International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 7, Issue 3, May 2019, Pages: 102-109
Received: Mar. 26, 2019;
Accepted: May 8, 2019;
Published: May 30, 2019
Views 69 Downloads 21
Qi Li, School of Foreign Languages, Guangzhou College of Commerce, Guangzhou, P. R. China
Guoqing Li, International College, Guangzhou College of Commerce, Guangzhou, P. R. China
The concession address is generally considered as the final swan song of a lost campaign, communicating the defeated presidential nominee’s thankfulness and gratitude to his or her supporters. Transcripts, videos or audios of concession addresses are easily accessible to the public via internet, television or even radio. With its easy accessibility, the concession address plays a significant part and has a high profile in the public’s daily life. Nonetheless, the researches on concession addresses are few and far between. Based on the system of Graduation within the Appraisal Theory, an analysis of graduation resources in concession addresses by American presidential nominees has been conducted. In this paper, the author aims to find how the political addresser to achieve alignment with the audience by using different kinds of graduation resources. The results show that American presidential nominees tend to be profusive in employing graduation resources, among which they are prone to employ far more Force resources than Focus resources in the given sample. This means that American presidential nominees are inclined to use force resources to highlight their attitudes and proper graduations, appropriately indicating their strong love to people and a strong sense of patriotism.
An Analysis of Graduation Resources in Concession Addresses, International Journal of Language and Linguistics.
Vol. 7, No. 3,
2019, pp. 102-109.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond Exchange: Appraisal Systems in English. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Conversation of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clauses. London & New York: Continuum.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraisal Research: Taking a Stance in Academic Writing. University of Technology Sydney.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
White, P. R. R. (2012). Exploring the Axiological Workings of ‘Reporter Voice’ News Stories—Attribution and Attitudinal Positioning. Discourse Context & Media, 1(2–3), 57-67.
Swain, E. (2012). Analysing Evaluation in Political Cartoons. Discourse Context & Media, 1, 82-94.
Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in Translation: Critical Points of Translator Decision-making. London: Routledge.
Wang, Z. H. (2001). Appraisal Systems and Their Operation: A New Development in the Systemic Functional Linguistics. Foreign Languages, (6), 13-20.
Wang, Z. H. & Ma, Y. L. (2007). Appraisal Theory: Charm and Dilemma. Foreign Language Education, 28(6), 19-23.
Zhu, Y. S. (2009). Implicit Evaluation of Ideational Meaning. Foreign Language Education, 30(4), 1-5.
Wang, Z. H. (2004). An Appraisal Approach to Hard News in Both English and Chinese—Appraisal Systems Inquiry (II). Foreign Language Education, (5): 30-31
Liu, X. L. (2010). Translation Study: An Appraisal Perspective— A Case on Comparative Study of Two English Versions of Hong Lou Meng. Foreign Languages Research, 2010(3), 161-163.
Xu, J. (2011). A Study of Business Translation from the Perspective of Appraisal Theory. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 34(6), 88-91.
Zhang, J. T. (1999). Classification and Language Requirement of Speeches. Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), (01), 63-65.
Li, M. J. (2014). A Comparative of Obama’s Two-term Presidential Campaign Speeches from the Perspective of Frame Semantics. Hunan Normal University.
Zhang, X. Y. (2015). On the Strategy of persuasion in Hillary Clinton's Campaign Speech from the Perspective of Prototype Theory and Categorization. Foreign Languages Research, (5), 1-5.
Barber, J. (2002). Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House. London: Prentice-Hall.
Xiong, L. (2004). A Stylistic Study of American Presidential Inaugural Address. Huazhong Normal University.
Li, L. W. (2006). A Pragmatic Analysis of Positive Politeness Strategy in American Presidential Inaugural Addresses. Hebei Normal University.
Wang, L. (2008). A Rhetoric of Persuasion in English Political Speeches. Zhengzhou University.
Biria, R. & Mohammadi, A. (2012). The Socio Pragmatic Functions of Inaugural Speech: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10):1290-1302.
Sun, Y. & Zhang, W. J. (2012). An Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Withdrawal Speech Strategy from the Perspective of Intertextuality. Journal of Ningxia University (Humanities & Social Sciences Edition)), 34(5), 193-196.
Zhang, G. C. (2014). A Contrastive Study of Barack Obama’s Victory Speech of 2008 and 2012: A Systemic Functional Approach. Inner Mongolia University.
Han, J. (2016). Positive Discourse Analysis of Farewell Addresses. Changchun University of Science and Technology.
Dedaić, M. N. (2006). Political Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 10(2), 700-707.
Kong, D. T. (2013). Leader Election Outcomes as Contextual Moderators Explaining the Different Frequencies of Action-oriented Terms and Negation Terms Used in Inaugural Speeches of Effective Versus Ineffective Leaders and Charismatic Versus Non-Charismatic Leaders: Evidence from 30 U. S. Presidents. Personality & Individual Differences, 55(7), 760-765.
Martin, J. (2015). Situating Speech: A Rhetorical Approach to Political Strategy. Political Studies, 63(1), 25–42.
Reyes, A. (2015). Building Intimacy through Linguistic Choices, Text Structure and Voices in Political Discourse. Language & Communication, 43, 58-71.
Rossette, F. (2017). Discursive Divides and Rhetorical Staging, or the Transcending Function of Oratory. Journal of Pragmatics, 108, 48-59.