نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی همگانی دانشگاه شیراز

2 استاد زبان‌شناسی همگانی دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

در یک تحلیل زبان‌شناختی، سطح‌های گوناگون از جمله واژه، جمله، ساختار متنی، ترکیبات، اصطلاحات و موارد مشابه در اندرکنش با یک‌دیگر بن‌مایه‌ها، اصول اولیه و بافتار یک اندیشه و ایدئولوژی را می‌سازند. ایدئولوژی‌ها و هویت‌های برساخته‌ آن‌ها در پشت واژه‌ها و واحدهای گوناگون زبانی پنهان هستند و باید از آن‌ها رمزگشایی شود. این رمزگشایی در فراگرد توصیف، تحلیل و تبیین متن‌ها به انجام می‌رسد. در واقع، ایدئولوژی به هر اندیشه و رهیافتی این امکان را می‌دهد تا مرزهای هویتی و دگرسازانه‌ خود را نسبت به رقبای خویش ترسیم نماید. این جستار در پی پاسخ به پرسش «در نخستین سخنرانی پس از انتخابات رؤسای جمهور جمهوری اسلامی ایران، امریکا و فرانسه مرزهای هویتی تولید و بازتولید اقتدار به چه صورتی بازنمایی می‌شود؟» تحلیلی در سطوح خرد و کلان را در پیش می‌گیرد. نگارندگان به منظور پاسخ به این پرسش بر این فرض هستند که «کاندیداهای پیروز در انتخابات ریاست جمهوری ایران، فرانسه و امریکا ابتنای سامانه نشانه­ شناختی خویش را بر روی مفصل‌بندی هویت ایجابی حداکثری و تنظیم دایره غیریت حداقلی (شمول بیشنه و برون­رانی کمینه) استوار نموده­ اند». در این نوشتار، نخست، روابط سازه‌های زبانی پیکره مورد بررسی با استفاده از تحلیل دلالت صریح و ضمنی و حضور و غیاب واکاوی می‌شود. سپس مؤلفه‌های خود و دیگری، غیریت‌سازی، چگونگی برجسته‌سازی و حاشیه‌رانی و منطق تفاوت و زنجیره‌ هم‌ارزی هرکدام از گفتمان‌های مورد بررسی تبیین می‌گردد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده‌ها بیانگر آن است که زنجیره هم‌ارزی و هویت‌ساز روحانی آشکارا تبیین می‌شود و حاشیه‌رانیِ دگرهایِ منفی این گفتمان به ‌صورتی ضمنی انجام می‌گیرد. دگرهای گفتمانی ترامپ و مکرون نیز به ‌صورت ضمنی بیان می‌شود، اما زنجیره‌ هم‌ارزی دال بر گفتمان‌های هم‌سوی آن‌ها ترسیم آشکاری ندارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Representing Identity and Otherness in the First Inaugural Speech of the Elected Presidents: Case Study of the Elections of Iran, the USA, France

نویسندگان [English]

  • Somaye Shokati Moqarab 1
  • Jalal Rahimian 2

1 Ph.D. Student of General Linguistics- Shiraz University

2 Professor of General Linguistics- Shiraz University

چکیده [English]

In a linguistic analysis, different levels such as words, sentences, textual structures, combinations etc. interact with each other and make the bases, principles and the context of a thought and an ideology. In fact, ideology lets any thought and approach to draw its identity-based and other-making borders with its antagonists. Power construction and social context interact with each other in the political elections. In this arena, the political elites represent their discourse in a manner leading to grasping the utmost votes. Therefore, in this rivalry, besides legitimizing their ideology, these elites delegitimize their antagonists. Besides, what is presented before the elections, what the candidates utter in their inaugural speeches is somehow a different material. What is uttered in the inaugural speech generally contains all the political currents, parties, groups and thoughts. In this era other-makings is articulated through a hidden discourse. It seems that elections provide a ground in which power and hegemony get integrated in a peaceful manner. Therefore, it is important to find the reason of the supremacy of an ideology and the failure of the other.
In the years 2016 to 2017, three presidential elections were held in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America and France. Iran elections were held on May 19th, 2017 and Hassan Rouhani was re-elected for a second term. The United States presidential election of 2016 was held on November 8th and Donald Trump won the White House. The presidential election of France was held on May 7th, 2017 in which Emmanuel Macron was elected. In this study, by considering the context-based situation of each discourse, the authors investigate how identity making, representing self and others and different social actors is formulated throughout these political events.
There are many questions asked regarding what happens throughout the elections period. How can language-use foreground a discourse and let it gain its expected results? How does the hegemon discourse attract all the groups and parties? What is the role of linguistic mechanisms? However, this investigation is about to answer the question that “how are the identity-based borders of producing and reproducing authority represented in the first inaugural speech of the elected presidents after the elections?” This analysis is done in the micro and macro levels. The study’s hypothesis is that “the elected candidates in the presidential elections of Iran, the US and France have based their semiotic system on the articulation of their maximal positive identity and defining a minimal other-making circle (maximal inclusion and minimal exclusion)”.
The corpus of this study is composed of three inaugural addresses of the three case discourses. Their usage of different pronouns, the manner they address their audience and their high frequency references is part of the analysis and the manner they represent their identity is another part. Therefore, the study’s theoretical framework has two main levels, a micro and a macro one. The micro level investigates the linguistic strategies each president applies and the macro one is found through critical discourse analysis (CDA). So, the framework is based on a combination of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s discursive theory and some ideas obtained from Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida. As a result, firstly, the linguistic mechanisms are analyzed through the implicit and explicit implication of Barthes and the presence and absence ideas of Derrida. Then, other factors like self and other, other-making, foregrounding and backgrounding, chain of equivalence and logic of difference in each of the speeches is analyzed. As the interdisciplinary studies like this one are based on a two-level method, they can provide an appropriate ground for understanding the linguistic trends, processes and structures that have a special importance in policy-making. 
The data analysis proves that the three analyzed discourses, despite their different contexts, have common grounds in the application of the linguistic mechanisms. The findings present us three macro-structures the first one of which is “the pronouns”. Using the pronouns “I” and “we” is a strategy for the ideological representations and the political inclusions and exclusions. In fact, the first person singular pronoun is used for foregrounding the self and displaying the positive side and the plural one gathers all the parties and thoughts together. The second macro-structure is the “speech content”. The analyses reveal different topics each having their special importance in the related context. The repeated issues are some strategies that are consciously used to encourage the audience and create hope for a better future by the help of the government. This is a repeated subject in all the analyzed speeches. The third macro-structure is the opening and closing remarks containing appreciation in the beginning part and the commitment to compliance in their closing part.
Another point is that the findings prove that the chain of equivalence and the identity-maker one is evidently described in Rouhani’s speech. Furthermore, backgrounding the negative others of Rouhani’s discourse is done implicitly. On the other hand, while the discursive others of Trump and Macron are implicitly represented, they do not have an evidently drawn chain of equivalence. In each of the studied discourses, a kind of ideological reality is hidden. In other words, the ideological context reproduced by each discourse represents self and other in a special way that outlines the borders of each discourse positively and negatively. This kind of representation in each discourse describes how each one is legitimized.
As politics has mostly been studied from a social and political lens, and linguists have had fewer productions in this field, it is recommended that linguists apply their specialized view in this domain and prove how language can affect politics. As this study demonstrates, linguistic mechanisms help the candidates have an effective representation of their identity, legitimize themselves, delegitimize their others, and finally win the votes.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
  • self and other
  • foregrounding and backgrounding
  • Presidential Inaugural Speeches
  • Iran
  • USA
  • France

اسدی، ناصر و امیر رضائی‌پناه (1392) «مبانی تقسیم‌بندی نظام بین‌الملل و هم‌گرایی‌ها و واگرایی‌های آن در گفتمان تعامل‌گرایی ضدنظام‌سلطه». پژوهش‌های سیاسی جهان اسلام. سال 3. شمارة 1. صص 1-27.

اسدی، هما و فرهاد ساسانی (1396) «غیریت‌سازی در گفتمان سیاست خارجی محمدرضا پهلوی». زبان‌پژوهی. سال 9. شمارة 22. صص 7-24.

تاجیک، محمدرضا (1384) روایت غیریت و هویت در میان ایرانیان. تهران: فرهنگ گفتمان.

رضائی‌پناه، امیر و سمیه شوکتی ­مقرب (1395) تحلیل گفتمان سیاسی؛ امر سیاسی به‌مثابه یک برساخت گفتمانی. تهران: تیسا.

رضائی‌پناه، امیر و سمیه شوکتی­ مقرب (1394) هویت، گفتمان و انتخابات در ایران؛ مبانی ایدئولوژیک انتخابات 1392. تهران: نویسه.

روحانی، حسن (1396)، رئیس جمهوری با مردم سخن گفت. روزنامه شرق. شماره‌ی 2869. Retrieved from <http://sharghdaily.com>

References

Allen, G. (2011). Intertextuality (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Asadi, H., & Sasani, F. (2017). Otherization in the foreign policy discourse of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Zabanpazhuhi, 9(22), 7-24 [In Persian].

Asadi, N., & Rezaeipanah, A. (2013). The basics of the international system division and its convergence and divergence in the interactionism discourse against the dominating system. Quarterly Journal of Political Research in Islamic World, 3(1), 1-27 [In Persian]. 

Barthes, R. (1977). Elements of semiology (A. Lavers & C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.

Bennington, G., & Derrida, J. (1999). Jacques Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). London: Rutledge.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hart, Ch. (2011). Critical discourse studies in context and cognition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Herzog, B. (2016). Discourse analysis as social critique- discursive and non-discursive realities in critical social research. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Koussouhon, L., & Allagbe, A. (2013). The lexicogrammar of chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s fiction: a systemic functional contribution. Langage & Devenir, 22, 19-44.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, Ch. (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy (2nd ed.). New York and London: Verso.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, Ch. (2014). Hegemony and socialist strategy, towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Liu, F. (2012). Genre analysis of American presidential inaugural speech. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2407-2411.   

Macron, Emanuel (2017). Full transcript of Emmanuel Macron speech. BBC.  Retrieved from <Newswww.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39842084>

Mouffe, Ch. (2000). The democratic paradox. London and New York: Verso.

Norris, S. (2011). Identity in (inter)action; introducing multimodal (inter)action analysis. Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.

Randal Strock, I. (2017). The complete book of presidential inaugural speeches, from George Washington to Donald Trump. New York: Gray Rabbit Publications, LLC.

Rezaeipanah, A., & Shokati Moqarab, S. (2016). Identity, discourse and elections in Iran; the ideological bases of the 2013 elections. Tehran: Neveeseh Parsi [In Persian].

Rezaeipanah, A., & Shokati Moqarab, S. (2017). Political discourse analysis (the political as a discursive construction). Tehran: Teesa [In Persian].

Rohani, Hassan (2017). The president talks to the Iranian people. Shargh Newspaper, No. 2869. Retrieved from <http://sharghdaily.com> [In Persian]

Sahragard, R., & Moghadam, M. (2015). Moving in a Gyre: a discourse analysis of president Rouhani’s De Facto Inaugural speech. Studies in English Language Teaching, 3(3), 237-251.

Tajik, M. R. (2004). The narrative of identity and otherness among Iranians. Tehran: Farhang-e Goftman [In Persian].

Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Text and practice (pp. 32-70). London and New York: Routledge.