University of the Immaculate Conception
Fr. Selga Street Davao City
Final Exam
Sociolinguistics
KLEIN MAMAYABAY PHD-AL STUDENT
January 9, 2022
Direction: Answer the following questions comprehensively.
1. Describe a sociolinguistic research.
Sociolinguistic research is a scientific examination or an investigation on the
relationship of one’s language and the society. This type of research also aims to
provide understanding the mutual effects of language to societal organization and the
societal organization towards the language development or processes.
Dell Hymes, for example, noted the interesting range of ways of talking and
functions of talk among native American tribes whose languages they described, and
Bill Bright, for example, drew attention to the social bases of much of the linguistic
diversity they documented in multilingual speech communities, in this field of research.
Sociolinguistic study thus attempts to explore linguistic and social variability in
order to fully understand how we, as speakers, utilize language to inhabit and
negotiate our multiple personal, cultural, and social identities and positions.
2. Discuss the difference between language and dialect.
The standardized code used in spoken and written form is commonly employed by
linguists and use to define language, but dialects, on the other hand, are spoken
vernacular codes that do not have a defined written system. Further, it is noted that
the English language has a standardized written form that can be understood by
anyone who are English speakers, notwithstanding the various variants of English
spoken throughout the English-speaking globe.
Different versions of the same language that have emerged over time and in
different geographical places are referred to as dialects. Italian, French, and Spanish,
for example, were formerly dialects of Latin, but they have evolved into their own
languages over time, spawning their own dialects, some of which have evolved into
languages.
In general, a language is both written and spoken, but a dialect is only spoken
until it is elevated to elite status, usually for political reasons. When a language
becomes a national language, it is codified into that nation's literary heritage and
serves as an identifier or source of national identity.
3. Differentiate British from American English grammar and lexicon.
Below is the differentiation of American English and British English in terms of
grammar and lexicon.
Grammar:
Grammar rules controls a language's syntactic composition but not its meaning.
Thus, for a given semantic phrase, multiple grammars may exist. There are
distinctions between the two varieties of English in terms of grammar. For instance,
'shall' is used with all persons in American English but only with the first persons in
British English.
Below are other differences of grammatical structure between American and
British English in a tabular format.
British English Grammar
Five past eight. (8:05)
Behind the building.
I shall go. (will- used mainly in
spoken English)
He wrote to me.
He is rich enough to try.
He’s got a temperature.
He lives in the ground floor.
American English Grammar
Five after eight. (8:05)
In back of the building
I will go. (will- both in written & spoken
English)
He wrote me.
He is rich enough that he can try. (also
AmE)
He has a fever.
He lives in the first floor.
It is to be noticed that in American English, the P.P. of ‘get’ is both ‘got’ and
‘gotten’ but with a bit difference. But in British English, ‘got’ is much used. The use
of ‘shall’ in American English with any persons (i.e. 1st, 2nd or 3rd) is very rare
whereas in British English, ‘shall’ is frequently used, especially with first person in
written English.
Lexicon
There are certain words that differ between the Americans and the British. The
table below includes some common things that have different names depending on
which English language you speak.
Below are some differences on the lexicon present for American English and
British English in a tabular format.
British Lexicon
American Lexicon
aeroplane
aluminium
announcer
ariel
bonnet (the front of the car)
boot (the back of the car)
lorry
university
holiday
jumper
crisps
chips
trainers
fizzy drink
postbox
biscuit
chemist
shop
football
airplane
aluminum
presenter
antenna
hood
trunk
truck
college
vacation
sweater
chips
French fries
sneakers
soda
mailbox
cookie
drugstore
store
soccer
The vocabulary of American English is much easier to get the meaning than that
of British English. e.g. ‘necktie’ (American English) in place of ‘tie’ (British English).
While there are some differences comparing British and American English, the
main point to remember is that they are more similar and they are also interconnected
with one another. Using one instead of the other by accident will not always result in a
miscommunication. Americans and British can normally interact without problem, so let
us not be too hard on ourself if you we cannot remember all of the intricacies of both
languages.
4. How can someone tell which speech community one belongs?
Identifying someone’s speech community is a complex assignment or investigation
that can be conducted since there are lots of factors that have to be considered in the
first place.
One way to consider is look on their linguistic characteristics that one is using at
the present and we must also acknowledge the inherent circularity of any such
definition in that language itself is a communal possession. It means that is does not
necessarily mean that one language is directly connect to a specific community.
What we can be sure of is that speakers do use linguistic characteristics to achieve
group identity with, and group differentiation from, other speakers, but they use other
characteristics as well: social, cultural, political and ethnic, to name a few. Referring
to what they call speech markers.
Speech markers are used to discern across social categorizations, which has
crucial implications for social organization or determining an aspect of one’s speech
community. Speech indicators have obvious human analogs. Even while many of the
categories may be easily separated on other grounds, it is clear that social categories
of age, sex, ethnicity, social position, and situation can be clearly designated on the
basis of speech, and that such categorization is vital to social organization.
To summarize, the term 'speech community' is a highly abstract concept that is
likely to generate a slew of complications, because the specific norms that a
community employs may or may not be exclusively linguistic in nature, and even the
linguistic norms themselves may vary significantly among small subgroups.
5. Synthesize the theories on politeness and Grice’s Maxims. How can you
appreciate them?
Synthesis on the Theories of Politeness
According to researchers, politeness is not something that happens
naturally. It exists as a result of interactions between individuals and culture, and
politeness is learned over time through people's sociocultural interactions with one
another. People engage in varied levels of politeness in order to interact effectively
with one another. They utilize it to soften the impact of their words. As a result,
various ideas have been offered to explain how politeness plays a role in any
communication act.
Terkourafi (2005) presented a very important distinction between two
groups of theories of politeness: the traditional theories of politeness presented by
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness, Lakoff’s (1973) rules of
politeness, and Leech’s (2007) cross-cultural and cross-linguistic contrastive
pragmatics, and the new theories, which were proposed by Elen (2001), Mills
(2003), and Watts (2003). Whilst the first group of theories dealt with politeness as
a social phenomenon, it was based on Grice’s theory of cooperative maxims and
the theory of speech acts, which focused on the speaker’s intention as abstracted
from the actual performance. This means that the theories advocated the
speaker’s face orientation. The first group of scholars assumed that since they
agreed with the claim that politeness is a general social phenomenon, cultures are
internally homogenous, though they are different. Consequently, the scholars
came out with the claim that face and the principles of politeness are universal
(Terkourafi, 2005).
In reaction to these claims, the second group of scholars focused on the
structure and nature of politeness norms across different cultures. They believed
in the heterogeneity of politeness across cultures or within cultures. In light of this
heterogeneity, the universality of politeness principles might not be appropriate to
all cultures and, in addition, in contrast to the theories proposed by the first group,
the role of the addressee became vital and important in the judgment of politeness.
Furthermore, politeness no longer referred only to the strategies used between
speaker and hearer. It was modified to include the study of the exchanges
occurring in certain situations (Terkourafi, 2005). Accordingly, Leech (2005)
proposed his new theory of the Grand Strategy of Politeness in which he modified
his old theory of politeness (1983) to cover the strategies of politeness and the
social factors that influenced their use in any act of communication in cultures other
than Western.
Through these theories, the politeness present in conversations or
communication in general can be analyzed and understood with clear patterns and
processes. Through these also, individual's positive and negative face desires are
universal across cultures. Individuals frequently engage in behaviors that
endanger their face in regular interactions. As a result, we can employ politeness
measures to counteract face risks.
References:
Terkourafi, M. (2005). An argument for a frame-based approach to politeness.
Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness, 139, 99.
Brown, P., and Stephen, L. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or minding your p’s and q’s. In: Papers
from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp.
292--305.
Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness
Research, 3(2), 167--206.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Eelen, G. (2001). Critique of Politeness Theories. St. Jerome Press, Manchester.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R.J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Synthesis on the Grice’s Maxims
According to Grice (1975), participants expect each other to give
"conversational contributions as are required, at the point at which they occur, by
the agreed purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which your participated."
The idea explains how humans communicate with one another. If all of the
maxims are followed, speakers can be said to be cooperative in a conversation or
to form a harmonious dialogue. As a result, if they do not follow one of the maxims,
they risk being labeled uncooperative, violating the maxims in the dialogue, or
directly causing discord.
However, if they breach the maxims, they may be able to establish a
peaceful environment. Because no one will tell you everything you need to know,
someone may have to violate the maxims in order to maintain societal harmony.
The principle explains how efficient conversational communication is produced in
everyday social circumstances, particularly in daily interactions.
Grice also proposed four sorts of maxims: quantity maximization, quality
maximization, relevance maximization, and way maximization (Grice in Yule,
1996). The speakers must make their contribution as informative as is required,
and they are not permitted to make it more informative than is required, implying
that the speakers must not provide too much or too little information (Grice in Yule,
1996). When the speakers state that the information is correct, it signifies that they
adhere to the highest quality standards (Grundy, 2000). While, according to the
relevance maxim, speakers must be relevant in what they say. Speakers are
expected to say something related to what has been spoken before them in order
to meet this precept. Finally, Grice stated that, in order to minimize ambiguity and
obscurity of communication, the speaker tends to be perceptive, succinct, and
ordered (Grice in Yule, 1996). It means that in a conversation, the speaker must
state something specific and not be vague.
We can use these maxims as guiding principles to make our communication
as effective as possible. We can use to understand forms of communication that
we are exposing ourselves daily. For example, in my case, I can say that I can use
this Grice’s Maxims in understanding my classroom discussions with my students
in my literature classes or my conversations with my student leaders in my school
organization as to how I handle them as a team.
References:
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Martinich, A.P. (Ed). Philosophy of
Language. (pp. 165-175) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold, a member of the Hodder
Headline Group.
6. How does society influence language? Discuss thoroughly.
I believe that society has a significant influence on language and conduct,
based on my understanding of the situation. Considering words like "linguistic
attitude" and "linguistic identity." The first refers to our reactions as individuals or
as a community to the usage of a specific individual's or social group's language,
which might include rejection, acceptance, prestige, and pride.
It also has a significant impact on language adoption, use, and study. As a
result, if a language has prestige, it is more likely to be replicated or spoken;
conversely, if a language does not have prestige, it is gradually forgotten until it
becomes extinct due to disuse. Linguistic identity, on the other hand, is the
connection we have with a speaking community. According to Duzak (2002),
humans do not establish a single linguistic identity, but rather adopt a variety of
identities based on situations and contexts.
More so, different personal traits, such as age and gender, can also
influence our linguistic habits; for example, age and gender are key extra-linguistic
elements that can influence our language use. In addition, context and
circumstance frequently dictate what is and is not regarded proper in a dialogue,
as well as what is and is not considered appropriate as part of a cultural and
societal construct. Understanding the semantic and syntactic norms of two
languages is essential for accurately translating a text; however, understanding
the cultural context of the words your customer wants you to translate is critical for
delivering an excellent end product.
7. How would you explain the linguistic repertoires below?
Someone asked 2 persons.
A. The problem is, is that we need more time.
For me, this line shows a utilization of an informal register since there is a
repetition of the verb “is”. Further, This sentence would mean that the someone
needs more time, for their problem is that they have limited to time to think for
the solution of the problem.
B. The problem is that we need more time.
For me, this sentence uses a formal register of the language. This sentence
would mean the same on the abovementioned sentence but I would say that
in a conversation, I would choose letter B as my repertoire since it sounded
more formal and professional as I speak it.
A. This problem is different from the last one
B. This problem is different than the last one
C. This problem is different to the last one.
The language repertoires that present among the three responses are their
variation to word choice. Words such as 'from, than, and to' can all be used as
prepositions. They specify a link between words in a sentence in this way. All of
these phrases, for example, suggest a comparison between two things that are not
alike when they follow the word 'different.'
Further, the utilization of these prepositions also shows a regional differences
since these prepositions have different popularity especially between American
English and the British English.
For instance, “different from” is accepted as standard in both American and British
English, while the “different to” is more accepted in British, and the line “different
than” is more accepted in the American English language.
Furthermore, in all regional varieties of English, 'different from' is significantly more
prevalent than 'different to' and 'different than.' As a result, we advocate utilizing
this phrase if you want to ensure that your writing is always right, no matter where
your readers are in the world.
8. Explain the phenomenon below:
A. fas’ cars and dangerous livin’ vs. fast cars and dangerous living
In this example, I can observe that there is a literary elision that is embedded
in the first line “fas’ cars and dangerous livin”.
Elision is the removal of an unstressed syllable or letter from a word in order to
mix words together and decrease overall syllables. This makes it easier to
words to be spoken and often reflects patterns of colloquial speech. In place of
the missing letter or syllable, an apostrophe will be used.
This strategy is commonly used in songs to help the rhyming structures of the
lyrics. But, it communication, it creates and an easier speech movement on the
speaker when communicating.
B. libry vs. library
This is a situation of communication efficiency. When a speaker speaks quickly,
the contrast of the vowels in unstressed syllables is reduced. It takes a little
extra work to pronounce each syllable as clearly as possible, and in many
circumstances it's not worth the trouble if your audience is likely to understand
what you're saying anyhow.
In fact this phenomenon is known as haplology. Haplology is responsible for a
variety of forms found in rapid speech in English such as the line libry for
(library).
Haplology is also credited for the morphologies of a number of contemporary
English words whose longer forms are now obsolete, such as England from
Engla land (formerly "land of the Angles") and pierced earrings from piercedear earrings (earrings for pierced ears, not earrings that are themselves
pierced)
C. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs vs. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
This part deals with which is way more appropriate to use. Is it dwarfs or
dwarves as plural versions of the word dwarf.
The word "dwarfs" is a noun. It's the plural form of dwarf, which can refer to
either a human with very tiny stature due to genetics or a fictional monster.
Dwarves is a spelling variation of dwarfs. Although it is not a normal spelling
for a plural noun or a verb, it still emerges on occasion and appears to be
gaining popularity.
Dwarves were popularized by J. R. R. Tolkien. He modified the spelling to
distinguish his "dwarf" fantasy race from the sweeter and simpler people
found in fairy tales, but his practice has now spread.
As a result, the plural form of dwarf was originally dwarfs. Roofs is an example
of an irregular plural.
9. Make a capsule proposal for a sociolinguistic research.
SOCIAL ACTOR REPRESENTATION ANALYSIS IN THE PHILIPPINE
GOVERNMENT: 2019 SENATORIAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN SPEECHES IN FOCUS
A Theoretical Paper
Presented to
Danilo G. Baradillo, PhD, FRIRes
A Faculty Member of Graduate School
University of the Immaculate Conception
KLEIN MAMAYABAY, PHD-AL
Background of the Study
Through worldwide movement, elections take occur, and language has a
big impact on how citizens vote and how countries improve in general.
Additionally, communication and speechwriting are essential components of voter
sway, and in a democracy, individuals are expected to accept what politicians say
during campaign speeches. But, with erroneous information readily available
to voters via the internet and other media platforms, words are critical in
politics, and many politicians use them to control and deceive individuals
during their campaigns (Janoska, 2010 & Ampere Translations, 2018).
In fact, in the United States of America, Donald Trump's rise to
prominence as a presidential candidate prior to becoming President of the United
States has been a source of contention and division in the country's political
sphere. Trump's speeches have sparked indignation, controversy, and
enthusiasm across America and the world over the 2015-2016 presidential
election cycles. Trump aroused eyebrows both at home and abroad when he
threatened to break up trade accords, insulted allies, and lauded
adversaries, hyperbole that rarely enters mainstream American political
discourse. Additionally, he made disparaging remarks about opponents, religious
groups, the disabled, and women in ways that any other politician would have been
condemned for. Nonetheless, despite, or perhaps because of, his rhetoric, his
popularity rose (Kow, 2015).
In the Philippines, a journalism firm revealed that President Rodrigo
Duterte's speeches contained some rhetorical talents that affected a large number
of people in the country. In one of his speeches, he exhibits a dilemmatic
performance by portraying his administration as the savior of "the people" versus
the evil "other." His speech follows a cyclical pattern of outlining the situation,
creating his adversaries, elaborating on his administration's heroism, and finally
appealing to the populace. Additionally, they underscored Duterte's commitment
to his rhetoric, notably his threats against critical media and political opponents.
