Negation and Its Ideological Implications in Inaugural Addresses
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1402.04Keywords:
critical stylistics, Jeffries’ model, negating, inaugural address, Joe BidenAbstract
The study of ideology in literary and political texts is the concern of any critical study including critical stylistics. The current paper deals with the ideological positioning of Joe Biden’s and Bill Clinton’s inaugural addresses. The researchers adopt one toolkit called negation with its various categories of Critical Stylistics, as suggested by Jeffries (2010) in order to uncover the ideologies that are hidden in the presidents’ inaugural addresses. To explore the ideology in each category of negation, qualitative and quantitative approaches are adopted. The findings reveal that negating steers the text in an effective way, especially in the syntactic category. What is more, since these are inaugural addresses, most of the ideologies are positive such as unity, democracy, and indiscrimination.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., Walker, D. A., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Measurement (Vol. 4). USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Ayeomoni, O. M., & Akinkuolere, O. S. (2012). A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and Inaugural Speeches of President Umaru Musa Yar” Adua. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.3.461-468.
Biria, R., & Mohammadi, A. (2012). The socio pragmatic functions of inaugural speech: A critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of pragmatics, 44(10), 1290-1302.
David, W. T., & Miracle, O. (2013). A Pragmatic Analysis of Victory and Inaugural Speeches of President Jonathan: a Measure for Transformation and Good Governance in Nigeria. Innovation Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2),17-21.
Jeffries, L. (2007). Textual Construction of the Female Body: A Critical Discourse Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jeffries, L. (2010a). Critical Stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jeffries, L. (2010b). Opposition in Discourse. London: Continuum.
Ko, H. C. (2015). Political persuasion: Adopting Aristotelian rhetoric in public policy debate strategies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(10), 114-123.
Salleh, L. M. (2014). Power of Language. Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Kelestarian Insan 2014 (INSAN2014), 1–10.
Shaw, K. (2017). Beyond the bully pulpit: Presidential speech in the courts. Texas Law Review, 96(1), 71–140.
Stuckey, M. E. (2010). Rethinking the Rhetorical Presidency and Presidential Rhetoric. Review of Communication, 10(1), 38-52.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.1204
Widdowson, H. G. (1995). ‘Discourse Analysis: a critical review’. Language and Literature, 4(3), 157-172.
