Political Discourse Analysis : A Case Study of 2014 Andhra Pradesh State Assembly Election of Interpersonal Speech Choices

Political Discourse Analysis : A Case Study of 2014 Andhra Pradesh State Assembly Election of Interpersonal Speech Choices Lalitha Kameswari Language Technologies Research Centre KCIS, IIIT Hyderabad Telangana, India v.a.lalitha@research.iiit.ac.in Radhika Mamidi Language Technologies Research Centre KCIS, IIIT Hyderabad Telangana, India radhika.mamidi@iiit.ac.in Abstract Since the beginning of the 20th century, peo- ple have started studying the correlation be- tween language and culture. They observed how language is used in discourses to estab- lish power relations in the society. Eggins (2004) found that the link between language and the choice made by the speaker in the exchange enable us to see speakers making meaning about interpersonal: the extent of their intimacy, their level of familiarity with each other and their attitudes and judgments. In political speeches, the speaker uses lan- guage to persuade the voters, influence their perceptions and build a positive interpersonal identity. Keeping in mind this result-oriented attempt by the speakers, Van Dijk and others (1997) describe discourse as political when it has a direct functional role as a form of polit- ical action in the political process. In this pa- per, we will look at four such speeches given by notable politicians from both winning and losing parties during the campaign of Andhra Pradesh State Assembly elections of 2014 and closely observe the linguistic choices made at the lexical and semantic levels. By a con- trastive analysis of the speeches of winning and losing parties, we can identify the linguis- tic features which contribute to the outcome. 1 Introduction Communication is one of the main pillars of poli- tics. Language is used in various forms at different levels of communication such as speeches, argu- ments, press releases, pamphlets, advertisements, and manifestos. Charteris-Black (2011) states that “within all types of political systems, from autocratic, through oligarchic to democratic; leaders have relied on the spoken word to convince others of the benefits that arise from their leadership.” Language is a double edged sword in political discourses. It can effectively avoid conflicts and also stir controversies within no time. The way politicians frame their expressions, to a large extent determines who they are and whether or not they will succeed in their profession. So keeping in mind the end goal of appealing to the voters, political leaders construct their discourses strategically in the best way possible. Van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach talks about one such strategy - the ideo- logical polarisation between ‘Us’and ‘Them’where the speaker emphasises ‘our good’and ‘their bad’, simultaneously de-emphasising ‘our bad’and ‘their good’(Van Dijk, 2006a). In addition to this, a speaker often has to establish multiple identities among various socio-economic groups using language as a medium to build these identities. Appropriate use of pronouns and kinship terms include or distance the speaker, audience, and other politicians. Therefore political discourses hold a great importance in the field of Critical Discourse Analysis. When it comes to politics at the state level, parties often use the local/regional language for reaching out to a maximum number of voters, as well as creating …

Content truncated to 500 words