Indeed, his linguistic commitment transcends conventional persuasion by instilling
compulsion in his framed "enemies." For example, Rappler and ABS-CBN Corp.
have suffered the brunt of Duterte's acrid political rhetoric. Duterte's aggressive
rhetoric has twisted arms just by twisting tongues. It is so subtle that even when
we are aware that charismatic words are susceptible to deliberate manipulation,
we never learn until after the fact. And its visual impact on the public continues to
polarize our already divided society (Manila Times, 2020).
Locally, various groups in Davao del Norte, particularly in Sto. Tomas, have
asked mayoral candidates to present their peace and order and tax reform
agendas. Benjamin Origin, district deputy of the Knights of Columbus-San Miguel
Assembly, said mayoral candidates should disclose and explain their political
agendas on what he described as the town's "urgent challenges." Additionally, he
emphasized that security is a priority for everyone and that in order to advance,
future leaders must display a strong political will and build a clear platform defining
their approach to preserving the town's peace and order. Additionally, he noted
that in order to address all of these concerns, our new local government officials
must have a strong political will. They are challenged to present a concrete
approach, not merely rhetoric, given that many politicians excel at speech but fall
short in action and implementation (Sambalud, 2016).
In light of this finding and other pertinent literature, the researcher
discovered a dearth of studies dealing with the political discourse analysis of
campaign speeches delivered by Philippine senate candidates especially in terms
of social actor representations. Additionally, the researcher develops a sense of
urgency to conduct the study as a result of the situation affecting many
citizens throughout the country, as elections are approaching this year and
many aspiring politicians are re-entering the race and possibly running for
higher positions such as vice-president and president in the coming years.
Additionally, given the potential for the dissemination of incorrect information and
understanding via social media platforms, this study should be undertaken
immediately to avoid any negative consequences for our country's future.
Further, the present study would like to make an attempt at building upon
the rather wide range of linguistic and rhetorical resources deployed by senators
in the 2019 Election, in particular in giving a positive image of themselves. In such
a broad context, which has been approached via various disciplinary lenses, the
study will be bound to contribute to further clarification of the linguistic and
rhetorical modes through which politicians try to win the public’s attention and,
ultimately, their vote and support.
Also, by uncovering the objectives of this corpora-based research, the
following concrete results might be achieved. Through conducting a political
discourse analysis of the campaign speeches of the last senatorial election in
2019, infographics can be generated as a form of information awareness and
reference of citizens for any political-related activities especially in the emergence
of social media. The results could also be used during classroom discussions to
present and incorporate then in the analysis portion of the examinations and
assessments to students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study employing political discourse analysis
will be used to investigate the representations of the election campaign speeches
of the selected social actors, the 12 senators who won in the 2019 Election in the
Philippines. This will also analyze how political representations contribute in the
effectiveness of election campaign movements, and lastly, generate insights out
of their utilization in the selected corpora of the study.
Research Questions
1. What political representations are present in the campaign speeches of the 2019
election senatorial winners?
2. How do these representations contribute to making effective election
campaigns?
3. What insights can be drawn from the political representations being employed
in the election campaign?
Theoretical Framework of the Study
This study will employ Van Leeuwen's (2008) actor representation theory.
Van Leeuwen's theory of social actor representation, in particular his distinction
between exclusion, which entails suppression and backgrounding, and inclusion,
which emphasizes activation, passivation, specification, classification, and
nomination. According to Van Leeuwen (2008), representations include or exclude
social actors according to their interests and goals in relation to their target readers
or audience.
Additionally, exclusion is the process by which certain linguistic
mechanisms omit actors. It is divided into two major subcategories: suppression
and backgrounding. The primary distinction between suppression and
backgrounding is whether they leave a trace or are not represented (van Leeuwen,
2008). Suppression is the process of exclusion that leaves no trace in the
representation, removing both social actors and their activities at the same time.
Backgrounding is the process of omitting information from a representation that
leaves traces in it. In this case, the excluded social participants from a certain
action occur later in the clause, sentence, or text.
