تحلیلی بر مدیریت و پایش گفتمان سیاسی در مرحلة دوم مناظرات چهاردهمین انتخابات ریاست جمهوری اسلامی ایران در سال ۱۴۰۳

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 گروه جامعه شناسی سیاسی ، معارف اسلامی و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه امام صادق ع، تهران، ایران

2 گروه زبان انگلیسی ، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، تهران، ایران.

3 گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان ها، دانشگاه اراک، اراک، ایران

10.22059/jflr.2025.390575.1190

چکیده

گفتمان فرایندی پیچیده، خلاق، و درهم‌تنیده است که در قالب آن فرد همیشه در تعامل با دیگران است. مباحث درباره ماهیت گفتمان سیاسی بیشتر مربوط به متون و سخنان سیاستمداران حرفه‌ای و مؤسسات سیاسی مانند رهبران، رؤسای جمهور، نخست وزیران، وزرا، نمایندگان مجالس، یا احزاب سیاسی می‌باشد. تمام فعالیت‌های سیاسی مانند قانونگذاری، تصمیم‌گیری، ملاقات، و گفتگو عمدتاً دارای ماهیت گفتمان‌مدار   (Discursive)  می‌باشند. کاربران حرفه‌ای زبان عناصر زبانی مختلفی مانند حروف اضافه، ربط و عطف، قیود، جملات کوتاه، و افعال را ترکیب می‌کنند که نتیجه آن پیدایش گفتمان‌نماهاست. گفتمان‌نماها عناصری فرازبانی‌اند و جز مؤثرترین، پیچیده‌ترین، و پرکاربردترین متغیرها در آفرینش، درک، و مدیریت گفتمان می‌باشند. این پژوهش بر آن است تا بر اساس نظریه گفتمان شناختی انسجام، گامی اولیه در کشف و معرفی نظام مدیریت گفتمان در حوزه سیاست و حکمرانی بردارد و به معرفی الگوی مدیریت در این حوزه و ویژگی‌های آن بپردازد. پیکره مطالعه برگرفته از دو مناظره در دور دوم چهاردهمین انتخابات ریاست جمهوری اسلامی ایران است که حاوی ۱۶۳۱۴ کلمه می‌باشد. نتایج مطالعه به کشف الگویی مستطیلی در گفتمان سیاسی انجامید که اضلاع آن روابط گفتمانی تفصیل، تقابل، استنباط، و توالی را به نمایش می‌گذارند. ویژگی‌ها و خصوصیات نتایج بررسی و تحلیل شد. کاربردهای مختلف در حوزه‌های پژوهشی، آموزشی، و علمی نیز بحث و بررسی گردید

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

An Analysis of the Management and Monitoring of Political Discourse in the Second Round of the Debates of the 14th Presidential Election of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2024

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hasan Mohammadi 1
  • Ali Hemmati 2
  • Ali Mohammad Mohammadi 3
1 Department of Political Sociology and Political Sociology, Political Sciences, Imam Sadegh University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of English Language and Applied Linguistics, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Department of English Language and Literature and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Languages, Arak University, Arak, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Discourse is a complex, creative, and intertwined process in which an individual always interacts with others. Discussions about the nature of political discourse are mostly related to the texts and speeches of professional politicians and political institutions such as leaders, presidents, prime ministers, ministers, representatives of parliaments, or political parties. All political activities, such as legislation, decision-making, meetings, and conversations, are mainly discursive. Professional language users combine various linguistic elements such as prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs, short sentences, and verbs, which results in the emergence of discourse figures. Discourse figures are metalinguistic elements and are among the most effective, complex, and widely used variables in creating, understanding, and managing discourse. This research aims to take an initial step in discovering and introducing the discourse management system in politics and governance based on the cognitive discourse theory of coherence, and to introduce the management model in this field and its characteristics. The study corpus is derived from two debates in the second round of the 14th presidential election of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which contains 16,314 words. The study's results led to the discovery of a rectangular pattern in political discourse, whose sides display the discursive relations of elaboration, contrast, inference, and sequence. The characteristics and properties of the results were examined and analyzed. Various implications in research, education, and scientific fields were also discussed and examined.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • political discourse
  • discourse markers
  • monitoring discourse
  • model

مراجع

Alam, A. (1994). The foundations of Politics. Ney Publishers.
Boojari, S. (2019). A Comparative study of the frequency and polyfunctionality of discourse markers used in A Simple Favor by the American Author Darcey Bell and Betrayal by the British Author Martina Cole: With pedagogical implications (Unpublished Master Thesis). Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Castro, C., M. (2009). The use and functions of discourse markers in EFL classroom interaction. Profile, 11, 57-77.
Faghih Malek Marzban, N. (2008). The Functions of Conjunctions, Olum Ensani Alzahra, 17(68-69), 145-168.
Finell, A. (1989). Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 653-665.
Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, (pp. 359-375). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 12(3), 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 240-256). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(1), 23-45.
Gandomkar, L. (2018). A comparative study of the frequencies and functions of discourse markers in research genre, (Unpublished Master Thesis). Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Gholamzadeh, L. (2020). A study of discourse markers in US presidential debates in 2016 between Donald John Trump and Hillary Clinton: With pedagogical implication (Unpublished Master Thesis). Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Hassan, K., & Muhsin, J. M. (2011). The uses of "Well" by advanced Iraqi EFL Learners. AL Basrah Studies Journal, 7(12), 23-38.
Hellermann, J. & Vergun, H. (2007). Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(2), 157–179.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
Innes, B. (2010). “Well, that’s why I asked the question sir”: Well as a discourse marker in court. Language in Society, 39(1) 95-117.
Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian
learners of English as a Foreign Language. English Language Teaching, 1(3), 31-48.
Jucker, A. H. (1997). The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 91-110.
Kessler, E. (2013). Encyclopedia of management theory. Available: www.us.asgepub.com.
Klerk, V. (2005). Procedural meanings of well in a corpus of Xhosa English. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1183-1205.
Marcus, N. E. (2009). Continuous semantic development of the discourse marker well. English Studies, 9, 214-242.
Martínez, A. C. L. (2002). The use of discourse markers in EFL. learners' writing.
Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 1(4), 123-132.
Mohammadi, A. M. & Dehghan, R. (2021). An analysis of discourse markers in translation criticism: Introducing a discourse monitoring model in the Iranian context. Translation Studies Quarterly, 18(69), 7–24.
Mohammadi, A. M., & Hemmati, A. (2023). A pragmatic analysis of the translation of the Quranic discourse marker Thumma in Kurdish and Persian Parallel corpora. Iranian Journal of
           Applied Language Studies, 15(1), 65-82.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2015). An introduction to discourse monitoring system: theories, strategies, models, and researchers. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 5(1), 61-86.
Mohammadi, A. M. (2020). A pragmatic analysis of co-occurrence of discourse markers in texts: Pragmaticalization of functions. Zaban Pazhuhi, doi: 10.22051/jlr.2020.32471.
Mohammadi, A. M., Nejadansari, D. Yuhannaee. M. (2015). The index of pragmatic uses of 'Well' in university classroom discourse: A case study in Iran. Taiwan Journal of TESOL,
12(2), 86-116.
Nadi, S. (2020). A comparative study of the frequencies and functions of discourse markers in Iranian university lectures between M.A. teachers and students: With pedagogical implications (Unpublished Master Thesis). Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Nejadansari, D. &. Mohammadi, A. M. (2014). The frequencies and functions of discourse markers in the Iranian university EFL classroom discourse. International Journal
of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 1-18.
Rabani Khorasgani, A. & Mirzaei, M. (2015). An analysis of the discursive confrontation between principlism and reformism in the tenth presidential election. Quarterly Journal of Applied Sociology, 26(4), 34–57.
Rahro, H. R., Jebelli, P., Azimfard, F. (2024). Critical discourse analysis of presidential candidates TV debates between Ebrahim Raisi and Abdolnaser Hemmati in Iran’s 2021 presidential election. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 10, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101040.
Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367 - 381.
Sayadkooh, A., & Reisi, A. (2017). Functions of Vav in Golestan. Honar Zaban, 1(2), 5-35.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: revisiting and. In K. Fischer
(Ed.). Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 315-339). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse Markers Across Languages. Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Macmillan Education UK.
Watts, R. (1989). Taking the pitcher to the ‘well ’: Native speakers ’perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 203-237.
Ying, S. (2007). An analysis of discourse markers used by non-native English learners: Its implications for teaching English as a foreign language. Retrieved from: http://www.kuis.ac.jp/icci.
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی
دوره 15، شماره 1
تیر 1404
صفحه 1-15

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار