Retorisk rekonstruksjon av politisk diskurs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52610/rhs.v18i66/67.107Nyckelord:
political discourse, argumentation theory, pragma-dialectics, rhetorical analysisAbstract
Den offentlige, medierte debatten har en etablert posisjon i valgkampen, og særlig tv-debattene trekker seere. Om det er disse debattene som mobiliserer velgerne til å bruke stemmeretten på valgdagen, skal det ikke spekuleres i, men valgdeltakelsen i Norge er synkende, og bekymringen økende for at store deler av befolkningen ikke deltar ved valget. Dette er bakgrunnen for å spørre seg om valgkampdiskursen fungerer etter sin hensikt, nemlig å mobilisere velgere og opplyse dem om partipolitiske kampsaker og skillelinjer. Denne formuleringen av valgkampdiskursens hensikt, vil fungere som en vurderingsnorm i en retorisk analyse av valgkamp sendinger. Artikkelen henter eksempler fra norsk valgkamp i perioden 1991-2009.
Referenser
Allwood, Jens og L-G. Andersson. Semantik. Göteborg: Institutt för lingvistikk, Göteborgs Universitet, 1984.
Bell, Philip og Theo van Leeuwen. The Media Interview. Confession, Contest, Conversation. University of New South Wales Press, Kensington, NSW; Australia, 1994.
Berge, Kjell Lars. Tekstnormers diakroni. Noen idéer til en sosiotekstologisk teori om tekstnormendring. Stockholm: MINS 33, 1990.
Clayman, Steven E. og John Heritage. “Questioning Presidents. Journalistic Deference and Adversarialness in the Press Conference of U.S. Presidents Eisenhover and Reagan”, i: News from the Interview Society, red. Mats Ekström, Åsa Kroon og Mats Nylund, 49-79, Göteborg: Nordicom, Göteborg University, 2002.
Dijk, Teun van. “What is political discourse analysis?”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 2 (1997), 53-67
Dijk, Teun van. Macrostructures. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
Dijk, Teun van og Walter Kintsch. Strategies of discourse comprehension, New York: Academic Press, 1983
Eemeren, Frans H. van. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.
Eemeren, Frans H. van og Rob Grootendorst. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson og Scott Jacobs. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. USA: The University of Alabama Press, 1993.
Eemeren, Frans H. van og Peter Houtlosser. “Rhetorical analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds”. Argumentation 14 (2000), 293-305.
Eemeren, Frans H. van og Peter Houtlosser. “Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis Within a Dialectical Framework.” Argumentation and Advocacy 37 (2001), 150-157.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst og Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst og Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
Fairclough, Norman og Ruth Wodak. “Critical Discourse analysis”, i: Discourse as Social Interaction, red. Teun van Dijk, London: Sage, 258-285.
Fetzer, Anita. “Put bluntly, you’ve got something of a credibility problem: sincerity and credibility in political interviews”, i: Paul Chilton og Christina Schäffner. Politics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002.
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. Fallacies. London: Methuen, 1970.
Harris, Sandra .“Evasive action: how politicians respond to questions in political interviews”, i: Broadcast talk, red. Paddy Scannell, 76-99, London: Sage Publications, 1991.
Hellspong, Lennart. Konsten att tala. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1992.
Håkansson, Nicklas. “Argumentative and symbolic discourse in Nordic electoral debate” i Instead of the ideal debate. Doing politics and doing gender in Nordic political campaign discourse, red. Kirsten Gomard og Anne Krogstad, 33-60. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2001.
Gilbert, Michael A. “Language, Words and Expressive Speech Acts”, i Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, red. Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair og Charles A. Willard, 231-234, 1999.
Hutchby, Ian og Robin Wooffitt. Conversation Analysis. Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999.
Kock, Christian. De svarer ikke. Fordummmende usikke i den politiske debat. København: Gyldendal, 2011.
Kock, Christian. “The difference between the rhetorical and the philosophical concept of argumentation,” i Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft [Deutsches Jahrbuch Philosophie, 2], red. Carl F. Gethmann, 451-464. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2010.
Kock, Christian. “Arguing for Different Types of Speech Acts”, i Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, red. J. Ritola, CD_ROM, 1-11, Windsor, ON: OSSA, 2009.
Kock, Christian. “Constructive Controversy: Rhetoric as Dissensus-oriented Discourse.” Cogency 1 (1): 89-112, 2009.
Kock, Christian. “Choice is not true or false”, Argumentation 23, 1 (2009), 61-80.
Kock, Christian. “Fornuftig uenighet.” Rhetorica Scandinavica 48 (2008), 64-83.
Kock, Christian. “Dialectical Obligations in Political Debate.” Informal Logic 27 (3) (2007), 233-247.
Lauerbach, Gerda. “Argumentation in political talk show interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (2007), 1388-1419.
Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Linell, Per. Approaching Dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in a dialogical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1998 [1994].
Linell, Per and Lennart Gustavsson. Initiativ och respons. Om dialogens dynamik, dominans och koherens. [SIC, 15]. University of Linköping: Tema Kommunikation, 1987.
Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as social action”, i Genre and the New Rhetoric, red. A. Freedman and P. Medway, 23-42. London: Taylor and Francis, 1994 [1984].
Mouffe, Chantal. On the political. USA and Canada: Routledge, 2005.
Sandvik, Margareth. “Reconstructing Interactive Argumentative Discourse.” Argumentation 11 (1997), 419-434.
Sandvik, Margareth. ” “Nå gidder jeg ikke diskutere med deg mer!” Om overgangen debatt-krangel”. Rhetorica Scandinavica 5 (1998a), 39-51.
Sandvik, Margareth. “Criteria for winning and losing a political debate”, i Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, red. Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, James A. Blair og Charles A. Willard, June 16 - 19, 1998b, Amsterdam. Sic Sat 7, Foris Publications Zwijndrecht
Sandvik, Margareth. ”Valgkamp på tv – står nøytralitetsidealet for fall?” Rhetorica Scandinavica 29/30 (2004), 15-36.
Sandvik, Margareth. “Argumentation in broadcast election campaign discourse: Towards a rhetorical reconstruction,” i: The Pragmatics of Political Discourse. Explorations across cultures, red. Anita Fetzer, 69-101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013.
Sigrell, Anders. Att övertyga mellan raderna. En retorisk studie om underförståddheter i moderne politisk argumentation. Åstorp: Rhetor förlag, 2001.
Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
Walton, Douglas. The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
Waltzer, Michael. Politics and Passion. Toward a More Egalitarian Liberialism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.
##submission.downloads##
Publicerad
Referera så här
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2023 Rhetorica Scandinavica
Detta verk är licensierat under en Creative Commons Erkännande-Ickekommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0 Internationell-licens.
Open Access; CC Erkännande-IckeKommersiell-IngaBearbetningar 4.0
