Constructing the convincing political speech

The conditions and aims of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political language with special focus on the 'Sportpalastrede' of Joseph Goebbels

Nonfiction, Entertainment, Drama, Anthologies
Cover of the book Constructing the convincing political speech by Claudia Effenberger, GRIN Publishing
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Claudia Effenberger ISBN: 9783640212231
Publisher: GRIN Publishing Publication: November 17, 2008
Imprint: GRIN Publishing Language: English
Author: Claudia Effenberger
ISBN: 9783640212231
Publisher: GRIN Publishing
Publication: November 17, 2008
Imprint: GRIN Publishing
Language: English

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,0, University of Cologne (Englisches Seminar), course: Sociolinguistics, 8 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: If today one thinks of politics, politicians and their language there is one opinion that always comes first: All politicians are liars They are smooth-talkers who promise things they cannot fulfil only to get more votes in the coming-up election and they use beautiful words to paraphrase and disguise social injustices. And in some points this opinion is right. There really is a specific political language used by the politicians to follow certain aims but this has not always to be disguise or circumscription. What many of the citizens simply ignore is the fact, that politicians are dependent from the mass. Without the public there would be no need for politicians. And the same goes for political discussions. Politicians don't argue with each other because they like it. It is always the fact that a political actor starts political relations with another actor and at the same time with the public. If two politicians talk to each other on the television this is always orchestrated for the people who watch the show. (see Dieckmann 1981: 265) The main reason for every politician to lie or to use special vocabulary is for the purpose of being convincing. This paper analyses the language used by politicians in certain situations to convince people of the correctness of their point of view, in its' roots, mainly based on the book Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic analysis of Political Language by John Wilson. The main focus of this paper is put to the question of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political talk, under which conditions the one is used and when the other and what for. It is not arguable that politicians always have a reason for using ´I` or ´we` in different contexts, especially in written speeches that are planned and very well prepared. Also the difference between scripted and unscripted speeches will be touched in this paper. To employ the theoretical basis that is provided here, in the last section the famous 'Sportpalast'-speech of Joseph Goebbels from 1943 will be analysed with regard to the use of different pronominal forms. The final summary shall bundle the gained information to a logical minimum and draw some conclusions from it. It will show if political use of speech is intentionally manipulating and disguising facts, especially in the example of Goebbels or if the use of language in politics does not differ in great parts from the day-to-day use at home.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Linguistics, grade: 1,0, University of Cologne (Englisches Seminar), course: Sociolinguistics, 8 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: If today one thinks of politics, politicians and their language there is one opinion that always comes first: All politicians are liars They are smooth-talkers who promise things they cannot fulfil only to get more votes in the coming-up election and they use beautiful words to paraphrase and disguise social injustices. And in some points this opinion is right. There really is a specific political language used by the politicians to follow certain aims but this has not always to be disguise or circumscription. What many of the citizens simply ignore is the fact, that politicians are dependent from the mass. Without the public there would be no need for politicians. And the same goes for political discussions. Politicians don't argue with each other because they like it. It is always the fact that a political actor starts political relations with another actor and at the same time with the public. If two politicians talk to each other on the television this is always orchestrated for the people who watch the show. (see Dieckmann 1981: 265) The main reason for every politician to lie or to use special vocabulary is for the purpose of being convincing. This paper analyses the language used by politicians in certain situations to convince people of the correctness of their point of view, in its' roots, mainly based on the book Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic analysis of Political Language by John Wilson. The main focus of this paper is put to the question of the use of the pronominal forms ´I` and ´we` in political talk, under which conditions the one is used and when the other and what for. It is not arguable that politicians always have a reason for using ´I` or ´we` in different contexts, especially in written speeches that are planned and very well prepared. Also the difference between scripted and unscripted speeches will be touched in this paper. To employ the theoretical basis that is provided here, in the last section the famous 'Sportpalast'-speech of Joseph Goebbels from 1943 will be analysed with regard to the use of different pronominal forms. The final summary shall bundle the gained information to a logical minimum and draw some conclusions from it. It will show if political use of speech is intentionally manipulating and disguising facts, especially in the example of Goebbels or if the use of language in politics does not differ in great parts from the day-to-day use at home.

More books from GRIN Publishing

Cover of the book On the history of racial theory and the concept of white supremacy by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Tennessee Williams' 'A Streetcar Named Desire' - Contrasting the Play With the Movie from 1951 Directed by Elia Kazan by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Partnership at work by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Knowledge is the organisation's essential source of competetive advantage by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Max Weber: Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book A Comparative Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership Approach in Sourcing Decisions by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Chris Ryan Firefight - Spezialgebiet, Inhaltsübersicht by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book How important is Web 2.0 for the tourism sector and how can the industry apply to this trend? by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Gender Expectations and Power Constellations in Robert Browning's 'My Last Duchess' by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Bodenklassifikation (AG Boden, FAO) by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Consider how international institutions can help in the protection of human rights by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Influencing Entrepreneurship - Heidelberg by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Stephen Greenblatt's New Historicism. A Viable Theory? by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book American Litigiousness: Historical sources and reform efforts by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The Benefits of Diversity by Claudia Effenberger
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy