Journals / Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2006 / Sayı: 0

Dil ve İkna: Türk Politika Söyleminde İkna Edici Önerme Yapıları

Pages
91–113
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

What differs is simply the percentages of the strategies used by them.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Language use geared to persuade society for ideological purposes has been a significant characteristic of the discourse of politics; since it can affect the psychology and voting behaviour of the public, hence can reconstruct power and administration relations in the political arena.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data are composed of the transcribed examples from the public propaganda speeches of five different political party leaders before the general elections held on November 3, 2002 in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:What differs is simply the percentages of the strategies used by them.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2002 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Language use geared to persuade society for ideological purposes has been a significant characteristic of the discourse of politics; since it can affect the psychology and voting behaviour of the public, hence can reconstruct power and administration relations in the political arena. Within this framework, our study analyzes the discourse of Turkish politics and aims to explain how public persuasion is achieved. The data are composed of the transcribed examples from the public propaganda speeches of five different political party leaders before the general elections held on November 3, 2002 in Turkey. In the analysis of the data, first, the linguistic persuasion strategies used by the leaders are examined on the basis of the structures of argumentation and types of persuasive propositions; then, the distribution of such features among the political parties are explained. Although each party claims that it is radically different from the others, when linguistic propaganda strategies are considered, the results reveal that the parties in question are quite similar in that they all make use of the same linguistic strategies for persuasion. What differs is simply the percentages of the strategies used by them.

🔖

Cite This Article

BÜYÜKKANTARCIOĞLU, N., YARAR, E. (2006). Dil ve İkna: Türk Politika Söyleminde İkna Edici Önerme Yapıları. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 0, 91–113. https://ajindex.com/articles/161083

References (9)

  1. Baron, R. A., Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology. Allyn and Bacon
  2. Bhatia, V. K. (1994). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman
  3. Chilton, P. & Ilyın, M. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the common European house. Discourse and Society, 4(7), 7-31
  4. Chilton, P. & Schaffer, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Vol. 2,206-231. London: Sage Publications
  5. Combs, J. E. & Nimmo, D. (1993). The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palaver in Contemporary Politics. N. Y.: Longman
  6. Çeltek, A. & Oktar, L. (2004). Türkçe sözlü söylemde artgönderim örüntüleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1-13
  7. Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nvitte, N. (2003). Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects. Electoral Studies.http://www.ceseec.umontreal.ca/documents%5CTimeDecision.pdf Siteye giriş:08.06.2002
  8. Fox, B. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  9. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.Greenald, J. (2000). Language of Persuasion, www.englishresources.co.uk Siteye giriş:08.06.2002. 11.Holtgraves, T. & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol. 18, No.2, 196-205. 12.Institute for Propaganda Analysis (1939). The Fine Art of Propaganda. NewYork: Harcourt,Brace and Company, http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles Siteye giriş:16.04.2002. 13.Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281. 14.Maynard, S. K. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: A case for nommalization in Japanese and English discourse. Language Sciences, 18, Issues 3-4, 933-946. 15.Mc Arthur, T. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 16.Murphy, P. K. (2001). What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students' and experts'conception of persuasiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 35,675-698. 17.Nida, E. (1984). Rhetoric and styles: A taxonomy of structures and functions. Language Sciences, 16, Issue 2,287-3.05. 18.Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements.Journal of Pragmatics, 33,255-269. 19.Oktar, L. (1997). Söylemsel artgönderim örüntülerinde iletişimsel etkenler. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 127-132. 20.Okt