INDIRECTNESS AS A POLITICAL DISCOURSE STRATEGY IN DONALD TRUMP’S INAUGURAL ADDRESS
Abstract
Much of the meaning we convey during interaction is implicitly stated and this implies that hearers are set on a path to use their cognitive skills in deducing or inferring speakers' meaning or intentions. This strategy that speakers use in conveying meaning in a somewhat vague or roundabout manner is known as indirectness. This study accounts for indirectness in politics as a potent discourse strategy that political leaders employ. It accounts specifically for the forms of indirectness that President Trump employed during the delivery of his inaugural address. Instances of indirectness such as metaphor, circumlocution, and euphemism are identified and discussed in the address to interpret the speaker's hidden meaning behind every utterance. The study puts forward that indirectness does not only function to save or maintain face or as a politeness strategy, but also as a tool for getting the attention of listeners or the audience as well as fostering the personal beliefs and traditions of a political party against its opposition. Finally, the study concludes by asserting that language is not just a tool used to conceal the truth as indirectness suggests, but that it also employed – especially as used by political leaders – to reveal the other side of discourse not explicit to listeners.
Downloads
References
Ayoob, E. (2007).Black & Davidson on Metaphor.Macalester Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 6. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/philo/vol16/iss1/6,
Bach, K. and R•M. Harnish(1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England.
Bach K. (2006). Implicature vs Explicature: What’s the difference? For the Granada workshop on “Explicit Communication,” in honor of Robyn Carston, May 31-June 2,
Bergen,L. and D. J. Grodner. (2012).Speaker Knowledge Influences the Comprehension of Pragmatic Inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: © 2012 American Psychological Association Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2012, Vol. 38, No. 5, 1450–1460 0278-7393/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027850
Burridge, K. (2012). Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages. Lexis [Online], 7 |, Online since 25 June 2012, connection on 30 April 2019. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/lexis/355 ; DOI : 10.4000/lexis.355
Haugh, M. (2012). Inference and Implicature. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0535,
Hernández-Guerra, C. (2013). Textual, Intertextual and Rhetorical Features in Political Discourse: The Case of President Obama in Europe. In Revista de Lingüística y LenguasAplicadas Vol. 8 , 59-65 EISSN 1886-6298 http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2013.1175
Horn, L.R. (2006) Implicature. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (2006) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 3-28.
Horn, L.R. (2012). Implying and Inferring. In Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt The
Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 69-86.
Kecskes, I. and F. Zhang (2009). Activating, Seeking, and Creating Common Ground ASocio-Cognitive Approach in Pragmatics & Cognition 17:2 (2009), 331–355. doi 10.1075/p&c.17.2.06kec JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
Kulo, L. (2009). Linguistic Features in Political Speeches. A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Language and Culture, Luleå University of Technology
Makata, W.I.R., Ongarora, D. & P. Matu. (2016). The Role of Context in Interpretation of Political Utterances on Hate Speech in Kenya. In Multilingual Academic Journal of Education and Social Sciences November 2016, Vol. 4, No. 2 ISSN: 2308-0876, DOI: 10.6007/MAJESS/v4-i2/2431. Retrieved at URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/MAJESS/v4-i2/2431, on September 19, 2018
Requejo, M.D.P. (2007). The Role of Context in Word Meaning Construction: A Case Study. In International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 7 (1), pp. 169-173. Retrieved on September 19, 2018
Saul, J.M. (2002).Speaker meaning, what is said and what is implicated. Retrieved at: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/archive/00000684/ [Accessed: September 18, 2018]
Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge
University Press.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. (1986, 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell Publishers.
Wałaszewska, E. and A. Piskorska. (2012). Relevance Theory: More than Understanding inWałaszewska, E. and A. Piskorska (eds.) Relevance Theory: More than Understanding. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Yus, F. (1999). Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication. In Pragmatics 9:4.487-517 International Pragmatics Association. Retrieved on September 19, 2018,
DOI: 10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus
Copyright (c) 2023 David Ejiroghene JAGBORO
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties, and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the GPH Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
