Функция повтора в политическом дискурсе

Introduction
1. The Concept of Political Discourse
1.1 Context
1.2 Political discourse structures
2. The meaning of repetition and Functions of repetition
2.1 The meaning of repetition
2.2 Specific types of repetition
2.3 Functions of repetition
2.4 Cohesive repetition
3. Analysis and Interpretation
3.1 Against Going to War with Iraq (October 2, 2002)
Conclusion
References

While studying here, my father met my mother. The characteristics of Hoey’s classification of the complex lexical repetition are same as a rhetorical device named polyptoton. According to The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics polyptoton "increases patterning without wearying the ear, and it takes advantages of the differing functions."[Preminger, Brogan, 1993, p. 967]. In other words, using this device is seen as positive and not bothering the listeners but rather helping the text to seem coherent. Lexical cohesion does not include only the iterated items but, as Halliday and Hasan describe, it includes also the usage of different words with the same meaning - synonym, near-synonym, and also the usage of a general word for more specific member of the group – superordinate. Collocation also belongs to lexical repetition and it concerns lexical items that have a common word meaning [Halliday, Hasan, 1980, p. 278, 284-285]. The short explanation of the use of synonyms and collocations is included to provide a complete background of lexical cohesion. These terms will not be dealt with in the analysis closely because the use of synonyms and collocation seems to go too far from the repetition of words. The use of synonyms may be even understood as the avoidance of repeating and as such it is not the study aim of this paper. The same or similar items are supposed to be more influential and more easily recognizable for the listeners. As to the advantages of cohesive repetition, Tannen states that repeated items facilitate better comprehension by providing not so demanding text for the hearer. If all uttered words carried new information it would be more difficult for the listener to understand the speech. Such redundancies not only create cohesion but also the hearer receives the speech more easily [Tannen, 2007, p. 59]. On the other hand, Quirk et al. speak about lexical recurrence mainly negatively. According to them, an ironic effect may be created by overuse of one word and it may become disturbing [Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1441]. Their negative view is influenced by taking into consideration mainly unintentional repetition, which is not seen as positive. Moreover, they also point out that especially in legal language this process is tolerated to avoid misunderstanding [Quirk et al., 1985, p. 1441]. The Osborns also indicate that repetition is avoided in writing classes for creating redundancy but in communication it is seen positively because it helps understanding and achieving clarity [Osborn, M., Osborn S., 1988, p. 250]. They do not acknowledge rhetorical effect of repetition as their concern is based more on written than on spoken discourse. Contrastively, Tannen takes into consideration the spoken discourse and states that repetition is perceived positively because it serves listeners for better orientation in the speech and helps them to pay attention more easily.3. Analysis and Interpretation3.1 Against Going to War with Iraq (October 2, 2002)Paragraph 1: The combination of imperative verb 'let' and first person pronoun in accusative case 'me' at the very beginning of speech is a wise transitivity choice, as the use of the adjunct 'although' at this place would have been unexpected and shocking start for the audience. This adjunct might introduce some conditional situation, hence a shocking effect on the audience, if it had been given the thematic place in the second sentence of the speech. The speaker seems aware of it, prefers to choose at the thematic place the independent clause beginning with the imperative 'let' and accusative 'me'. This deliberately chosen transitivity choice of allowance seeking process 'let', without a possible additional agent 'you', at the thematic position of the very opening sentence of the speech places the audience at the extreme position of the highest authoritative pedestal. Hence the speaker is successful at winning a prior sympathetic favour of the audience for the views he has not expressed yet. Paragraph 2Obama speaks against US invasion of Iraq in this speech but before coming to the point of his anti-war concept regarding Iraq, he wins the confidence of the audience by recounting the event of his own grandfather's joining US army. He tells us about this in a three-clause sentence. The action (material) processes of 'signing up' and 'fighting' show the decisiveness and the absence of hesitation in going for a war for a cause. The speaker by choosing the action (material) processes makes an impression that shunning a war is not what he is saying as bravery is in his lineage. The sentence 'He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka' displays a partial syntactic parallelism between its first two independent clauses separated by a semi colon (SPCA in the first clause and SPC-dependent clause). This partial syntactic parallelism provides the force necessary to prove the element of bravery in Obama's lineage, hence wins favours of the listeners at a difficult antiwar speech. In transitivity systems the verbal elements 'saw' and 'heard' are mental processes of perception (Martin, Matthiessen & Painter, 1997). But Obama uses these verbs as mental processes of affection as the verbs 'saw ' and 'heard' convey the feeling of suffering, not of sensory perceptions. The participants involved in the mental clause are Senser and Phenomenon (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004). Here senser (he) and phenomenon (the dead) converts the perception verb 'saw' into affection verb, winning the sympathies of the audience for Obama.The circumstance of location is that part of clause which provides information about 'when' and / or 'where' a certain process took place (Martin et al. 1997). The dependent material clause of event (who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka) serves here as a rank shifted clause, working as circumstance of location (spatial). "Through rank shift it is possible for a unit to include among its constituents a unit of rank equal to or higher than itself" (Berry, 1977). So material clause of event (who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka) serves