CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................p 3 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................p 4-5 1. DEIXIS.....................................................................................................................................p 6 11. What is deixis? ................................................................................................................p 6-13 1.2. Types of deixis...................................................................................................................p 13 1.2.1.

Person deixis..............................................................................................................p 13-15 1.2.2. Temporal deixis......................................................................................................p 15-17 1.2.3. Spatial deixis...........................................................................................................p 17-20 1.2.4. Social deixis............................................................................................................p 20-21 1.2.5. Discourse deixis......................................................................................................p 22-23 1.3. Conclusions.................................................................................................................p 23-24 2. POLITICAL DISCOURSE..................................................................................................p 25 2.1 What is political discourse? .........................................................................................p 25-31 2.2. The notion of Political Discourse and Debates...........................................................p 31-32 2.3. The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Political Discourse.....................p 33-35 2.4 Conclusion....................................................................................................................p 35-36 3. DEIXIS AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE - ANALYSIS..................................................p 37 3.1. Methodology.....................................................................................................................p 38 3.2. Analysis of Political discourse..........................................................................................p 38 3.2.1. Person deixis............................................................................................................p 39-45 3.2.2 Temporal deixis........................................................................................................p 45-48 3.2.3 Spatial deixis.............................................................................................................p 48-50 3.2.4 Social deixis..............................................................................................................p 50-52 3.2.5 Discourse deixis........................................................................................................p 52-53 3.2.6 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................p 53

4. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................p 54-55 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................p 56-57 Appendix...............................................................................................................................p 58-61

Abstract
Based on the research on deixis by numerous researchers, my B.A. project focuses on a pragmatic analysis of deixis in political discourse. The data was collected from the internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnkUF6VWOlI),(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election 2010/7655577/BBC-leaders-debate-Gordon-Brown-admits-David-Cameron-is-set-to-takepower.html. There are two videos representing a political debate. The aim of my B.A. project is to discuss, identify and analyze deixis in political debates according to Levinson, Fillmore, Pierce and others. The results are based on my own interpretations but are supported by information provided in literature by researchers of deixis.

INTRODUCTION

Deixis is an important field studied in pragmatics, semantics and linguitstics. Deixis refers to the phenomenon wherein understanding the meaning of certain words and phrases in an utterance requires contextual information. Words or phrases that require contextual information to convey any meaning are deictic. (Levinson, 1995:10) In my B.A. project I will try to highlight the meaning deixis. I will start by dealing with some definitions written by some researchers. Later, I will give some characteristics and some examples of deixis. And then, I am going to present the five types of deixis. In the first subchapter I will describe the term deixis according to Levinson and Huddleston (1995; 2006), deixis and indexicality according to Suchman and Charles Pierce. (1990;1932) In subchapter 1.1 I will pay attention to the five types of deixis: person, temporal, spatial, social and discourse deixis. Possibly the most common categories of contextual information referred to by deixis are the first three, i.e. person, temporal and spatial. In subchapter 1.2.1, I will present some characteristics of person deixis according to Fillmore (1982), which concerns persons involved in an utterance. In subchapter, 1.2.2, I will describe the next type of deixis, i.e. temporal deixis which concerns the various times involved in an utterance. The next subchapter 1.2.3, spatial deixis has been studied by Levinson (1982) and is the spatial locations relevant to an utterance. In the next two subchapters 1.2.4 and 1.2.5, I will speak about social and discourse deixis, types of deixis that are similarly pervasive in language use and that were first discussed by Fillmore and Levinson (1982; 1983). Social deixis concerns the social information that is encoded within 4

various expressions, such as relative social status and familiarity. And discourse deixis, where reference is being made to the current discourse or part thereof. In chapter 2, I am going to present political discourse according to some researchers. One of them is Teun A. van Dijk (1995), who analyzed deixis in a political debate. In the same subchapter, I will write about another researcher, Paul Anthony Chilton (2004), who is interested in analyzing deixis and indexicality in political discourse. In the last subchapter, 2.2, I will talk about the uses of the second-person singular pronoun in political discourse. This notion was studied by Brown, Wilson, Arroyo (1960; 1990; 2000) and others. In chapter 3, I am going to analyze a few small fragments, which were covered during the entire campaign of a political debate for The Prime Minister position in U.K. Before the analysis I will describe the notion of deixis, political discourse and debates for a better understanding of them. My intention in this analysis is to point out that deixis can be useful in a political debate.

1. DEIXIS

In this chapter, I will focus on the notion deixis. I will define deixis according to Levinson (1995) and other researchers. I will present some characteristics and some examples of deixis and later I am going to present the types of deixis, and describe them.

1.1. WHAT IS DEIXIS? Deixis (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deixis) is the function of pointing or specifying from the perspective of a participant in an act of speech or writing; aspects of a communication whose interpretation depends on knowledge of the context in which the communication occurs. Stephen Levinson (1995:12) defines deixis as follows: Deixis concerns the ways in which languages encode ... features of the context of utterance ... and thus also concerns ways in which the interpretation of utterance es depends on the analysis of that context of utterance. Deixis is reference by means of an expression whose interpretation is relative to the (usually) extralinguistic context of the utterance, such as

who is speaking the time or place of speaking the gestures of the speaker, or the current location in the discourse.

Deixis is the single most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected (Levinson 1983:54), constituting key points of juncture between grammar and context (Hanks 1992:47).

Another definition that I found on the internet, from the Greek word for pointing or indicating, deixis is the process of 'pointing' via language. Very typical and important examples are the use of demonstratives (this, that), first and second person pronouns (I, you), tense specific time and place adverbs (now, here), and a variety of other grammatical features. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis) Deixis concerns the ways in which languages express features of the context of utterance or speech event in a different way. It concerns ways in which the interpretation of utterance depends on the analysis of that context of utterance. