The stylistic dimension of formality in political discourse (based on the corpus of speeches by U.S. presidents)
https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2024-12-119-131
Abstract
The article deals with the study of genre classification and the degree of formality of U.S. presidential speeches.
The main purpose of the study is to identify conventional genre structures in political discourse and their resilience to stylistic variations.
As a hypothesis, it is suggested that the measurement of formality can serve as a reliable indicator for distinguishing genres within political discourse. The research methodology is based on the parts of speech markup of texts using the Stanford Part of Speech Tagger tool and further quantification of formality according to the works of F.P. Heylighen and J.-M. Dewaele. The formality index is calculated based on the ratio of non-deictic and deictic categories of words in the text. The corpus of the study consists of 267 texts taken from the archive of the project “The American Presidency Project” of the University of California at Santa Barbara, USA. Information on the conventional genre of texts is taken from the same source. The results of the study demonstrate a significant difference between the genres of “Remarks” and “Address”. Since the method of quantification of formality makes it possible to effectively oppose traditional classifications based on thematic and substantive criteria, the analysis also revealed unexpressed genre innovations, for example, Joe Biden’s “Weekly Conversation”. There was no global trend towards a decrease/increase in the formality of discourse. The data findings confirm the presence of variability in the presidential discourse and allow a deeper understanding of the boundaries of genres and their variability.
About the Author
E. V. Nasilnikov
Russian State University for the Humanities
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgenii V. Nasilnikov
125047; 6, Miusskaya Sq.; Moscow
References
1. Gallyamova, N.Sh. (2010), “Speech act ‘promise, oath’ in the Russian linguistic picture of the world. Linguacultural, functional and pragmatic aspects”, Yazyk i kul’tura, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 16–33.
2. Zenkin, S. (2003), “Roland Barthes and the semiological project”, in Bart, R. Sistema mody. Stat’i po semiotike kul’tury [The fashion system. Articles on the semiotics of culture], Izdatel’stvo Sabashnikovykh, Moscow, Russia, pp. 10–21.
3. Heylighen, F. and Dewaele, J.-M. (1999), Formality of language. Definition and measurement, available at: http://pcp.vub.ac.be/Papers/Formality.html (Accessed 12 Sept. 2024).
4. Labov, W. (1972), Sociolinguistic patterns, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, USA.
5. Langacker, R.W. (2008), Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
6. Manning, C.D. (2011), “Part-of-speech tagging from 97 to 100 %. Is it time for some linguistics?”, in Gelbukh, A., ed., Computational linguistics and intelligent text processing. 12<sup>ер</sup> International Conference, Tokyo, Japan, February 20–26, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 171–189.
7. Mosès, S. (2000), “Émile Benveniste et la linguistique du dialogue”, Revue de métaphysique et de morale, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 509–525.
8. Uit Den Boogaert, P.C. (1975), Woordfrekwenties in geschreven en gesproken Nederlands, Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht, Netherlands.
9. Wittgenstein, L. (1953), Philosophical investigations, Oxford, UK.
Review
For citations:
Nasilnikov E.V. The stylistic dimension of formality in political discourse (based on the corpus of speeches by U.S. presidents). RSUH/RGGU Bulletin: “Literary Teory. Linguistics. Cultural Studies”, Series. 2024;(12):119-131. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2686-7249-2024-12-119-131
Views:
67
Email this article 