Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 9 No. 1 (2017): البرز

Inter-textual Analysis of Political Discourse in Party Manifestos

DOI
https://doi.org/10.54781/abz.v9i1.112
Submitted
January 15, 2021
Published
2017-12-20

Abstract

Political discourse is inarguably deemed an essential tool, influencing people’s perception within a socio-political zone in an imperceptible manner. The present research titled “Inter-textual Analysis of Political Discourse in Party Manifestos” revolved around a critical discourse analysis of manifestos, as presented by five most popular Pakistani political parties, pertaining to the general election, held during the year 2013. With regard to the present context, the mentioned pursuit primarily aimed at linguistically analyzing the political discourse of the aforementioned manifestos at inter-textual level. The theoretical framework used to substantiate the overall analysis centered on Fairclough’s theory of intertextuality (1995) and van Dijk Ideological Square(2004). The findings of the research revealed that all the political parties under study, brought into use the discursive strategy of intertextuality in their party manifestos in order to enhance the positive self image of party to in-group people, by hunting the negative aspects of the out-group, thereby (re)constructing people’s political identities and ideologies and achieving the desired hegemony in a way peculiar to itself. Research of  the kind can be conducted further by analyzing the other dimensions of political discourse and the resultant ideologies, influencing the current state of affairs as prevalent around the globe with special focus on the linguistic aspects of the political discourse.

References

  1. Al Masaeed, K. (2013). Egyptian revolution of 2011 and the power of its slogans: A critical discourse analysis study. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(6), 1.
  2. Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality. London: Routledge.
  3. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  4. Bayram, F. (2010). Ideology and political discourse: A critical discourse analysis of Erdogan’s political speech. Arecls, 7, 23-40.
  5. Bazerman, C. (1993). Intertextual self-fashion: Gould and Lewontin's representation of the literature. In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  6. Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. In C. Bazerman& P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing
  7. texts and textual practices (pp. 83-96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
  8. Beaugrande, R.-A. d., &Dresssler, W. (1981 [1972]). Introduction to text linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  9. Chandler, D. (2005). Intertextuality in semiotics for beginners. Retrieved 25/05/2005, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem09.html
  10. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge
  11. Cohen, S. P. (2004). The idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press.
  12. Colgrove, R. (2010). Eye on the sparrow : the remarkable journey of Father Joseph Nisari, Pakistani priest. Minneapolis: Mill City Press.
  13. Culler, J. (1981). The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, literature, deconstruction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  14. Devitt, A. J. (1991). Intertextuality in tax accounting: generic, referential, and functional. In C. Bazerman& J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional community. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  15. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
  16. Fairclough, N. (1996). Language and Power. Longman: Essex. England
  17. Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Oxford: Polity Press.
  18. Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193-217.
  19. Fairclough, N. (1992c). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and
  20. Education, 4, 269-293.
  21. Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: 205 Longman.
  22. Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
  23. Fairclough, N. (1998). Political discourse in the media: an analytical framework. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  24. Fairclough, N.and Wodak, R., (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis, in Teun Van Dijk (ed), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, 2(5)
  25. IRI, (2012). Popularity of Pakistani political parties: IRI survey. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from www.iri.org/
  26. Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue and novel. In L. S. Roudiez (Ed.), Desire in language. A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Colombia University Press.
  27. Kristeva, J. (1981). "Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman" Critique. 33/239. 438-465. Reprinted as Word, dialogue and novel. In L. S. Roudiez (Ed.), Desire in
  28. language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. Oxford: Blackwell.
  29. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
  30. Lemke, J. L. (1995a). Intertextuality and text semantics. In P. Fries & M. Gregory (Eds.), Discourse in society: Systemic functional perspectives: Meaning and choice in
  31. language: Studies for Michael Halliday. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  32. Lemke, J. L. (1995b). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis Ltd.
  33. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive language. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace.
  34. Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic. London: Allen and Unwin. Mann, W. C., and Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text, 8(3), 242-281.
  35. Meinhof, U. H., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (2000). Intertextuality and the media: From genre to everyday life. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
  36. Riffaterre, M. (1980). Syllepsis. Critical inquiry, 6(4), 625-638.
  37. Thibault, P. J. (1994). Intertextuality. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 4. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  38. Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage
  39. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4, 249-283.
  40. Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Discourse, Context and Cognition. Discourse Studies , 159-179.
  41. Van, Dijk, T.A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
  42. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 63-94.
  43. "World: South Asia Pakistan's army and its history of politics". BBC. 10 December 1999. Retrieved 16 March 2009.
  44. Yanoshevsky, Galia. "Three decades of writing on manifesto: the making of a genre." Poetics today 30.2 (2009): 257-286.