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 The Variety in the Lexicon of Rap and Gospel by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Concord with collective nouns in British and American English by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The diseased city - Images of the body in expressionist and futurist poetry by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Examination of the Sea Resort Prora by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Zentralbankinterventionen bei Liquiditätsschocks / Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book A Semantic Analysis of Bachelor and Spinster by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The agricultural sector in Spain and Poland during the pre-accession period by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Paul Ricoeur y la Ética hermenéutica by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Das Textproduktionsmodell Göpferichs und seine Anwendbarkeit auf die technische Redaktion by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Housing the urban poor in the mega-cities of the developing world by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Aspects of Civility in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book The Strategies of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X in the Course of the Mass African-American Protest of the Early 1960s by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Learning the difference between black and white: The racial struggle between black and white Americans as represented in a selection of Chester Himes' short stories by Claudia Effenberger
Cover of the book Wir selbst sind Zeit 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