Theresa May’s representation of reality in her Brexit speechestime and self-projection as meaningful values.

  1. Dolón Herrero, Rosana 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
IJES: international journal of English studies

ISSN: 1578-7044,  1989-6131

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Open Issue

Volumen: 20

Número: 3

Páginas: 109-127

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.6018/IJES.421751 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: IJES: international journal of English studies

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

This study analyses Theresa May’s three seminal Brexit speeches. These describe the kind of desirable post-Brexit EU-UK relationship that she envisioned, and together constitute a corpus of 18,532 words. The speeches can be considered as landmarks on a timeline that was initially meant to lead to the delivery of Brexit. It is hypothesized that there may be meaningful differences between the speeches, and that these affect the representation of reality. These in turn would have a bearing on May’s discursive self-representation as either an individualized or a collectivized social actor. To account for such representational values, the study draws on Halliday’s Transitivity System (1994), starting from the clause and its potential to express ideational meanings. With the aim of uncovering more convincing and interesting findings, a statistical analysis is applied.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Adjei, A. A., Ewusi-Mensah, L. & Okoh, H. (2015). Transitivity in political discourse – a study of the major process types in the 2009 state-of-the-nation address in Ghana. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 16, 23-32.
  • Ananko, T. (2017). The category of evaluation in political discourse. Advanced Education, 8, 128-137.
  • Arrieta-Castillo, C. & Berdasco-Gancedo, Y. (2020). Brexit and female leadership in Spanish digital media from a linguistic perspective. The case of Theresa May’s decline. Communication & Society, 33(2), 243-257.
  • Asthana, A., Boffey, D. & Perkins, A. (2018). ‘Theresa May Says Brexit will Reduce UK Access to Single Market’. The Guardian. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/02/theresa-may-says-brexit-will-reduce-uk-access-to-single-market
  • Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
  • Bloor, M. & Bloor, T. (2018). Systemic functional linguistics. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 151-164). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Budd, K. (2015). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Critical Discourse Analysis, 13(1), 139-141.
  • Bull, P. & Strawson, W. (2020). Can’t answer? Won’t answer? An analysis of equivocal responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 73, 429-449.
  • Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A. B. & Díez-Prados, M. (2014). Positive self-evaluation versus negative other-evaluation in the political genre of pre-election debates. Discourse and Society, 25(2), 159-185.
  • Catalano, T. (2011). Barack Obama: A semiotic analysis of his Philadelphia speech. Political Discourse Analysis, 3(1), 47-74.
  • Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Charteris-Black, J. (2013). Analysing Political Speeches. Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Chilton, P. & Schäffner, C. (Eds.). (2002). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Dominiczak, P. (2013). ‘Brexit: Theresa May Tells EU that “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal for Britain”’, The Telegraph. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/brexit-theresa-may-tells-eu-no-deal-better-bad-deal-britain/
  • Duranti, A. (2004). Agency in language. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 451–73). New York: Blackwell.
  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
  • Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour. New Language. London: Routledge.
  • Fairclough, N. & Fairclough, I. (2012). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
  • Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J. & Wodak, R. (2006). Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies. In Interdisciplinary Introduction (pp. 357-378). London: Sage.
  • Fawcett, R. P. (2010). A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Filardo-Llamas, L. & Boyd, M. S. (2018). Critical discourse analysis and politics. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 312-327). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Finlayson, A. & Martin, J. (2008). “It ain’t what you say …”: British political studies and the analysis of speech and rhetoric. Journal of British Politics, 3, 445-64.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nded. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. & Webster, J. J. (2014). Text Linguistics. The How and Why of Meaning. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
  • Harmon, L. (2017). Political discourse as practical reasoning: A case study of a British Prime Minister candidate speech. Linguistics Beyond and Within, 3, 74-86.
  • Henley, J. (2017). ‘Theresa May’s Florence Speech: Key Points’, The Guardian. Retrieved July 10, 2019 from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/theresa-mays-florence-speech-key-points
  • Hillier, H. (2004). Analysing Real Texts: Research Studies in Modern English Language. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Leung, R. C. H. (2018). Analysis of the UK Prime Ministerial discourse on Brexit: Thematic choices and their implications. Discourse and Interaction, 11(2), 45-64.
  • Pinna, A. (2007). Evaluation and ideology in political discourse: The use of extended units of meaning centred on modal verbs in G.W. Bush’s presidential speeches. In G. Garzone & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Discourse, Ideology and Specialized Communication (pp. 433-452). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Savoy, J. (2010). Lexical analysis of US political speeches. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2), 123-141.
  • Schaffner, C. (1996). Political speeches and discourse analysis. Current Issues in Language and Society, 3(3), 201-204.
  • Svensson, L. (2018). The European project: A comparative critical discourse analysis of three state of the union speeches. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Lundt Universitet, Sweden.
  • Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1987). Pronouns for strategic purposes. In F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Analysis and Practices (pp. 261-269). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  • Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1997). Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account. Language Sciences, 19(4), 341-56.
  • Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power Talk. Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London: Pearson Education.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 243-289.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
  • Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 32–70). London and New York: Routledge.
  • White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284.
  • Williams, B. E. (2020). A tale of two women: A comparative gendered media analysis of UK Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May. Parliamentary Affairs, 0, 1-23.
  • Wodak, R. (Ed.) (1989). Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Company.
  • Yuqiong, Z. & Fengjie, L. (2018). Transitivity analysis of David Cameron’s speech in retaining Scotland. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 6(3), 70-79.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet