Suchergebnisse

In everyday life, impoliteness is understood as a violation of the established rules of etiquette. In the science of linguistic pragmatics, impolite behaviour is primarily associated with negatively evaluated behaviour, occuring in specific context. The object of this research is linguistic impoliteness in Lithuanian political debates. The aim is to reveal the manifestations of impoliteness, analyze face-threatening acts, ascertain what is characteristic of impoliteness during the debates. In order to achieve the goal, quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods were applied. The material for the study was collected from the debates before the elections to the Seimas for the 2016–2020 term. The total duration of the debates is 720 minutes. The analysis revealed that all participants are involved in the impoliteness. Another feature of impoliteness in debates is that politicians seek to increase their power through face-threatening acts. An examination of the propositional content of face-threatening acts revealed that opponents are often belittled by claiming that they are lying or hiding the truth. In most cases face-threatening speech acts are performed indirectly and expressed using internal and external modifications. This suggests that politicians in TV debates seek to damage their rival`s face in a way that does not harm their own face by applying indirect impoliteness strategies and by negatively describing their opponents` general competencies.

In everyday life, impoliteness is understood as a violation of the established rules of etiquette. In the science of linguistic pragmatics, impolite behaviour is primarily associated with negatively evaluated behaviour, occuring in specific context. The object of this research is linguistic impoliteness in Lithuanian political debates. The aim is to reveal the manifestations of impoliteness, analyze face-threatening acts, ascertain what is characteristic of impoliteness during the debates. In order to achieve the goal, quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods were applied. The material for the study was collected from the debates before the elections to the Seimas for the 2016–2020 term. The total duration of the debates is 720 minutes. The analysis revealed that all participants are involved in the impoliteness. Another feature of impoliteness in debates is that politicians seek to increase their power through face-threatening acts. An examination of the propositional content of face-threatening acts revealed that opponents are often belittled by claiming that they are lying or hiding the truth. In most cases face-threatening speech acts are performed indirectly and expressed using internal and external modifications. This suggests that politicians in TV debates seek to damage their rival`s face in a way that does not harm their own face by applying indirect impoliteness strategies and by negatively describing their opponents` general competencies.

This article examines impoliteness in political TV debates in Lithuania. Study adopts qualitative and quantitative content analysis method to analyze 720 minutes of political debates broadcasted before the 2016 Lithuanian Parliamentary elections. Current paper presents theoretical approach to impoliteness, which is later used in empirical analysis to address 2 main objectives: a) to study impoliteness in terms of directness/indirectness and b) to reveal how face threatening acts (FTAs) are expressed. The results of the study have revealed that impoliteness during political TV debates is almost equally expressed directly and indirectly. Direct impoliteness during political debates can be expressed using all functional types of the sentences. Indirect impoliteness in debates can be modified internally and externally using various language resources: inclusive we form, official addressing words, irony, parantheses. This suggests that impoliteness in the context of political TV debates is a unique phenomenon specified by various creative ways of using the language in order to publicly belittle political opponents.

ParlaMint is a multilingual set of comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after October 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1405.

ParlaMint 2.1 is a multilingual set of 17 comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after November 1st 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the ParlaMint TEI-encoded corpora with the derived plain text version of the corpus along with TSV metadata on the speeches. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. Note that there also exists the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, which is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1431.

ParlaMint is a multilingual set of comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (after October 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, while the text version is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1388. The ParlaMint.ana linguistic annotation includes tokenization, sentence segmentation, lemmatisation, Universal Dependencies part-of-speech, morphological features, and syntactic dependencies, and the 4-class CoNLL-2003 named entities. Some corpora also have further linguistic annotations, such as PoS tagging or named entities according to language-specific schemes, with their corpus TEI headers giving further details on the annotation vocabularies and tools. The compressed files include the ParlaMint.ana XML TEI-encoded linguistically annotated corpus; the derived corpus in CoNLL-U with TSV speech metadata; and the vertical files (with registry file), suitable for use with CQP-based concordancers, such as CWB, noSketch Engine or KonText. Also included is the 2.0 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project.

ParlaMint 2.1 is a multilingual set of 17 comparable corpora containing parliamentary debates mostly starting in 2015 and extending to mid-2020, with each corpus being about 20 million words in size. The sessions in the corpora are marked as belonging to the COVID-19 period (from November 1st 2019), or being "reference" (before that date). The corpora have extensive metadata, including aspects of the parliament; the speakers (name, gender, MP status, party affiliation, party coalition/opposition); are structured into time-stamped terms, sessions and meetings; with speeches being marked by the speaker and their role (e.g. chair, regular speaker). The speeches also contain marked-up transcriber comments, such as gaps in the transcription, interruptions, applause, etc. Note that some corpora have further information, e.g. the year of birth of the speakers, links to their Wikipedia articles, their membership in various committees, etc. The corpora are encoded according to the Parla-CLARIN TEI recommendation (https://clarin-eric.github.io/parla-clarin/), but have been validated against the compatible, but much stricter ParlaMint schemas. This entry contains the linguistically marked-up version of the corpus, while the text version is available at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1432. The ParlaMint.ana linguistic annotation includes tokenization, sentence segmentation, lemmatisation, Universal Dependencies part-of-speech, morphological features, and syntactic dependencies, and the 4-class CoNLL-2003 named entities. Some corpora also have further linguistic annotations, such as PoS tagging or named entities according to language-specific schemes, with their corpus TEI headers giving further details on the annotation vocabularies and tools. The compressed files include the ParlaMint.ana XML TEI-encoded linguistically annotated corpus; the derived corpus in CoNLL-U with TSV speech metadata; and the vertical files (with registry file), suitable for use with CQP-based concordancers, such as CWB, noSketch Engine or KonText. Also included is the 2.1 release of the data and scripts available at the GitHub repository of the ParlaMint project. As opposed to the previous version 2.0, this version corrects some errors in various corpora and adds the information on upper / lower house for bicameral parliaments. The vertical files have also been changed to make them easier to use in the concordancers.

Television debate: the technique of dispute Debates have an old history, counting from Greek civilization to these days. In television we see different debates. But the same dimension – search of truth – is still important thing. Like our capabilities to express the truth have changed by the birth of every new technology of communication, the truth telling in television by debates have changed to. In antiquity times an argue was the most important instrument to find the true. Politics, judges, soldiery learned how to debate in public ant to prove his true, by using arguments and oratory. Every oratory speaker had to follow the rules of arguing. Television debates use only the rules, which help to please audience. In medieval times arguing becomes a part of science. Speakers are not trying to find the true, but to prove that your propositions are the true. These rules intercept television debates. Television argues don't have the same lineaments like antiquity or medieval debates. It becomes not the part of science, but borrows some rules of rhetoric. Television creates mixture of rhetorical ant television arguing. In Lithuanian debates the technique of dispute is based on the broadcasts moderator, who create the dispute by his personal tricks, by transferring his functions to invited talkers. The dispute is created before debates broadcasting by inviting specific persons and two arguing sites. There are elements, which can create dispute like audience, telephone calls, position of studio elements or talkers, but they are still forgotten in Lithuanian technique of dispute. In television have accepted the signs of reality television, witch debates has intercepted. In such television the process becoms more important, then the content. In debates we can see actors, who acts their roles to receive interests. Television is the key to the futures carrier for politicians, political scientists and journalists. As reality television needs persons intimate life, debates becomes emotional, these persons readjust to these wants. Today we can see that debates becames more boring, without emotions and reality television atributes. In debatus we can see less argues, less interesting speakers. Audience are forgotten at all. And these changes react to the ratings. As we can see from the research, debatus becomes more popular when it loses reality television.

Television debate: the technique of dispute Debates have an old history, counting from Greek civilization to these days. In television we see different debates. But the same dimension – search of truth – is still important thing. Like our capabilities to express the truth have changed by the birth of every new technology of communication, the truth telling in television by debates have changed to. In antiquity times an argue was the most important instrument to find the true. Politics, judges, soldiery learned how to debate in public ant to prove his true, by using arguments and oratory. Every oratory speaker had to follow the rules of arguing. Television debates use only the rules, which help to please audience. In medieval times arguing becomes a part of science. Speakers are not trying to find the true, but to prove that your propositions are the true. These rules intercept television debates. Television argues don't have the same lineaments like antiquity or medieval debates. It becomes not the part of science, but borrows some rules of rhetoric. Television creates mixture of rhetorical ant television arguing. In Lithuanian debates the technique of dispute is based on the broadcasts moderator, who create the dispute by his personal tricks, by transferring his functions to invited talkers. The dispute is created before debates broadcasting by inviting specific persons and two arguing sites. There are elements, which can create dispute like audience, telephone calls, position of studio elements or talkers, but they are still forgotten in Lithuanian technique of dispute. In television have accepted the signs of reality television, witch debates has intercepted. In such television the process becoms more important, then the content. In debates we can see actors, who acts their roles to receive interests. Television is the key to the futures carrier for politicians, political scientists and journalists. As reality television needs persons intimate life, debates becomes emotional, these persons readjust to these wants. Today we can see that debates becames more boring, without emotions and reality television atributes. In debatus we can see less argues, less interesting speakers. Audience are forgotten at all. And these changes react to the ratings. As we can see from the research, debatus becomes more popular when it loses reality television.

Television debate: the technique of dispute Debates have an old history, counting from Greek civilization to these days. In television we see different debates. But the same dimension – search of truth – is still important thing. Like our capabilities to express the truth have changed by the birth of every new technology of communication, the truth telling in television by debates have changed to. In antiquity times an argue was the most important instrument to find the true. Politics, judges, soldiery learned how to debate in public ant to prove his true, by using arguments and oratory. Every oratory speaker had to follow the rules of arguing. Television debates use only the rules, which help to please audience. In medieval times arguing becomes a part of science. Speakers are not trying to find the true, but to prove that your propositions are the true. These rules intercept television debates. Television argues don't have the same lineaments like antiquity or medieval debates. It becomes not the part of science, but borrows some rules of rhetoric. Television creates mixture of rhetorical ant television arguing. In Lithuanian debates the technique of dispute is based on the broadcasts moderator, who create the dispute by his personal tricks, by transferring his functions to invited talkers. The dispute is created before debates broadcasting by inviting specific persons and two arguing sites. There are elements, which can create dispute like audience, telephone calls, position of studio elements or talkers, but they are still forgotten in Lithuanian technique of dispute. In television have accepted the signs of reality television, witch debates has intercepted. In such television the process becoms more important, then the content. In debates we can see actors, who acts their roles to receive interests. Television is the key to the futures carrier for politicians, political scientists and journalists. As reality television needs persons intimate life, debates becomes emotional, these persons readjust to these wants. Today we can see that debates becames more boring, without emotions and reality television atributes. In debatus we can see less argues, less interesting speakers. Audience are forgotten at all. And these changes react to the ratings. As we can see from the research, debatus becomes more popular when it loses reality television.

Television debate: the technique of dispute Debates have an old history, counting from Greek civilization to these days. In television we see different debates. But the same dimension – search of truth – is still important thing. Like our capabilities to express the truth have changed by the birth of every new technology of communication, the truth telling in television by debates have changed to. In antiquity times an argue was the most important instrument to find the true. Politics, judges, soldiery learned how to debate in public ant to prove his true, by using arguments and oratory. Every oratory speaker had to follow the rules of arguing. Television debates use only the rules, which help to please audience. In medieval times arguing becomes a part of science. Speakers are not trying to find the true, but to prove that your propositions are the true. These rules intercept television debates. Television argues don't have the same lineaments like antiquity or medieval debates. It becomes not the part of science, but borrows some rules of rhetoric. Television creates mixture of rhetorical ant television arguing. In Lithuanian debates the technique of dispute is based on the broadcasts moderator, who create the dispute by his personal tricks, by transferring his functions to invited talkers. The dispute is created before debates broadcasting by inviting specific persons and two arguing sites. There are elements, which can create dispute like audience, telephone calls, position of studio elements or talkers, but they are still forgotten in Lithuanian technique of dispute. In television have accepted the signs of reality television, witch debates has intercepted. In such television the process becoms more important, then the content. In debates we can see actors, who acts their roles to receive interests. Television is the key to the futures carrier for politicians, political scientists and journalists. As reality television needs persons intimate life, debates becomes emotional, these persons readjust to these wants. Today we can see that debates becames more boring, without emotions and reality television atributes. In debatus we can see less argues, less interesting speakers. Audience are forgotten at all. And these changes react to the ratings. As we can see from the research, debatus becomes more popular when it loses reality television.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they can not be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism can not win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules.