Dil ve İkna: Türk Politika Söyleminde İkna Edici Önerme Yapıları

Language use geared to persuade society for ideological purposes has been a significant characteristic of the discourse of politics; since it can affect the psychology and voting behaviour of the public, hence can reconstruct power and administration relations in the political arena. Within this framework, our study analyzes the discourse of Turkish politics and aims to explain how public persuasion is achieved. The data are composed of the transcribed examples from the public propaganda speeches of five different political party leaders before the general elections held on November 3, 2002 in Turkey. In the analysis of the data, first, the linguistic persuasion strategies used by the leaders are examined on the basis of the structures of argumentation and types of persuasive propositions; then, the distribution of such features among the political parties are explained. Although each party claims that it is radically different from the others, when linguistic propaganda strategies are considered, the results reveal that the parties in question are quite similar in that they all make use of the same linguistic strategies for persuasion. What differs is simply the percentages of the strategies used by them.

___

1. Baron, R. A., Byrne, D. (1997). Social Psychology. Allyn and Bacon.

2. Bhatia, V. K. (1994). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman.

3. Chilton, P. & Ilyın, M. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the common European house. Discourse and Society, 4(7), 7-31.

4. Chilton, P. & Schaffer, C. (1997). Discourse and politics. T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Vol. 2,206-231. London: Sage Publications.

5. Combs, J. E. & Nimmo, D. (1993). The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palaver in Contemporary Politics. N. Y.: Longman.

6. Çeltek, A. & Oktar, L. (2004). Türkçe sözlü söylemde artgönderim örüntüleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1-13.

7. Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nvitte, N. (2003). Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects. Electoral Studies.http://www.ceseec.umontreal.ca/documents%5CTimeDecision.pdf Siteye giriş:08.06.2002.

8. Fox, B. (1987). Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

10.Greenald, J. (2000). Language of Persuasion, www.englishresources.co.uk Siteye giriş:08.06.2002.

11.Holtgraves, T. & Lasky, B. (1999). Linguistic power and persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol. 18, No.2, 196-205.

12.Institute for Propaganda Analysis (1939). The Fine Art of Propaganda. NewYork: Harcourt,Brace and Company, http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles Siteye giriş:16.04.2002.

13.Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.

14.Maynard, S. K. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: A case for nommalization in Japanese and English discourse. Language Sciences, 18, Issues 3-4, 933-946.

15.Mc Arthur, T. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.Murphy, P. K. (2001). What makes a text persuasive? Comparing students' and experts'conception of persuasiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, 35,675-698.

17.Nida, E. (1984). Rhetoric and styles: A taxonomy of structures and functions. Language Sciences, 16, Issue 2,287-3.05.

18.Noor, R. (2001). Contrastive rhetoric in expository prose: Approaches and achievements.Journal of Pragmatics, 33,255-269.

19.Oktar, L. (1997). Söylemsel artgönderim örüntülerinde iletişimsel etkenler. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 127-132.

20.Oktar, L. & Yağcıoğlu, S. (1996). Türkçede söylem yapısı ve artgönderim. VIII. Uluslararası Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri, 331-345.

21.Pardo, M. L. (2001). Linguistic persuasion as an essential political factor in current democracies: Critical analysis of the globalization discourse in Argentina at the turn of the century. Discourse and Society. Vol. 12 (1), 91-118.

22.Rudinov, I; Barry, V.E. (2004) Invitation to Critical Thinking. Thomson and Wadsworth.

23.Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24.Thompson,W. N. (1971). Modern Argumentation and Debate. N.Y.: Harper and Row Publishers.

25.Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications. Webster's Third New International Dictionary. (1993). P. B. Gove (ed.). Cologne: Könemann.

26.Whaley, B. B. & Wagner, L. S. (2000). Rebuttal analogy in persuasive messages:communicator likability and cognitive responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol. 19, No. 1,66-84.

27.Wilson, J. (2001).. Political Discourse. D. Schiffrin, D. Tanneen, H. E. Hamilton (eds.),Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell.

28.Wodak, R., de Cilia, R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh University Press.

29.Zheng, T. (2000). Characteristics of Australian political language rhetoric: Tactics of gaining public support and shirking responsibility. Intercultural Communication, Issue 4.http://www.mimi.se/mtercultural/nr4/zheng.htm Siteye giriş: 15.12.2005.

30.Zinken, J. (2003). Ideological imagination: Mertextual and correlational metaphors in political discourse. Discourse and Society. Vol.14 (4), 504-523.