Additionally, inclusion strategy refers to the practice of demonstrating or
displaying the actor of a certain action within the discourse. According to van
Leeuwen's (2008) theory, inclusion is subdivided into numerous subcategories: (1)
activation, (2) passivation, (3) specification, (4) classification, and (5) nomination.
The term a.) activation refers to the representation of social actors as active,
dynamic forces in an activity; b.) passivation refers to the representation of social
actors as 'undergoing' or 'at the receiving end of' the activity; c.) categorization
refers to the representation of social actors in terms of their unique identity, as
nominated, or in terms of the identity and function they share with others; ; d.)
nomination implies that social actors are presented in terms of their unique identity,
which is typically expressed through proper nouns; and e.) specification implies
that the singular can be realized in a variety of ways; these can be referred to as
groups that are realized in a plurality of ways, including through a mass noun or a
noun denoting a group of people, such as "this nation" and "the community" (Van
Leeuwen, 2008).
Importance of the Study
First, the students, citizens especially the registered voters may become
more familiar with some effective strategies politicians use in persuading others
and achieving their goals. These people could become more aware and informed
on the patterns employed by politicians during their election campaign and thus,
improving their decision making during the exercise of their right to vote.
Second, for teachers. This study could be used as a sample for conducting
political speech analysis to classes especially in political science and language
related courses. They could also use the result to develop assessments,
workbooks, computer-based instructions and other interactive teaching strategies
where political speeches and other related topics are highlighted.
Third, for school administrators, this study would become a shred of good
evidence or reference to support the teachers in making textbooks and workbooks
in teaching discourse analysis and politics and governance to students. Also, it
can be a source of understanding in critical pedagogy. The findings could be
source of inspiration about critical pedagogy accentuating the power of ideology
and how it can influence peoples’ lives. Lastly, this study will serve as an important
reference and will serve as a springboard to the future researchers who wish to
conduct studies related to the subject matter.
Delimitation and Limitation of the Study
This study will be delimited only around on the 12 senators who won in the
2019 election here in the Republic of the Philippines. Further, this will focus on the
2019 Philippine general election that was conducted on May 13, 2019, and took
office last June 30, 2019, midway through the term of President Rodrigo Duterte.
Additionally, the corpora to be used in the study are the election campaign
speeches published by any of the National TV Station of the Philippines be it on
their respective TV stations or in YouTube. Lastly, the researcher will only use the
campaign speeches published starting prescribed campaign period: February 12,
2019, to May 11, 2019.
Definition of Terms
Political Discourse Analysis. It is described as a sociolinguistic study of
polity and/or politics that is positioned at the intersection of public political speech
and political social structures (Okulska, & Cap, 2010). In this study, it is defined as
the approach in analyzing the election campaign speeches of the 2019 election
winning senators.
Political Language. Language politics refers to the way language and
words are employed in political discourse (Ampere Translations, 2018). In this
study, refers to the language embedded in the election campaign speeches of
senators who won in the 2019 election in the Philippines.
Senatorial Election. The Philippine Senate is elected using plurality-atlarge voting; each voter may vote for up to twelve candidates, with the twelve
candidates with the most votes being elected (Google Culture and Arts, 2021). In
the context of this study, this refers on the 12 senators who won in the Philippine
midterm election through the term of President Rodrigo Duterte and that was
conducted last May 13, 2019.
Election Campaign. These are the methods by which candidates and
political parties prepare and present their ideas and positions on issues to voters
prior to election day. They employ a variety of techniques to reach voters and
deliver their messages, including traditional and new media, public events, written
materials, and other means (Open Election Data Initiative, 2021). In the context of
this study, this refers on the election campaign speeches made by the 12 senators
during the campaign period of the May 2019 election.
Review of Related Literature
Martnez and González's (2012) study analyzed US presidential campaign
speeches using Systemic Functional Linguistic meaning-making tools. The writers
examined the audience's role in Bush and Obama's victory speeches. The features
of Haliday's transitivity structures were employed to analyze the speaker-audience
connection and their mutual impacts. They found that Obama's address was
audience-focused, since he connected his achievement to the American people.
Bush's address, on the other hand, was a discourse of punishment and failure
directed at the audience, which was attributed to the outcome of an election in
which Bush was a loser.
