Multi-paradigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman.” Journal of Communication 52 (4): 870–888. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2005. “Contextual Knowledge Management in Discourse Production: A CDA Perspective.” In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Paul Chilton, 71–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 62–86. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Ensink, Titus, and Christoph Sauer. 2003. “Social-functional and Cognitive Approaches to Discourse Interpretation: The Role of Frame and Perspective.” In Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse, ed. by Titus Ensink, and Christoph Sauer, 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni die Semantica 6 (2): 222–254.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Frame Semantics.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 41, ed. by Edward Keith Brown, 613–620. Oxford: Elsevier.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1986. “Audience Diversity, Participation and Interpretation.” Text 6 (3): 283–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1994. Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Dariusz Galasiński. 2000. “Vocative Address Forms and Ideological Legitimization in Political Debates.” Discourse Studies 21: 35–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keim, Inken. 1999. “Herstellen von Dominanz im Gespräch durch Dominantsetzen von Perspektiven.” In Autorität der/in Sprache, Literatur und Neuen Medien: Vorträge des Bonner Germanistentages 1997. Vol. 11, ed. by Jürgen Fohrmann, Ingrid Kasten, and Eva Neuland, 110–135. Bielefeld: Aisthesis.Google Scholar
Kendall, Shari. 2004. “Framing Authority: Gender, Face, and Mitigation at a Radio Network.” Discourse and Society 151: 55–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühn, Peter. 1992. “Adressaten und Adressatenkarussell in der öffentlichen Auseinandersetzung.” In Rhetorik. Vol. 11: Rhetorik und Politik, ed. by Joachim Dyck, Walter Jens, and Gert Ueding, 51–66. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lauerbach, Gerda E. 1993. “Interaction and Cognition: Speech Act Schemata with but, and their Interrelation with Discourse Type.” In Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, ed. by Richard A. Geiger, and Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 679–708. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marín Arrese, Juana I. 2009. “Effective vs. Epistemic Stance, and Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity in Political Discourse: A Case Study.” In Studies on English Modality: In Honour of Frank Palmer, ed. by Anastasios Tsangalidis, and Roberta Facchinetti, 23–52. Bern, Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Effective vs. Epistemic Stance and Subjectivity in Political Discourse: Legitimising Strategies and Mystification of Responsibility.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by Christopher Hart, 193–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jim R., and Peter R.R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, George H. 1959. Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Petter-Zimmer, Yvonne. 1990. Politische Fernsehdiskussionen und ihre Adressaten. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Prego-Vazquez, Gabriela. 2007. “Frame Conflict and Social Inequality in the Workplace: Professional and Local Discourse Struggles in Employee/customer Interactions.” Discourse and Society 181: 295–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sànchez-García, Jesús, and Olga Blanco-Carrión. 2007. “Frames and Critical Discourse Analysis in Violence-Related Emotive Event Analysis.” In Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Dominik Lukeš, 232–254. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Schindler, Kirsten. 2004. Adressatenorientierung beim Schreiben: Eine linguistische Untersuchung am Beispiel des Verfassens von Spielanleitungen, Bewerbungsbriefen und Absagebriefen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröter, Melani. 2006. Adressatenorientierung in der öffentlichen politischen Rede: Eine qualitativ-pragmatische Korpusanalyse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2011. “Morality and Question Design: ‘Of Course’ as Contesting a Presupposition of Askability.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensing, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Framing in Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tverski, Amos, and Daniel Kahnemann. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 2111: 453–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Chillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Kuznyetsova, Ganna
2021. Political discourse from the standpoint of the addressee. Cognition, Communication, Discourse :23 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Schröter, Melani
2021. Rationality and Moderation: German Chancellors’ Post-War Rhetoric. In When Politicians Talk, ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Abdelzaher, Esra’ M. & Bacem A. Essam
2019. Weaponizing words. Journal of Language and Politics 18:6 ► pp. 893 ff. DOI logo
Mayaffre, Damon & Ronny Scholz
2017. Constructing ‘the French people’ – On Sarkozy’s populism. Journal of Language and Politics 16:5 ► pp. 683 ff. DOI logo
Seongha Rhee
2016. On the emergence of the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of intensifiers. Linguistic Research 33:3 ► pp. 395 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. The Politics of Person Reference [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 320], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.