دراسة تداولية اجتماعية للعدوانية في خطب سياسية امريكية مختارة

Rp-A Socio-Pragmatic Study of Aggression in Selected American Political Speeches.pdf

The present study investigates aggression in selected American political speeches from a socio-pragmatic viewpoint. Politicians utilize political speech as an effective tool to convey their views and to shape public opinion. However, it frequently contains aspects of aggression and the continued existence of aggression within political speech represents an urgent concern. Researchers have carried out several studies on aggression. Nevertheless, they have not studied the notion of aggression in American political speeches from a socio-pragmatic standpoint. Thus, this study tries to bridge this gap. The current study aims at identifying the types of aggression in the selected political speeches, revealing the purposes of aggression in the data under examination, pinpointing the pragmatic strategies that are used to express aggression by aggressors in the selected data and clarifying the basic social variables that enhance aggression in the selected political speeches. To achieve these aims, an eclectic model is employed. It comprises of sociolinguistic and pragmatic strategies that include Trudgill’s (1995) social variables, Searl’s (1969) speech acts theory and Culpeper’s (1996) impoliteness theory. The conclusion reveals that: (1) Verbal, direct, instrumental and indirect are the types of aggression in the selected political speeches. Verbal aggression has the most frequent use. (2) Criticism, impression management, power and dominance and exclusion are the purposes of aggression in the selected data. Criticism is the most prevalent purpose. (3) Speech acts and impoliteness are the pragmatic strategies that are used to convey aggression. Representative speech act and bald on record impoliteness are mostly used to employ aggression. (4) Position and power are the basic social variables that elevate aggression in the selected political speeches