The 'Jasmine Revolt' has made the 'Arab Spring': A critical discourse analysis of the last three political speeches of the ousted president of Tunisia1

Discourse and Society

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 679-700

  Maalej, Zouheir A ^a  

^a KING SAUD UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

Change; critical discourse analysis; deception; deixis; domination; manipulation; personal ideology; political discourse; political speeches; power

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870904071     PISSN: 09579265     EISSN: 14603624     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0957926512452973     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Benvéniste ELa nature des pronoms (The Nature of Pronouns). Paris: Collection Gallimard; 1966:251-257.
2. Boyd MS.De-constructing race and identity in US presidential discourse: Barack Obama's speech on race.Atlantis: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies. 2009;31 (2): 75-94.
3. Chilton PAnalyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge; 2004:.
4. Chung C,Pennebaker JSocial Communication. Fiedler K, ed. New York: Psychology Press; 2007:343-359.
5. CramerJ (2009) Using pronouns to construct a European identity: The case of politicians at Davos 2008. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences: Illinois Working Papers94-109.
6. Fairclough NCritical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman; 1995:.
7. Feng H,Liu Y.Analysis of interpersonal meaning in public speeches - a case study of Obama's speech.Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2010;1 (6): 825-829.
8. FiskR (2011) The brutal truth about Tunisia. The Independent, 17January. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-brutal-truth-about-tunisia-2186287.html.
9. Fowler R,Kress GLanguage and Control. Fowler RHodge BKress GTrew T, ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1979:185-214.
10. Hanks WFRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Duranti AGoodwin C, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992:43-76.
11. Hanks WF.Explorations in the deictic field.Current Anthropology. 2005;46 (2): 191-212.
12. Hart CCritical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Hart C, ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2011:171-192.
13. Harwood N.We do not seem to have a theory the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing.Applied Linguistics. 2005;26 (3): 343-375.
14. Heine B,Song K-A.On the genesis of personal pronouns: Some conceptual sources.Language and Cognition. 2010;2 (1): 117-147.
15. Hyland K.Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing.Journal of Pragmatics. 2002;34:1091-1112.
16. Johnson MThe Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press; 1987:.
17. Kuo S-H.From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse.Text. 2002;22 (1): 29-55.
18. Kuo S-H.Involvement vs. detachment: Gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan.Discourse Studies. 2003;5 (4): 479-494.
19. Levinson SCPragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press; 1983:.
20. Lyons JSemantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977:.
21. Marmaridou SAPragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2000:.
22. O'ConnorBTahaMSheehanM (2008) Castro's shifters: Locating variation in political discourse. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics14(2): 120-129.
23. Pennebaker JW,Mehl MR,Niederhoffer KG.Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves.Annual Review of Psychology. 2003;54:547-577.
24. Pennycook A.The politics of pronouns.ELT Journal. 1994;48 (2): 173-178.
25. Petersoo P.What does 'we' mean? National deixis in the media.Journal of Language and Politics. 2007;6 (3): 419-436.
26. SchofieldH (2008) Yacht theft makes diplomatic waves: Tunisian-French relations suffer due to inquiry. Herald Scotland, 26July. Available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/yacht-theft-makes-diplomatic-waves-1.829762.
27. Siewierska APerson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004:.
28. Van Dijk TACommunication Theory Today. Crowley DMitchell D, ed. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1993:107-126.
29. Van Dijk TAPolitical Linguistics. Blommaert JBulcaen C, ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1997a:11-52.
30. Van Dijk TALanguage Structure, Discourse and the Access to Consciousness. Stamenow M, ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 1997b:189-226.
31. Van Dijk TAIdeology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE; 1998:.
32. Van Dijk TAMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Wodak RMeyer M, ed. London: SAGE; 2001:95-120.
33. Van Dijk TAPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse. Chilton PASchäffner C, ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2002:204-236.
34. Van Dijk TA.Political discourse and ideology.DOXA Comunicación. 2003;1:207-225.
35. Van Dijk TA.Discourse and manipulation.Discourse & Society. 2006;17 (3): 359-383.
36. Van Dijk TAMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2009) Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 62-86.Wodak RMeyer M, ed. London: SAGE; 2009:62-86.
37. Van Dijk TADiscourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Hart C, ed. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins; 2011:.
38. Verschueren JUnderstanding Pragmatics. London/New York: Arnold; 1999:.
39. Wodak R,Meyer MMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 1-33.Wodak RMeyer M, ed. London: SAGE; 2009:1-33.
40. Wortham SEF.Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers' footing.Journal of Pragmatics. 1996;25 (3): 331-348.