Essay: Annotated Bibliography: language in politics

Annotated Bibliography Assignment
Mooney, A. & Evans, B. (2005) Language, society & power: an introduction. London: Routledge.
In the book ‘Language, society and power’, Mooney & Evans explore the idea of language being used as a system of representation. There are many ways we can represent reality through ‘taking photographs, painting a picture or writing music’ and this can be implied by the use of signs. In chapter 2.2 the authors state that signs are a visual concept and an object marker that is connected to the concept. This is represented by the ‘signifier’ and the ‘signified’, the signifier being the sound of the word and the signified creating the concept and values we associate with the word.
This book has many interesting viewpoints and one I find intriguing is in the first chapter were language is used as a way of demonstrating ‘power’. In the section 1.6, Mooney & Evans explore how ideology is interpreted in language. They state that ‘symbolic power is supported by ideologies’ and this is supported by the definition ‘a system of ideas, especially one which forms the basis of economic and political theory and policy’. Ideology has a negative point of view in society. We usually associate ideology with terrorism which is proved to be wrong in many cases. Ideology is a set of values that we hold individually or as a group. In language, ideology can have a huge impact on the words we speak depending on the context or environment we find ourselves in.
Therefore, in later assignments my knowledge of ideology is a good starting point for an essay on power and is a topic I’m particularly interested in to study at a higher level.
Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Edinburgh: Pearson.
Similarly, to the ‘language and power’ book written by Fairclough, the main focus is the changing nature of discourse and language use. This is specifically highlighted on Section B page 88 were Fairclough talks about the role of discourse in society. He briefly mentions the social actor theory ‘Giddens’ (1991) as discourse being the result of modernity and self-identity. Building on the idea that there is two types of domain. A macro domain and a micro domain, both relating to the modernisation of discourse and the focus of discursive practices and hegemonies.
In the book, there is some intertextuality where there is links to other texts. For example: in chapter 6, Fairclough introduces the ‘British General Election campaign’ and an introduction to the context, speakers, roles and status, before including the transcript where there is multiple speakers from the political parties. The sentence ‘The reporter is a well-known TV presenter and personality Vincent Hanna’ is an intertextuality point revealing ‘the relationship between texts’. The social actors in this chapter (individuals or collectives) political parties and their MP’s ‘Jonathan Aitken (Conservative) is a social actor referenced by Fairclough in the chapter.
I believe that the work of Fairclough is interesting and from this book I can reference the social actors and intertextuality in later assignments.
Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and power. Edinburgh: Pearson
In the book ‘Language and power’, Norman Fairclough interpolates the power perceived behind discourse. In particular, chapter 3 goes into detail about the discourse shifts in social situations where there is a clash between two people with a similar degree of power. Fairclough states that some people are the victims of being an ‘unequal encounter’ in conversations were power is condoned face to face. This position can be particularly challenged when a person of a higher status confronts a person of a relatively lower status or role.
Furthermore, in chapter 4, Fairclough discusses the idea of formality being a common property in many societies. He states that the topics in conversation are relatively ‘fixed’ and people in conversation speak in order of rank instead of conversing and deciding the order of speech upon context. I find these types of structured conversations particularly interesting as it requires participants to speak in a certain manner and only condones speech to be spoken in highly complex structures. However, I do believe that this type of structured discourse should be only used in formal circumstances. For example; a conversation between two world leaders.
In future assignments, the knowledge I have gained on discourse and power will be fruitful for when studying transcripts or analysing discourse in use. I will be able to make a direct quote from Fairclough’s book with a link to the spoken discourse.
Farrelly, M. (2014) Discourse and democracy: Critical analysis of the language of the government. Oxon: Routledge.
Michael Farrelly’s book summarises and explains how democracy is represented amongst society, the decisions the government often make which are seemingly vague promises surrounding democracy and the strings of lies attached to democracy demonstrated by the lack of advances in health care. The book is revealing information we tend to hide away from or ignore. The fact that countries will cover up the cracks by delivering speeches that mark intent, instead they create a false sense of hope and eventually collapse in a heap of their own lies once the public speaks out about the issues surrounding them. An example of this is in the first chapter were the labour party state in 2005 ‘with Labour, a strong Britain will force international terrorism into retreat and help spread democracy and freedom around the world’. This sentence perfectly puts into perspective the lies surrounding this political party and also implies that in the past decade, the government haven’t been able to conquer terrorism or create freedom. Farrelly creates a clear point in his book that, the government are weak and will try to sound as convincing as possible through the use of strong, low frequency dialect such as; ‘socio-political’ and ‘subcommittee’ in their speeches. The language use in this book means I am able to analyse political language effectively and discuss the effectiveness of speeches delivered by dominant political parties.
Fairclough, N. (2002) New labour, new language? London: Routledge.
Norman Fairclough’s book on the ‘new labour, new language’ summarises and explains the identity of political leaders and how they can give a ‘misleading impression’ on the decisions the government make. The book demonstrates that language has become increasingly more important due to the social changes and the mass media outbreak. The rhetoric of Blair is ejected in his popular leadership style, comparable to the unlikeable nature of Margaret Thatcher, for example.
The section I find most interesting is chapter 4 were Fairclough explores the rhetoric style of Tony Blair who was the youngest prime minister at the time. The intertextuality in this chapter is implied by the use of quotations written by Fairclough ‘it is essential… not to end up walking away’ was said by Blair and is intending on creating an authoritative tenor by the strong use of language. Fairclough explores the idea of the new labour agreement created by Blair in the turn of the 21st century. Blair stated that in an interview the objectives he set out and targets he wanted to reach in his reign as prime minister. The intertextual reference from Blair’s speech ‘Today I want to set out an ambitious course for this country’ is implying the powerful rhetoric of Blair who wanted to persuade the nation through his expressions and performance of speeches. In future essays, the knowledge I have gained from Fairclough’s work is something I have a specific desire to learn more about.