英语论文网

oliticalleaders and American political leaders. Afterwards, the cultural and ideologicalreasons behind these differences are discussed, and hopefully, the results of the studycan provide some useful information on speech writing and interculturalcommunication.
.........

Chapter Ⅱ LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter attempts to review the literature related to the study of politicaldiscourse, public speeches and genre analysis, in order to establish a theoretical basisfor the present study.

2.1 Political Public Speeches
The present study mainly focuses on the political public speeches delivered byAmerican political leaders in Chinese universities and Chinese political leaders inAmerican universities, which requires an integrated understanding of both politicaldiscourse and public speeches.Politics cannot do without language. Lakoff (1990) defines the relationshipbetween politics and language as politics is language, and language is politics. Thenecessity of language use in politics is reflected in that different word choices maylead to different meanings and consequences. Hasan (1996) believes in the power oflanguage in shaping and defending the reality as well, with which human beings arecapable of protecting their values. Chilton (2004) maintains that we are “able to uselanguage to pursue our own ends and to explore the ways in which we think andbehave politically”. In other words, political authorities or leaders are characterized bythe wish to manifest their political attitudes by means of language. Their politicalviewpoints and actions are possibly transmitted and taken effect by the use oflanguage. Therefore, they have to be cautious about their language choices if theyintend to achieve their purposes.Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, written by Chilton in 2004,is the first monograph that systematically studies political discourse, invoked byAristotle’s idea that we are all political animals. Chilton (2004) addresses therelationship between cooperation and conflict in politics and notes that politics is anactivity that struggles for power and cooperation to resolve conflicts of interest.Another political discourse analyst that cannot be ignored in political discourseanalysis is Ruth Wodak (1998, 2007, 2009), who has proposed a discourse-historicalapproach together with Reisigl. He views the field of politics as a number of ‘fields ofaction’ and each field of action is related to a distinct set of political sub-genres. Hisapproach to political discourse is taxonomic and illuminates the diversity nature ofpolitical discourse.
.........

2.2 Previous Studies on Political Speeches
Linguists abroad have studied political speeches from different perspectives,such as the critical discourse analysis perspective (Fairclough,1989, 1992, 1995, 2000,2003; van Dijk, 1994, 2008, 2009；Wodak, 1989, 2007), cognitive linguisticsperspective (Lakoff, 1991, 1993; Beard, 2000; Musolff, 2004; Charteris-Black, 2004),classical rhetoric perspective (Thompson, 2007; Andersen, 2008), and American newrhetoric perspective (Rowland & Jones, 2007), with emphasis on different points.Critical discourse analysis of political public speeches puts its focus on what linguistic means are used by the speaker to communicate his message, while the rhetoric, nomatter it is classical rhetoric or American new rhetoric, gives more attention to styleand distinguishing linguist本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。