Interactive linguistic strategies in campaign rhetoric: Their use and function. (Volumes I and II)

A pragmatic analysis is conducted of texts from a genre of political oratory, the "stump" speech; in the stump speech, candidates present their qualifications for political office and state their positions on issues. The speeches considered in this analysis were given by two Louisiana politicians, Representative David Duke and Senator J. Bennett Johnston, during their 1990 campaigns for election to the United States Senate. They are examined for evidence that speakers used interactive linguistic strategies rhetorically, in an effort to persuade audiences to support their candidacies.; The analysis demonstrates (1) that non-propositional persuasive strategies furthering traditional rhetorical arguments, i.e. the ethical, pathetic and logical proofs, can be identified and described through an examination of the pragmatics of the data; and (2) that an explanation of the effects of these strategies can be integrated into a claim-backing model of argumentation (Toulmin 1958; Schiffrin 1987; Antaki and Leudar 1990). Following a display of the model, the analysis focuses on speaker strategies of direct address, constructed speech, applause and deixis intended to involve audiences by producing interaction and invoking common ground.; Additionally, and relying on pragmatic principles of implication (Grice 1975; Lycan 1984) and politeness (Brown and Levinson 1978, 1987), the analysis demonstrates ways in which speakers convey claims covertly. Inferences drawn from candidates' remarks allow audiences to understand and ratify arguments which have not been made explicit, including racist and prejudiced claims. Because these claims are not made openly, the candidate maintains "deniability" and cannot be held accountable for the message conveyed. A pragmatic analysis of a covertly prejudiced argument by Representative Duke is conducted, and its argumentative structure displayed.; The study demonstrates that linguistic pragmatics provides the analyst of political rhetoric with two important discovery tools: a vocabulary for talking about non-propositional persuasive strategies; and access to principled descriptive and explanatory models of persuasion through involvement and inference.