the clause (he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka) as one of its constituents, i.e. circumstance of location (spatial). Since "Auschwitz" and 'Treblinka" are the names of real places, i.e. Nazi concentration and extermination camps in German-occupied Southern Poland (Olive, 2008), the circumstance of location (spatial) in the transitivity system of this clause develops the credibility of speaker. Paragraph 3First sentence displays a marked syntactic structure. The circumstance of location (temporal) 'after September 11th' is given the thematic force, which is followed by another circumstance of location (temporal), 'after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears'. The material process of action 'supported' and the participants 'I', actor, and "this administration's pledge', goal, are deliberately introduced after a combination of two elements of circumstance of location (temporal) mentioned above. This syntactic choice of transitivity in this sentence structure makes the audience believe that the speaker is a true patriot who can never forget 9/11 and the destruction caused by it. So they let open the polite side of their selves for the antiwar views of Obama, next to come in this speech.ConclusionThis analysis of political discoursestructures is not an exercise in applying cognitive psychology to politicaldiscourse studies. Rather, the cognitive analysis is essential to truly describeand explain in detail how political discourse expresses and plays its role in thepolitical process. That is, political text and talk is related to the immediatepolitical context and occasioning, as was. Sir John's speech in a parliamentarydebate about immigration. However, it appeared that it is not the context itselfthat thus relates to discourse, but the models the participants construct of theinteractional or communicative context. It is through a socio-cognitivelydefined notion of relevance that we are able to demonstrate how exactly, andwhy, political situations constrain text and talk, and conversely.Similarly, political discourse is seldom just personal, although it shouldnot be forgotten that the converse is also true: It is not only social or political,but as individual text and talk also embodies individual characteristics. Only acognitive theory is able to spell out this interface between the social and thepersonal, namely through the relations between episodic mental models andother personal representations, on the one hand, and the socially sharedpolitical representations of groups, on the other hand. Political groups orinstitutions are thus defined not only socio-politically in terms of sets ofinteracting actors or collectivities and their interactions, but also socio-cognitively in terms of their shared knowledge, attitudes, ideologies, norms and234 Teun A. van Dijkvalues. In other words, political discourse can only be adequately describedand explained when we spell out the socio-cognitive interface that relates it tothe socially shared political representations that control political actions,processes and systems.ReferencesBaldick, Chris. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 280 s. ISBN 0-19-280118-X. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Fillmore, C. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni Di Semantica, VI (2), 222-254. FISCHER, Andreas (ed.). Repetition. Tübingen: Gunten Narr Verlag, 1994. 268 s. ISBN 3-8233-4682-2. Fower, H.W. BurchfieldR.W. The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. 3 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 873 s. ISBN 0-19-860263-4. Gaulle Ch. de Une Nouvelle Déclaration // Le Monde. Octobre 11. 1946. 3eme Année. № 561. HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; HASAN, Ruqaiya. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1980. 374 s. ISBN 0-582-55041-6. HOEY, Michael. Patterns of lexis in Text. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1991. 276 s. ISBN 0-19-437142-5. JohnsonL. Thegreatsociety [Электронный ресурс]: доклад, прочитанный 22.05.1964. URL: http://library.nstu.ru/ InfoUSA/facts/speeches/rhetoric/archive.htm JOHNSTONE et al. Repetition in Discourse: A Dialogue. In JOHNSTONE, Barbara (ed.). Repetition in Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Vol. One. New Persey: Alex Publishing corporation, 1994. 250 s. ISBN 0-89391-830-X.JUCKER, Andrea H. Irrelevant Repetitions: A Challenge to Relevance Theory. In KJELLMER, Göran. Self-repetition in spoken English discourse. In NEVALAINEN, Terstu; TAAVITSAINEN, Irma; PAHTA, Päivi; KORHONEN, Minna. The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008. 339 s. ISBN 978-90-272-3482-7. LANHAM, Richard A.. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. 2 ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. 205 s. ISBN 0-520-07669-9. MCARHTUR, Tom. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.1184 s.ISBN 0-19-214183-X. OSBORN, Michael; OSBORN, Suzanne. Public Speaking. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988. 490 s. ISBN 0-395-35955-4. PERSSON, Gunnar. Repetition in English. Part 1. Sequential Repetition. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1974. 178 s. ISBN 91-554-0239-9. PREMINGER, Alex; BROGAN, T. V. F. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. 1383 s. ISBN: 0-691-02123-6. Reagan R. Acceptance of the republican nomination for president. [Электронный ресурс]: доклад, прочитанный 17.07.1980. URL: http://library.nstu.ru/InfoUSA/facts/speeches/rhetoric/archive.htm TANNEN, Deborah. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2 ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 233 s. ISBN 978-0-521-86890-7. VICKERS, Brian. In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. 508 s. ISBN 0-19-811791-4. VICKERS, Brian. Repetition and Emphasis in Rhetoric: Theory and Practice. In FISCHER, Andreas (ed.). Repetition. Tübingen: Gunten Narr Verlag, 1994. 268 s. ISBN 3-8233-4682-2. Богин Г. И. Субстанциальная сторона понимания. Тверь: Изд-во Тверского госуниверситета, 1993. 137 с.Васильева С. Л. Функциональный аспект метафоризации в политическом дискурсе // Гуманитарные науки в контексте международного сотрудничества: материалы докладов Международной научной конференции 19-20 апреля 2005 г. Владивосток: Изд-во ДВГТУ, 2005. С. 62-72. Крюкова Н. Ф. Средства метафоризации и понимание текста. Тверь: Твер. гос. ун-т, 1999. 128 с. Молотов В. М. Речь на XXVII съезде ВКП(б) 26 января 1934 г. [Электронный ресурс]: доклад, прочитанный 26.01.1934 на заседании XXVII съездаВКП(б). URL: http://17.by.ru/ index.htm