syntactic options in terms of the interactional strategies of individuals, groups and classes. And it is especially this aspect that differentiates the discourse analysis
from traditional studies of syntax, semantics, language change, and variation which do not concern with it Van Dijk, 1985.
c. Necessary Principles of Analysis of Political Discourse
To make sense of a whole discourse has still remained not satisfactorily explained; nevertheless, this knowledge or ability belongs to key competences in a
task which aims at bringing coherent interpretation of discourse. The necessary presupposition is that the meanings of its constituent parts must be known. Then,
the writer tries to work out how the parts of discourse are linked to each other. Consequently, the writer must also to find out how this particular discourse fits in
with the previous experience of the world. In other words, the writer investigates the relationship between the discourse and the world. The connection between text
or discourse and world is also another meaning of the world coherence which primarily searches for connections between the sequential parts of a text
Fairclough, 1989. To describe structure and coherence in any discourse genre is not an easy
task. It is helpful to bear in the mind that argumentation should be viewed as a discourse genre in which the individuals efforts to persuade others about the
correctness of his opinions and consequently to undermine his rivals ones. This leads in the permanent negotiation of meanings. Evidently, this is possible not
only due to speakers and hearers cooperation, but also competition Van Dijk, 1985.
Besides, as Fairclough points out, seemingly paradoxical situation lies in the fact that not only the interpretation of a text but also its production on its own
poses interpretative characteristics. However, it is fairly logical because the speaker or, in other words, the producer of the text brings his speech as his
interpretation of the world. It just follows that the interpretation of the speech is the listener`s interpretation of the speakers interpretation. Fairclough 2000 notes
also that there is considerable variation in how people perform in political positions, particularly as the leader, the PM or the President. The variation in
performance comes from their social identity their social class, the cultural and regional community from which they come, their gender, etc.
Thus, either the production of the speech or its interpretation should be considered to be creative and constructive interpretative processes Fairclough,
1989.
d. The Presence of Power, Ideology and Persuasion in Political Speeches
In this sense, power may be considered as the humans ability to influence the environment of another person and to some degree available to both parties;
the weaker one may consequently interrupt reciprocal relationship by withdrawal. Moreover, the use of words by a politician may be compared to a process through
which he attempts to gain and also retain the sympathy and approval of his audience.
A very important aspect when presenting own power and in this sense representing also a particular ideology is the fact that this effort should be done
rather indirectly and not so openly because ideology is most effective when it is
not so clear that to persuade others is a goal of one of the ideologies. Such indirectness could be reached when ideological cues are brought to the speech as
background assumptions. They force, on one hand, the speaker to say something in a particular way and, on the other, the listener to interpret what has been said in
a particular way. Obviously, presentation of ideological views is thus not among the components of the speech and it is, to the great extent, up to the hearer to
recognize it behind the cues Fairclough, 1989. Generally, to end an argument means to persuade the others to accept a
standpoint to which they have been opposing or at least to reach a particular compromise of mutual points of views; nevertheless, sometimes a confrontation
ends up either without an evident winner and looser or without any resolution. Instead, the opponents just reaffirm the correctness of their arguments or even
refocus their disagreements onto a new basis and reciprocal agreement is not reached as well Van Dijk, 1985. Whether such communication should be
remarked as unsuccessful or not is hard to answer. However, if the speaker is able to influence the attitudes, knowledge or
even to undermine recipients previous ideology, he is obviously able to control their future actions. He may be considered to be a winner because the so-called
mentally mediated control of actions of people could be marked as the ultimate form of power. Such access is the feature of various manipulations which are
successful in their effort especially due to the fact that it takes place without peoples awareness that they are being manipulated.
