In the functional theory of political discourse, candidates are positioned on the preference scale by three discursive functions: We depart from Benoit hypothesis regarding functions of the discourse in political campaigns: The difference could be explained when we take into account the qualitative content of the two discursive functions defense and attackand the role of political culture in the mechanism of Television debate. The data show that the candidate who was already in power Victor Ponta prime-minister at that time used the defense strategy more often than the opposition candidate Klaus Iohannis, in both debates: The problem is that, once there, he forgets the primordial meaning of this experience and builds his own world, outside the reality of others. Authentic, living performance can be the solution for politicians to take seriously the experience of exteriority and to return to the naturalness of interiority. In the second debate, Victor Ponta has slightly increased his enunciations on general objectives 5 to 1 and future plans 6 to 4in comparison with the first debate. As research limitation, we mention here constraints related to: Researchers argue that the model of the functional analysis of the debates could be transferable between different cultures, because in their semantic spaces the concepts of acclaim, attack and defense are isomorphic. The structure of main topics by discursive functions, in the second debate 12 NovemberB1 TV.

Author:Juzragore Vorn
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):12 July 2013
PDF File Size:20.59 Mb
ePub File Size:7.4 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Modelul semiotic. Discurs vs. Discursul lui William J. Teoria efectelor limitate. Studiu de caz: Agenda atributelor I. Studiu de caz: Agenda atributelor II. Studiu de caz: Analiza de dispozitiv televizual. Astfel: 1. Postul de televiziune BBC, considerat prototipul jurnalismului! Potrivit lui Charaudeau ibid. Actorii se folosesc de aceste! Dialogismul este constitutiv discursului.

Potrivit lui, Benveniste ibid. Ne construim propria! Maingueneau ibid. Charaudeau, Maingueneau Referindu-se la acest principiu, Fairclough ibid. Analiza de discurs nu are ca obiect discursuri izolate. Kendall, Wickham, Puterea nu este! Socialul este abordat sub forma diverselor! Rolurile interlocutorilor Footing. Schiffrin, De exemplu, rolul! Altfel spus,! Comunicarea este! Limbajul legi- tim n. This afternoon in this room, from this chair, I testified before the Office 1 of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.

I answered their questions truthfully, includ- ing questions about my private life — questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.

Still I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public and private. And 2 that is why I am speaking to you tonight. As you know, in a deposition in January I was asked questions about my relationship 3 with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer infor- mation.

Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. But I told the grand jury today, and I say to you now, that at no time did I ask anyone 4 to lie, to hide or destroy evidence, or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impres- 5 sion. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that. I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors: first, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit which has since been dismissed was a consideration, too.

In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investiga- 6 tion that began with private business dealings 20 years ago — dealings, I might add, about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.

The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my 7 private life, and now the investigation itself is under investigation. This has gone on too long, cost too much, and hurt too many innocent people. Now this matter is between me, the two people I love most — my wife and our daugh- 8 ter — and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so. Nothing is more important to me personally. But it is private. And I intend to reclaim my family life for my family.

Even Presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives, 9 and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long. And I take my responsibility for my part in all of this; that is all I can do. Now it is time — in fact, it is past time — to move on. We have important work to do — real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.

And so, tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, 10 to repair the fabric of our national discourse and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

Thank you for watching, and good night.


Comunicare si discurs mediatic



Comunicare şi discurs mediatic






Related Articles