Cover not available

In:Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu and Stanca Măda
[Dialogue Studies 26] 2015
► pp. 55–84

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

… 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)
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.04tos
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.
References (43)
References
Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. “Pragmatic Markers.” Pragmatics 6 (2): 167–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael, and Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holquist, Michael. 2002. Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998b. “Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge.” TEXT 18 (3): 349–382.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998c. “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998d. “Exploring Corporate Rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s Letter.” Journal of Business Communication 35 (2): 224–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005a. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005b. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7 (2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Academic Discourse.” In The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ken Hyland, and Brian Paltridge, 171–184. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2006. Language and Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Marianne, and Louise J. Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and David Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, Greg. 2010. The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Third Presidential Debate: Full Transcript. [URL]
Toska, Bledar. 2008. “Dialogizing Communication through Pragmatic Markers.” ELOPE 5 (1-2): 89–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012b. “Epistemic Hedges and Boosters as Stance Markers in Legal Argumentative Discourse.” Topics in Linguistics 10 (2): 57–62.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Waring, Hansun Z. 2003. “Also as a Discourse Marker: Its Use in Disjunctive and Disaffiliative Environments.” Discourse Studies 5 (3): 415–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zappen, James P. 2004. The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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 8 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue