Pokaż uproszczony rekord

dc.contributor.authorWieczorek, Anna Ewa
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-07T14:40:42Z
dc.date.available2021-09-07T14:40:42Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn1461-4456
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/39000
dc.description.abstractThis article aims to discuss conceptual levels of narrative representations of utterances based on reported speech frames employed in presidential speeches. It adopts some assumptions from Chilton’s Deictic Space Theory and Cap’s Proximisation Theory, both primarily used to indicate exclusive reference, a clash of interests and threat-oriented conceptualisation of events. This article, however, extends their scope to include strategies for inclusion and positive image construction and makes a distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary embedding as discursive means that contribute to presentation of self and legitimisation. Data for this research comprise a corpus of 125 presidential speeches (25 per tenure) divided into three subcorpora: JKC – John Kennedy Corpus, BCC – Bill Clinton Corpus, and BOC – Barrack Obama Corpus. A total of 1251 instances of narrative reports have been analysed to investigate primary and multilevel embedding, which constitute the basis for this study.pl_PL
dc.language.isoenpl_PL
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationspl_PL
dc.relation.ispartofseriesDiscourse Studies;22
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne 4.0 Międzynarodowe*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.subjectdeictic centrepl_PL
dc.subjectdiscourse analysispl_PL
dc.subjectdiscourse space theorypl_PL
dc.subjectembeddingpl_PL
dc.subjectimage constructionpl_PL
dc.subjectinclusionpl_PL
dc.subjectlegitimisationpl_PL
dc.subjectnarrative analysispl_PL
dc.subjectnarrative reportspl_PL
dc.subjectpolitical discoursepl_PL
dc.subjectpresidential speechespl_PL
dc.subjectproximisation theorypl_PL
dc.subjectreported speech framespl_PL
dc.subjectsayerpl_PL
dc.subjectshort narrativespl_PL
dc.subjectstorytellingpl_PL
dc.titleEmbedded discourse spaces in narrative reportspl_PL
dc.typeArticlepl_PL
dc.page.number221-240pl_PL
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationDepartment of Pragmatics, Institute of English Studies, University of Lodz, Pomorska 171/173, 90-236 Lodz, Polandpl_PL
dc.identifier.eissn1461-7080
dc.contributor.authorBiographicalnoteAnna Ewa Wieczorek obtained her PhD in linguistics from the University of Lodz, Poland. Her research interests include pragma-cognitive approach to political discourse analysis, especially proximisation, inclusion and exclusion practices and storytelling techniques involving narrative reports in political speeches. Her most recent book is Clusivity: A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in Political Discourse (2013, Cambridge Scholars).pl_PL
dc.referencesAbbott, HP (2008) The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBal, M (2009) Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBauman, R (1986) Story, Performance and Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesBruner, J (1991) The narrative construction of reality. Narrative Inquiry 18(1): 1–21.pl_PL
dc.referencesCap, P (2006) Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesCap, P (2010) Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.pl_PL
dc.referencesCap, P (2013) Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.pl_PL
dc.referencesCap, P (2017) The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.pl_PL
dc.referencesChilton, PA (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.pl_PL
dc.referencesChilton, PA (2005) Discourse space theory: Geometry, brain and shifting viewpoints. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78–116.pl_PL
dc.referencesChilton, PA (2010) The conceptual structure of deontic meaning: A model based on geometrical principles. Language and Cognition 2(2): 191–220.pl_PL
dc.referencesChilton, PA (2014) Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Conceptual Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesClark, HH, Gerrig, RJ (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66(4): 764–805.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G (1985) Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFauconnier, G (1994) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Constructions in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesFillmore, C (1975) Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.pl_PL
dc.referencesFrege, G (1967 [1892]) The thought: A logical enquiry. In: Strawson, PF (ed.) Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–38.pl_PL
dc.referencesGavins, J (2007) Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesHalliday, MAK (1981) Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Edward Arnold.pl_PL
dc.referencesHalliday, MAK (1985) An Introduction to Functional Linguistics. London: Edward Arnold.pl_PL
dc.referencesHodges, A (2011) The ‘War on Terror’ Narrative: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesIrvine, J (1996) Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In: Silverstein, M, Urban, G (eds) Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 131–159.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevelt, WJ (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLevinson, S (2000) Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesLyons, J (1982) Deixis and subjectivity. In: Jarvella, R, Klein, W (eds) Speech, Place and Action: Studies of Deixis and Related Topics. New York: Wiley, pp. 101–124.pl_PL
dc.referencesNunberg, G (1998) Indexicality and deixis. In: Kasher, A (ed.) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts, Vol III: Indexicals and Reference. London: Routledge, pp. 145–184.pl_PL
dc.referencesTannen, D (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesTannen, D (2006) Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk 26(4–5): 597–617.pl_PL
dc.referencesTversky, B, Lee, P, Mainwaring, S (1999) Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spatial Cognition and Computation 1: 399–412.pl_PL
dc.referencesVandelanotte, L (2008) Dependency, framing, scope? The syntagmatic structure of sentences of speech or thought representation. Word 59(1): 55–82.pl_PL
dc.referencesVandelanotte, L (2009) Speech and Thought Representation in English. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.pl_PL
dc.referencesVerschueren, J (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.pl_PL
dc.referencesWerth, P (1999) Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.pl_PL
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1461445619893776
dc.relation.volume2pl_PL
dc.disciplinejęzykoznawstwopl_PL
dc.disciplineliteraturoznawstwopl_PL
dc.disciplinenauki o komunikacji społecznej i mediachpl_PL


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne 4.0 Międzynarodowe
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne 4.0 Międzynarodowe