Article published in:
Constructing and Negotiating Identity in Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu
[Language and Dialogue 5:1] 2015
► pp. 23–44

Construction of identity and the rhetoric of lying in Romanian political discourse

| “Iorgu Iordan — Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy, Romania
Starting from the pragmatic descriptions of lying and the most influential theories concerning social identity, this paper explores, on the basis of authentic examples, the relationship between identity construction and the rhetoric of lying in Romanian political discourse. We are interested in presenting, on the one hand, the strategies used to denounce a political leader as a liar and to fix this negative image in the collective imagination and, on the other hand, the strategy used by the politician to refute these accusations and rebuild his credibility ethos. Through this analysis, the paper also addresses the questions of the social and moral implications of lying in Romanian public space.
Keywords: implicature, politeness/ impoliteness, theories of identity, speech act, political discourse, lying
Published online: 23 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.1.02hoi
References
Amossy, Ruth, and Anne Herschberg-Pierrot
1997 Stéréotypes et clichés. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Breton, Philippe
2003 L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B., and Wendi Gardner
1996 “Who Is This “We”? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1): 83–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Thomas
2006 “The Definition of Lying.” Nous 401: 284–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charaudeau, Patrick
2005 Le discours politique. Les masques du pouvoir. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1991 Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Fallis, Don
2009 “What is Lying?” Journal of Philosophy 1061: 29–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Elda Weizman
2006 “Political Discourse as Mediated and Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 143–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H
1975 “ Logic and Conversation .” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole, and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hamon, Philippe
1996 L’ ironie litteraire. Essai sur les formes de l’écriture oblique. Paris: Hachette Superieur.Google Scholar
Hecht, Michael L
1993 “A Research Odyssey: Toward the Development of a Communication Theory of Identity.” Communication Monographs 601, 76–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hecht, Michael L., Jennifer R. Warren, Eura Jung, and Janice L. Krieger
2005 “A Communication Theory of Identity: Development, Theoretical Perspective, and Future Directions.” In Theorizing about Intercultural Communication, ed. by William B. Gudykunst, 257–278. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2005 “Complementary and Contradictory Stereotypes in Proverbs: A Pragma-Theoretical Approach.” In Cooperation and Conflict in Ingroup and Intergroup Communication, selected papers from the Xth Biennial Congress of the IADA Bucharest 2005, ed. by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, and Liliana Hoinărescu, 349–371. Bucureşti: Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti.Google Scholar
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana
2010 “Straightforward vs. Mitigated Impoliteness in the Romanian Parliamentary Discourse. The Case of in absentia Impoliteness.” Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 55 (4): 343–351.Google Scholar
Kleiber, Georges
1994 Nominales. Essais de sémantique référentielle. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1993 “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.), ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenclud, Gérard
2011 “L’acte de mentir.” RevueTerrain 571: 4–19. http://​terrain​.revues​.org​/14277Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton
2008 “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal Logic 28 (3): 203–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, James Edwin
2008 “Two Definitions of Lying.” International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2): 211–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maingueneau, Dominique
2012 Analyser les textes de communication. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Markland, Aidan
2012 The Genealogy of Lying and Deception in Political Theory. Honors Theses. Wesleyan University. http://​wesscholar​.wesleyan​.edu​/etd​_hon​_theses​/785. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mecke, Jochen
(ed) 2007 Cultures of Lying. Theories and Practice of Lying in Society, Literature and Film. Proceedings of a conference held Sept. 30 - Oct. 2 in Rosenburg, Germany. Glienicke, Berlin, Cambridge, Mass: Galda&Wilch Verlag.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
2005 “Lying and Falsely Implicating.” Journal of Pragmatics 371: 1373–1399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “On Lying: Intentionality, Implicature and Imprecision.” Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2): 277–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noh, Eun-Ju
2000 Metarepresentation: A Relevance Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal R
2007 “Proverbs as Set Phrases.” In Phraseology: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 28, ed. by Harald Burger, Dmitrij Dobrovoľskij, Peter Kühn, and Neal Norrick, 381–393. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
1958/2008 Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne
1992 “Le paradoxe du mensonge dans la théorie des actes de langage.” Cahiers de linguistique française 131: 125–147.Google Scholar
1994 “The Description of Lies in Speech Act Theory.” In Pretending to Communicate, ed. by Herman Parret, 292–298. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rebul, Anne
2002 “Semantic Transparency, Semantic Opacity, States of Affairs, Mental States and Speech Acts.” In Say Not to Say. New Perspectives on Miscommunication, ed. by Luigi Anolli, et al., 43–71. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Sarr, Pierre
2010 “Discours sur le mensonge de Platon à Saint Augustin: continuité ou rupture.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 36 (2): 9–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina
1999 “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presuppositions.” In Language and Ideology. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatic Conference, vol. I1, ed. by Jef Verschueren, 492–509. Antwerp: International Pragmatic Association.Google Scholar
Searle, John R
1989/1969 Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
2007 “Theories of Identity and the Analysis of Face.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 639–656. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In What is Intelligence, ed. by J. Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1986/1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey
(eds) 1987 History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas
1998 Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa (AL): University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
2001 “Persuasive Definitions and Public Policy Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 371: 117–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Fabritio Macagno
2011 “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic 31 (1): 27–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
1999 “Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication”. UCLWPL 111: 127–161. http://​www​.phon​.ucl​.ac​.uk​/home​/PUB​/WPL​/99papers​/wilson​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yule, George
1996 Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Moldovan, Andrei
2022. Questions, Presuppositions and Fallacies. Argumentation Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. 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.