Email this article Heroes against villains. Frames as the bedrock of unconscious thinking in political discourse
Abstract
This article focuses on political leader discourses in the context of Kosovo-Serbia relations. It examines how political discourse is used to shape and influence national and international opinion, and to modify the presentation of reality by presenting political truth as historical truth. The analysis of the two speeches here by the leaders of both countries aims to identify their communication strategies, the most common linguistic structures that were used to form and shape the conflict resolution process, to deconstruct their narratives, and compare them. As political speeches generally are built on metaphorical constructions and frames, we demonstrate how complex issues that were previously irreconcilable are represented in these speeches to gain authority, legitimacy, and power.
References
Bregasi M. 2020, Saving Face and Atrocities: Sequence Expansions and Indirectness in Television Interviews, in “Hum Stud” 43, pp. 89-106.
Bregasi M. and Bikaj A. 2022, Mental representations of political discourse in an authoritarian society - The case of Albania during the implementation of the Chinese Cultural Revolutionary model, in “Balkan Journal of Philosophy” 14 [2].
Bregasi M. and Christiansen T. 2024, Leadership narratives as divergent framing of conflict: A discourse analysis of Kosovo – Serbia dialogue, in The use of Culture in Modern Conflicts and Political Competition. An insight from Ukraine and the Western Balkans, Polidemos, Milan, pp. 45-75.
Chilton P. 2004, Analysis Political Discourse – Theory and Practice, Routledge, London.
Chilton P. 2012, Language, Space and Mind. The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chilton P. and Schäffner C. 1997, Discourse and politics, in van Dijk T. (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, Sage, London, pp. 206-230.
Corcoran P.E. 1990, Language and Politics, in Swanson D.L. and Nimmo D. (eds.), New Direction in Political Communication, Sage, California, pp. 51-85.
Fillmore C.J. 1982a, Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis, in Jarvella R.J. and Klein W. (eds.), Speech, Place and Action, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 31-59.
Fillmore C.J. 1982b, Frame semantics, in the Linguistics Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul, pp. 111-137.
Fillmore C.J. 1985, Frames and the semantics of understanding, in “Quaderni di Semantica” 6 [2], pp. 222-253.
Kamrava M. 2016 (ed.), Fragile Politics: Weak States in the Greater Middle East, Oxford Academic, Oxford.
Lakoff G. 2009, The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics, Penguin Books, New York.
Lakoff G. and Johnson M. 1980 / 2003, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakoff G. and Johnson M. 1999, Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought, Basic Books, New York.
Saeed J.I. 1997, Semantics, Blackwell, Oxford.
Van Dijk T.A. 1987, Communicating Racism. Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk, Sage, London.
Van Dijk T.A. 2002, Ideology: political discourse and cognition, in Chilton P.A. and Schäffner C. (eds.), Politics as Talk and Text, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 203-237.
Van Dijk T.A. 2008, Discourse and Context: a Sociocognitive Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wehling E. 2016, Politisches Framing: Wie eine Nation sich ihr Denken einredet - und daraus Politik macht, Herbert von Halem, Köln.
Wehling E. 2019, Framing Manual, Berkeley International, Framing Institute. https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2019/02/framing_gutachten_ard.pdf.
Full Text: PDF
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
