Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 32:1 (2019) ► pp.304–328

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

Analyzing and comparing de Blasio’s and Quinn’s speech in their democratic election programs for 2013 New York Mayoral Elections

 | Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
Published online: 24 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.16009.san
Abstract
This paper aims to compare de Blasio’s and Quinn’s programs for 2013 New York Mayoral Elections to reveal their rhetoric and figurative language as a means of persuasion in political campaigns. This along with their backgrounds, appearance and previous supports will disclose some key points contributing to de Blasio’s victory. As this study focuses on linguistics, I rely on Political Discourse Analysis (Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398–416). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction. Volume 2. Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–294). London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), van Dijk’s Sociocognitive Approach ( (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and polarization ( (1999). Ideología. Una aproximación multidisciplinaria. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) – Chilton’s legitimation/delegitimation (Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Theory and practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) –, Charteris-Black’s Corpus Approach to Critical Metaphor Analysis (Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), politeness and facework (Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Double Day.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), and Taboada, M., & Grieve, J. (2004). Analyzing appraisal automatically. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Attitude and Affect in Text, 158–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar approach of Appraisal Theory (Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; White, P. R. R. (2012). The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning. The Appraisal Webpage <[URL]>). The results will show which verbal devices and phenomena are used as a linguistic weapon to influence people’s thoughts and attract voters, as well as to give a positive image of themselves (positive self-representation) or a negative image of the political opponent (negative other-representation).
Resumen
Este trabajo pretende comparar los programas de Quinn y de Blasio para las elecciones a la alcaldía de Nueva York de 2013 con el fin de revelar la retórica y el lenguaje figurado empleado como medio persuasivo durante dicha campaña. Esto, junto al análisis de sus raíces, apariencia y apoyos, descubrirá algunos puntos clave que contribuyeron a la victoria del último. Al tratarse de un estudio lingüístico, me baso en el Análisis del Discurso Político (Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398–416). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) y Crítico del Discurso (Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction. Volume 2. Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–294). London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), el Enfoque Sociocognitivo ( (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) y la polarización ( (1999). Ideología. Una aproximación multidisciplinaria. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) – o legitimación/delegitimación de Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Theory and practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar – de van Dijk, el Análisis Crítico de la Metáfora de Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, la cortesía y la imagen (Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Goffman, 1961) y el enfoque de Taboada, M., & Grieve, J. (2004). Analyzing appraisal automatically. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Attitude and Affect in Text, 158–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar de la Teoría de la Valoración (Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; White, P. R. R. (2012). The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning. The Appraisal Webpage <[URL]>). Los resultados mostrarán qué fenómenos y recursos verbales se utilizan como arma lingüística para influir y atraer votos, así como para ofrecer una imagen positiva propia o negativa del oponente.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
  • 3.Corpus and methodology
  • 4.2013 New York Mayoral Elections and Democratic candidates’ background
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Comparison of the topics and sections in both programs
    • 5.2Bill de Blasio
    • 5.3Christine Quinn
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (52)
References
Alonso, P., & Hyde, J. (2002). Introduction. In P. Alonso, M. J. Sánchez, J. Hyde & C. Moran (Eds.), Aspects of discourse analysis (pp. 9–18). Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alterman, E. (2014). Inequality and one city: Bill de Blasio and the New York experiment, year one. Minneapolis, MN: BookMobile.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balsera Fernández, M. (2012). Variaciones pragmáticas del discurso electoral: El caso de ‘HOPE’ de Barack Obama [Pragmatic variations in electoral discourse: The case of ‘Hope’ in Barack Obama]. Odisea. Revista de Estudios Ingleses, 131, 129–155.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. (2014). Why is Andrew Cuomo making a women’s party? Capital New York <[URL]>
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campanile, C. (2014). WFP tensions rise over Cuomo-backed Women’s Equality Party”. New York Post <[URL]>
Campbell, C. (2013). Mayor Bloomberg blasts Bill de Blasio’s ‘class-warfare and racist’ campaign. Observer <[URL]>
Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Politicians and rhetoric. The persuasive power of metaphor. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Theory and practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cox, J. L. (2012). Politics in motion: Barack Obama’s use of movement metaphors. American Communication Journal, 14(2), 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, E. (2013). Words as weapons for mass persuasion: Dysphemism in Churchill’s wartime speeches. Text & Talk, 33(3), 311–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Euphemism and political discourse in the British regional press. Brno Studies in English, 40(1), 5–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Blasio, B. (2013). One New York, rising together. New York: New Yorkers for de Blasio, printed in house.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edison Research of Somerville (2013). Exit Polls. The New York Times. <[URL]>
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Critical Discourse Analysis, organizational discourse and organizational change. Organization Studies, 261, 571–594.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction. Volume 2. Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–294). London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Double Day.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, M. (2014). The Women’s Equality Party is a joke. The Nation: Instigating Progress Daily <[URL]>
Jaffe, S. (2014). How New York’s Governor is playing politics with women’s equality. RH Reality Check <[URL]>
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor and culture. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Pholologica, 2(2), 197–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortoni (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 201–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lesz, B. (2011). To shape the world for the better: An analysis of metaphors in the speeches of Barack Obama. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López Cirugeda, I., & Sánchez Ruiz, R. (2013). Persuasive rhetoric in Barack Obama’s immigration speech: Pre- and post-electoral strategies. Camino Real. Estudios de las Hispanidades Norteamericanas, 5(8), 81–99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lutz, W. (1987). Doublespeak at large. English Today, 121, 21–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marist (2013a). Marist poll NYC adults: Interviews conducted August 12th through August 14th. The Wall Street Journal <[URL]>
(2013b). Poll shows de Blasio surge in New York City’s Mayoral primary. The Wall Street Journal <[URL]>
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: Appraisal system in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quinnipiac University (2013a). Lhota leads unknowns in New York City GOP primary, Quinnipiac University poll finds; but he loses mayoral race 3–1 to any democrat. Release Detail <[URL]>
(2013b). Quinn close to 40% in New York City Dem primary, Quinnipiac University poll finds; Voters more comfortable with gay than biz exec mayor. Release Detail <[URL]>
(2013c). 82% of New Yorkers say Big Apple is rotten, Quinnipiac University poll finds; Quinn slips but she and Lhota still lead in primaries. Release Detail <[URL]>
(2013d). Weiner should drop out, NYC likely Dem voters tell Quinnipiac University poll; Quinn leads, with de Blasio, Thompson tied for second. Release Detail <[URL]>
(2013e). De Blasio leads see-saw New York City Mayoral race, Quinnipiac University poll finds; Stop-and-frisk could be helping new front-runner. Release Detail <[URL]>
(2013f). De Blasio close to 40% in New York City Mayoral race, Quinnipiac University poll finds; Quinn, Thompson in battle for second place. Release Detail <[URL]>
Quinn, C. (2013). Forward together: A record of results. A plan for New York City. New York: Quinn for New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodríguez González, F. (1991). Prensa y lenguaje político. Alicante: Instituto de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shayegh, K., & Nabifar, N. (2012). Power in political discourse of Barack Obama. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(4), 3481–3491.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, M., & Grieve, J. (2004). Analyzing appraisal automatically. Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Attitude and Affect in Text, 158–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (2013). Why I’m disappointed Christine Quinn didn’t win the gay vote. Slate <[URL]>
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? In J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Comps.), Political Linguistics (pp. 11–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Ideología. Una aproximación multidisciplinaria. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). La multidisciplinariedad del análisis crítico del discurso: Un alegato a favor de la diversidad [Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity]. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Métodos del análisis crítico del discurso (pp. 143–179). Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Discurso y poder. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. (2012). The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning. The Appraisal Webpage <[URL]>
Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398–416). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue