Abstract
Following some previous lines of thought held by the author on the role of politeness and related phenomena in face-to-face electoral debates, this article deals with a series of linguistic devices frequently used by participants in this adversarial genre, and commonly characterized as mitigated aggression, in order to determine their main strategic values in the context of both current politics and the mass media spectacle. By making use of a methodology which combines both qualitative and quantitative analysis, it is demonstrated that the meaning and context in which these resources appear in electoral debate often contradict their literal meaning, and hence weaken the moderating function which is operative in non-adversarial genres. This, as well as other structural facts discussed in the article, allows us to understand some apparent contradictions in the fact that more aggressive participants could make the greatest use of both polite and impolite strategies; or that apparently polite strategies appear mainly in the core phases of the debate where aggressiveness and rudeness are the norm, and much less in the peripheral parts, where the dialectic war tones down.
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Sociology and Political Science,Language and Linguistics,Communication
Reference27 articles.
1. Tropic aggression in the Clinton-Dole presidential debate
2. Blas-Arroyo, J.L. (1998) ` “Pero no me interrumpa usted, haga el favor.”. Las interrupciones en el debate político-electoral' , Mediterranean Language Review 10: 54-88 .
3. Mire usted Sr. González … Personal deixis in Spanish political-electoral debate
4. Blas-Arroyo, J.L. (2001) ` “No diga chorradas.” La descortesía en el debate político cara a cara. Una aproximación pragma-variacionista' , Oralia 4: 9-45 .
5. Bolivar, A. (2001a) `El insulto como estrategia en el diálogo político venezolano' , Oralia 4: 47-73 .
Cited by
60 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献