A Cognitive Discourse Analysis of the Domain of Supremacy in Selected Speeches by Joe Biden
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
پوختە
This study is an attempt to showcase how the domain of ‘SUPREMACY’ is conceptualised in some speeches delivered by Joe Biden. This conceptual structure, domain, is necessary to profile relevant scenes of experience during speech based on cognitive attentional strategy. The cognitive mechanisms are not enough to conceive of the ideologies represented in these speeches. Thus, this study adopts the Cognitive Discourse Analysis approach and investigates the cognitive and discursive mechanisms employed by the linguistic and ideological structures in Biden’s selected speeches. This study investigates this domain in five speeches made by Biden employing an analytical and qualitative method. The prominent question that this study attempts to answer is: How are the linguistic and ideological structures that represent the domain of ‘SUPREMACY’ projected in the conceptual structures of Biden and entrenched by the listeners? This study concludes that the domain of ‘SUPREMACY’ is conceptualised in these speeches through the use of some facets from the most prominent to the least prominent, such as ‘SUPERIORITY’, ‘POWER’, ‘PROSPERITY’, and ‘DOMINANCE’. The cognitive identification-attention strategy is maintained in constructing the domain of ‘SUPREMACY’ in the speaker’s mental structure. Although some of the conceptualised facets are covertly represented in the ideological patterns of the selected speeches, the Cognitive Discourse Analysis approach employs cognitive and critical mechanisms to conceive them to profile the domain of ‘SUPREMACY’.
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
سەرچاوەکان
Al-Hamandi, S.H. (2018). Cognitive Discourse Analysis: A New Approach of Analyzing Intertextuality in Spoken Presidential Debates. Journal of Al-Farahidi’s Arts, 10(32-1), pp.01-27.
Attia, M. (2007). A Critical Cognitive Study: The Egyptian Written Media. In: C. Hart and D. Lukeš, eds., Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory. Newcastle: CAMBRIDGE SCHOLARS PUBLISHING, pp.81–106.
Biden, J. (2024a), “Donald Trump stripped good-paying jobs and shipped them overseas for cheaper labor rather than pay workers a fair wage. not anymore. on My Watch, we’re investing in America and American-made products.”, Twitter, Twitter, 30 January, available at: https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1752371344824512821
Biden, J. (2024b), “There are extreme and dangerous voices at work in the country—led by Donald Trump—who are determined to divide our nation and take us backward. We cannot let that happen. We’ve come a long way these past four years—with America now having the strongest economy in the world and among the lowest inflation of any major economy.”, Twitter, Twitter, 4 February, available at: https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1753940095353135236
Biden, J. (2024c), “We will continue our fight to protect women’s health care from Maga Republican attacks.”, Twitter, Twitter, 7 February, available at: https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1755000439316046152
Biden, J. (2024d), “Remarks by president Biden at a campaign reception”, The White House, The United States Government, 9 February, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/09/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-reception-new-york-ny-7/
Biden, J. (2024e), “Remarks by President Biden on Senate Passage of the Bipartisan Supplemental Agreement”, The White House, The United States Government, 13 February, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/13/remarks-by-president-biden-on-senate-passage-of-the-bipartisan-supplemental-agreement/
Chilton, P. (2005). Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct. In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed, Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, 19-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clausner, T.C. and Croft, W. (1999). Domains and Image Schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), pp.1–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.001
Croft, W. and Cruse, D., 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Dirven, R., F. Polzenhagen and H.-G. Wolf (2007). Cognitive Linguistics, Ideology and Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1222-40.
Evans, V., and Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Evans, V., Bergen, B.K. and Zinken, J. (2007). The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London; Oakville: Equinox.
Hamawand, Z. (2016). Semantics: A Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning. Sheffield: Equinox.
Hart, C. (2011). Moving beyond Metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA Construal Operations in Immigration Discourse. In: C. Hart, ed., Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.171–192.
Hart, C. (2013). Constructing Contexts through Grammar: Cognitive Models and Conceptualisation in British Newspaper Reports of Political Protests. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Discourse and Contexts. London: Continuum. pp. 159-184.
Hart, C. (2013). Event-construal in Press Reports of Violence in Two Recent Political Protests: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), pp.400–423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.05har
Hart, C. (2014). Construal Operations in Online Press Reports of Political Protests. In: C. Hart and P. Cap, eds., Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp.167–188.
Hart, C. (2015). Cognitive Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. In: E. Dabrowska and D. Divjak, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.322–346.
Hart, C. and Lukeš, D. (eds.) (2009). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Koller, V. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis and social cognition: Evidence from Business Media Discourse. Discourse & Society 16(2): 199- 224.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Iba´n˜ez, and M. Sandra Pen˜a Cervel, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, pp: 101–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. (2019). Construal. In: E. Dąbrowska and D. Divjak, ed., Cognitive Linguistics- Foundations of Language. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter, pp.140-166.
Meyer, M. (2001). Between Theory, Method and Politics: Positioning of the Approaches to CDA. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed, Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 14-31. London: Sage Publications.
Stockwell, P. (2001). Towards a critical Cognitive Linguistics? In Poetics, linguistics and history: Discourses of war and conflict, ed, Poetics and Linguistics Association Conference Papers, 510-28. South Africa: Potchefstroom University.
Talmy, L. (1977). Rubber-sheet Cognition in Language. In Papers from the... Regional Meeting. Chicago Ling. Soc. Chicago, Ill (Vol. 13, pp. 612-628).
Talmy, L. (1978). The Relation of Grammar to Cognition--a Synopsis. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, pp.16-26.
Talmy, L. (1988). The Relation of Grammar to Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 165–205. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tenbrink, T. (2014). Cognitive Discourse Analysis: Accessing Cognitive Representations and Processes through Language Data. Language and Cognition, 7(1), pp.98–137.
Tenbrink, T. (2020). Cognitive Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Cognitive discourse analysis: An introduction. University of Amsterdam www.discursos.org/unpublished%20articles/cogn-dis-anal.htm
Yeari, M. and van den Broek, P. (2011). A Cognitive Account of Discourse Understanding and Discourse Interpretation: The Landscape Model of Reading. Discourse Studies, 13(5), pp.635–643. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611412748.