Suchergebnisse

The persuasive power of political discourse almost entirely rests on the skillful usage of language. Only politicians equipped with a plethora of linguistic tools manage to truly lay claims on political power and authority. This study seeks to analyze the linguistic strategies Macedonian politicians utilize in their political speeches, in order to construct their and their opponents' roles in the political arena, and to present a reality which simultaneously legitimizes their ideology and undermines the ideology of their adversaries. Based on Critical Discourse Analysis, this study is qualitative in nature and its aim is to investigate how politicians in a very concrete socio-political context with their choice of lexis, syntactic structures, and figures of speech, make an attempt to successfully present themselves and, at the same time, mar their opponents' repute. The study shows that, apart from the evident similarities, yet certain differences appear in the use of the linguistic strategies between the politician who currently holds the political control and the one who is aspiring to come to power.

Über 200 Jahre amerikanischer Geschichte, und teilweise auch Weltgeschichte, spiegeln sich in den hier versammelten 15 Reden. Die grossen Präsidenten-Reden stehen im Zentrum des Bandes: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon (Abdankung), Carter, Reagan (Rede am Brandenburger Tor), Bush sen., Bush jun. (11.9.2001). Daneben sind die Reden von Tecumseh (Vincennes-Rede), Marshall (Plan), Martin Luther King ("I have a dream") und Hilary Clinton (Frauenrechtsrede) enthalten

In the United States the Constitution protects controversial speech such as libel toward public figures, flag burning, and hate speech. A common argument for protecting such speech is that it is political and contributes to the greater public debate. Restricting such speech would be restricting political dissent which could have dangerous effects for our democracy. However, hate speech, I argue, does not always constitute political dissent when it is directed towards private individuals and could thus warrant restriction. For this project I have entered a debate between several notable philosophers to include Ronald Dworkin, James Weinstein, Frederick Schauer, Thomas Scanlon, and Jeremey Waldron who disagree about whether there should be hate speech bans and to what affect they would have on society. Their argument relies on a distinction which I want to call into question: 'downstream' laws are antidiscrimination and violence laws that protect people from ideologies like sexism and racism; 'upstream' laws that the ones that target hate speech and dissent against downstream laws. Opponents of hate speech bans, like Dworkin, are worried that these bans will restrict a person's ability to politically dissent. I argue that this distinction is incorrect and that hate speech bans should also be considered downstream laws that protect people in a similar manner that antidiscrimination laws do. Further, I argue that there is no concern that a person's political speech would be restricted if this distinction can be proven incorrect. Along the way I have examined the various articles and books by the interlocutors, Supreme Court cases, and recent developments in free speech cases. After reading a more recent debate between several philosophers, political scientists, and legal theorist, I feel that I could contribute significantly to what has been said because it would undermine a keep assumption made by all.

Speech Acts theories have been a considerable revolution in the developments of pragmatics as a discipline. However, pragmatics cannot be fully studied without taking in consideration discourse analysis, since they are closely joint with each other. Undoubtedly, political discourse has been a major domain of language use that has attracted the interests of researchers for a long while. This is because political discourse is a complex human activity that deserves critical study particularly because of its central place in the organization and management of society. This study investigates the role of language in the communication and interpretation of intentions by examining selected political speeches as pieces of discourse with specific goals. Since the politician`s speech is mainly concerned with persuading or making the others believe what you are saying, the Speech Acts play the most important role. It presents and documents some of the significant illocutionary acts that convey the intentions of speakers in political speeches. Firstly, we will provide the theoretical explanation of the two main theories concerning Speech acts, Austin`s and Searle`s ones. Secondly, we will try to analyze the first Edi Rama`s victorious political speech after the general elections held in Albania in June 2013 concerning Speech Acts and their categorizations.

Speech Acts theories have been a considerable revolution in the developments of pragmatics as a discipline. However, pragmatics cannot be fully studied without taking in consideration discourse analysis, since they are closely joint with each other. Undoubtedly, political discourse has been a major domain of language use that has attracted the interests of researchers for a long while. This is because political discourse is a complex human activity that deserves critical study particularly because of its central place in the organization and management of society. This study investigates the role of language in the communication and interpretation of intentions by examining selected political speeches as pieces of discourse with specific goals. Since the politician`s speech is mainly concerned with persuading or making the others believe what you are saying, the Speech Acts play the most important role. It presents and documents some of the significant illocutionary acts that convey the intentions of speakers in political speeches. Firstly, we will provide the theoretical explanation of the two main theories concerning Speech acts, Austin`s and Searle`s ones. Secondly, we will try to analyze the first Edi Rama`s victorious political speech after the general elections held in Albania in June 2013 concerning Speech Acts and their categorizations. Article visualizations:

AbstractReligious leaders and congregants alike report high levels of political discussions in their churches. Yet, direct observations of political topics in a wide set of religious settings are rare. We examine the nature of political speech by clergy with a novel dataset of over 110,000 sermons. Using a computational text analysis approach and multiple forms of validation, we find political content in more than a third of religious sermons and that seven of 10 pastors discuss political topics at some point. Common topics include the economy, war, homosexuality, welfare, and abortion. We then use a geographic data to link the sermons to demographic and political information around the church and to information about the church and pastor to evaluate the variation of political content in sermons. We find that most pastors—across location and denomination—engage around political topics, confirming the intertwined nature of religion and politics in the United States.

The Supreme Court spoke clearly this Term on the issue of corporate political speech, concluding in Citizens United v. FEC that the First Amendment protects corporations' freedom to spend corporate funds on indirect support of political candidates. Constitutional law scholars will long debate the wisdom of that holding, as do the authors of the two other Comments in this issue. In contrast, this Comment accepts as given that corporations may not be limited from spending money on politics should they decide to speak. We focus instead on an important question left unanswered by Citizens United: who should have the power to decide whether a corporation will engage in political speech?

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down, in a 5-4 decision, a key provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, affirming the right of corporations to expend their own funds to engage in political speech. The author makes an argument that the ruling is just and a positive step form federal campaign finance laws. Adapted from the source document.

The Supreme Court spoke clearly this Term on the issue of corporate political speech, concluding in Citizens United v. FEC' that the First Amendment protects corporations' freedom to spend corporate funds on indirect support of political candidates. 2 Constitutional law scholars will long debate the wisdom of that holding, as do the authors of the two other Comments in this issue.3 In contrast, this Comment accepts as given that corporations may not be limited from spending money on politics should they decide to speak. We focus instead on an important question left unanswered by Citizens United: who should have the power to decide whether a corporation will engage in political speech? Under existing law, a corporation's decision to engage in political speech is governed by the same rules as ordinary business decisions, which give directors and executives virtually plenary authority. In this Comment, we argue that such rules are inappropriate for corporate political speech decisions. Instead, lawmakers should develop special rules to govern who may make political speech decisions on behalf of corporations. We analyze the types of rules that lawmakers should consider. We also offer a set of proposals, and policymaking considerations, for designing such rules.