Karnyújtásnyira a választóktól? A perszonalizáció vizsgálata a személyes névmásokon keresztül az Egyesült Államok politikai kommunikációjában

Szabó, Lilla Petronella

doi:10.30718/poltud.hu.2022.1.54

Cited by 2 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: The Linguistic Research Of Personalized Political Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A more detailed account of the uses of the 1PS I and 1PP we is provided by Szabó (2021Szabó ( , 2022, who also claimed that the study of personal pronouns can be attributed to the personalization of politics. However, Szabó (2021Szabó ( , 2022 observed personal pronouns from the perspective of the "experiential view of deixis" (Marmaridou 2000). The experiential view of deixis means that the linguistic act of pointing is based on the physical act of pointing which is performed by a human being in the presence of another human being (Marmaridou 2000).…”

Section: The Linguistic Research Of Personalized Political Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First-person singular pronouns can be connected to personalization in the sense that the politician speaks for themselves rather than on behalf of a collective, such as a political party (cf. Van Zoonen-Holtz-Bacha 2000;Liu 2022;Rahat-Kenig 2018;Szabó 2021Szabó , 2022. By way of illustration, example (1) from Mitt Romney's 2012 and example (2) from Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential nomination acceptance speeches demonstrate two contrasting ways of using the 1PS I.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The process of political personalization means that politicians (along with their personal and professional lives) are foregrounded in political communication rather than political collectives (such as parties; Szabó 2022). While in an era when politicians can reach millions of people by setting up a profile on social media platforms it may appear straightforward that individuals are at the center of politics, research indicates different levels of personalization persisting in various countries (Karvonen 2010;Rahat-Kenig 2018), on national versus local levels (McAllister 2015), and depending on whether candidates were mandated by the party or voters (Papp-Zorigt 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data-driven results about personalized political communication are also available from the perspective of politicians' language use. For example, Szabó (2021Szabó ( , 2022 attributed the emerging occurrence of first-person singular (1PS) 1 pronouns to the increasing level of personalization in American presidential candidates' nomination acceptance speeches between 1960 and 2020 (Szabó 2021) and 1932 and 2020 (Szabó 2022), respectively. First-person singular pronouns can be connected to personalization in the sense that the politician speaks for themselves rather than on behalf of a collective, such as a political party (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Personalization is in the details

Szabó¹

2022

SLH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of political personalization (namely, politicians taking the center stage rather than political collectives) has been observed from many perspectives by scholars of political communication. A wide range of research measured whether politics was becoming personalized; however, these studies were largely data-driven. In this paper, I argue that in order to gain a fuller understanding of personalized politics, more nuanced analyses need to be conducted, as the detailed interpretation of political communication reveals aspects of political personalization which data-based approaches may overlook. The relevance of qualitative analysis in terms of the personalization of politics is interpreted through the use of first-person singular and plural pronouns in Ronald Reagan’s 1984 and Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential nomination acceptance speeches. The results show that despite a similar level of personalization in quantitative terms in the two speeches, a closer analysis of the texts reveals differences in terms of the semantic categories represented by first-person pronouns.

show abstract