In the study conducted by Putri and Kurniawan (2015), which examined the
frequency and form of personal deixis in Obama and Romney's speeches. The
study demonstrates the efficacy of using pronouns to promote candidates for office
and portray a rosy picture of their deeds and intentions.
In Ebunoluwa's (2011) study, which investigated the persuasive methods
employed in President Obama's inaugural address speech. This research was
based on Norman Fairclough's CDA assumptions, which assert that ideologies are
embedded in texts, that they cannot be removed or ignored, and that texts are
available to multiple interpretations. Additionally, the following concepts described
the important ideological components of Obama's speech: "pragmatism,
liberalism, inclusivity, acceptance of religious and ethnic diversity, and unity”.
Organization of the Study
This study will be organized by the researcher in order to fully present the
different ideas and the importance of this research.
Chapter 1 introduces the focus of the study. This includes the background
of the study, along with its purpose and research dissemination plans. This also
consists of the research questions of the study, the theoretical lens on which the
study will be anchored on, the delimitations and limitations of the research which
will lead to the avoidance of overlapping concepts and repetition of ideas along
with the definitions of terms which gave a more precise way of understanding the
study as terms commonly used will be explained operationally and conceptually.
Lastly, a review of related literature is presented to give depth and elaboration on
the importance of the study and its underlying concepts.
Chapter 2 presents the methodology used in the study. This includes the
discussions of the research design used, the research materials, the data analysis
used, the terms required to fulfil the demands for the trustworthiness of the study,
the role of the researcher, and ethical considerations.
Chapter 3 explores and analyzes the discursive structures specifically on
actor representation, substantially from the selected election campaign speeches.
The in-depth analyses of the selected election campaign speeches will be
anchored on theory and selected frameworks to search for answers to the research
questions found in Chapter 1.
Chapter 4 exhibits the results of the discourse analysis on the selected
election campaign speeches used in the winning senators in the 2019 elections
and frame meanings out from the analyzed structures. Lastly, this chapter will give
a synthesis of the results, the conclusion of the study, along with the
recommendations for future researchers.
REFERENCES
Ebunoluwa, F. M., (2011). Critical discourse analysis of president Barack Obama’s
inauguration speech (January 20, 2009) [Unpublished project]. University
of Ilorin.
Jacoby, Susan. 2009. The Age of American Unreason. New York: Vintage.
Janoschka, A. (2010). Direct e-communication: Linguistic weapons in a political
weblog. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and
discourse (Vol. 36, pp. 215–236). John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Kienpointner, M. (2013). Strategic maneuvering in the political rhetoric of Barack
Obama. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), 357–377.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp
Kow, T. (2015, November 9) ‘10 Groups Donald Trump Offended Since Launching
His
Campaign’.
Retrieved
from
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/27/politics/donald-trump-insultsgroups-list/
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green.
Manila Times, T. (2020). Duterte’s political rhetoric and the masses. Retrieved
from
https://www.manilatimes.
net/2020/08/07/opinion/letters-to-theeditor/dutertes-political-rhetoric-and-the-masses/751599
Martínez, D. F., & González, V., . C., . T. (2012). Obama and Bush: Their victory
and
non-victory
speeches.
On
Omázein,
25(1),
205–217.
file:///C:/Users/Windows/Downloads/Dialnet-ObamaAndBush-3982893.pdf
Mendoza-Denton, N. (2004). Language and ideology. In J. K. Chambers,
P.Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of variation and
change (pp. 475–499).
Putri, N. A., & Kurniawan, E. (2015). Person deixis in USA presidential campaign
speeches. English Review: Journal of English Education, 3(2), 190–200.
https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE/article/view/208/16 5
SAMBALUD, M. (2016). Mayor bets in Sto. Tomas told: ‘no rhetorics please’.
Retrieved
4
December
2021,
from
http://davaotoday.
com/main/politics/mayor-bets-in-sto-tomas-told-no-rhetorics-please/
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse
analysis. Oxford university press.
Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A
discourse-historical analysis. Discourse studies, 1(1), 83-118.
Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive
approaches
in
CDA.
Discourse
Studies,
8(1),
179–190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059566 presidential election campaign.
Text & Talk, 35(5), 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2015-0018