Changes of the Features of Political Speeches through the Time

hypotheses, is the branch of analysis typical for sociology, social psychology, media studies or political science Van Dijk, 1985. A different level of power and its representation is one - and for our purpose very important - aspect of political speeches. It is necessary to differentiate between two approaches - the study of the power in discourse and the study of the power behind the discourse. The first approach is characterized by a discourse where relations of power are present; behind the face-to-face spoken discourse and the mass media discourse, this kind of power is exemplified in cross-cultural discourse where its participants belong to different ethnic and social Groupings. The second approach, the power behind the discourse, investigates how orders of discourse - as the dimension of social order of societies with their institutions are themselves influenced by relation of power Fairclough, 1989. Symbolically, in order to portray social change in the most traditional manner it is necessary for discourse to speak a language which should be other than the rhetorical due to the fact that its referential aspect is marked by broader cultural and political significance. Deep analysis would reveal the power relations between competing actors who occupy a common action space Skillington, 1997. It seems that between various types of discourse it is especially the political discourse that possesses a pragmatic dimension because it studies the sign system and codes in terms of user relation as the significant focus of investigation. To say it, the focus is at what language is actually used by different users. Thus, the investigation tries to find out users consistent semantic and 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.