Commitment to the truth or defensive stance? Political strategies in the Brexit contest

Q2 Arts and Humanities Psychology of Language and Communication Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.2478/plc-2021-0006
Isabel Iñigo-Mora
{"title":"Commitment to the truth or defensive stance? Political strategies in the Brexit contest","authors":"Isabel Iñigo-Mora","doi":"10.2478/plc-2021-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper analyses politicians’ selection of adverbs of certainty and extreme case formulations (ECFs) in both the 1975 Referendum and the Brexit (2016). This analysis helped discover if politicians in the 1975 Referendum and the Brexit: (a) framed a similar or different reality through their discourse choices and (b) used the same types of adverbs of certainty and ECFs and with the same frequency. For this purpose, we contrasted both the time (the 1975 Referendum vs. the Brexit) and the position (Anti-Europe vs. Pro-Europe). The corpus was made up of eight different recordings. Four of them were about the Brexit and four about the 1975 Referendum. In the case of the Brexit corpus, two recordings were Pro-Europe, two were Anti-Europe, and the same was in the case of the 1975 Referendum corpus.","PeriodicalId":20768,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Language and Communication","volume":"25 1","pages":"120 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Language and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2021-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper analyses politicians’ selection of adverbs of certainty and extreme case formulations (ECFs) in both the 1975 Referendum and the Brexit (2016). This analysis helped discover if politicians in the 1975 Referendum and the Brexit: (a) framed a similar or different reality through their discourse choices and (b) used the same types of adverbs of certainty and ECFs and with the same frequency. For this purpose, we contrasted both the time (the 1975 Referendum vs. the Brexit) and the position (Anti-Europe vs. Pro-Europe). The corpus was made up of eight different recordings. Four of them were about the Brexit and four about the 1975 Referendum. In the case of the Brexit corpus, two recordings were Pro-Europe, two were Anti-Europe, and the same was in the case of the 1975 Referendum corpus.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对真相的承诺还是防御立场?英国脱欧竞争中的政治策略
摘要本文分析了政治家在1975年公投和英国脱欧(2016)中对确定性副词和极端案例表述的选择。这一分析有助于发现1975年全民公投和英国脱欧中的政治家是否:(a)通过他们的话语选择构建了相似或不同的现实,(b)使用了相同类型的确定性副词和ECFs,频率相同。为此,我们对比了时间(1975年公投与英国脱欧)和立场(反欧与亲欧)。语料库由八段不同的录音组成。其中四个是关于英国脱欧的,四个是1975年的全民投票。就英国脱欧语料库而言,有两段录音是亲欧的,两段是反欧的,1975年的全民投票语料库也是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology of Language and Communication
Psychology of Language and Communication Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The ambiguous relation between verbal irony understanding and need for cognitive closure: Reports from two studies Are Polish CLIL learners more willing to communicate in English than non-CLIL learners? Twitter language samples reflect collective emotional responses following political leaders’ rhetoric during the pandemic across four countries A star is born? The German gender star and its effects on mental representation Stimulus-response binding is not a gradually learned association between specific stimuli and their responses: Evidence from a teenage bilingual population
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1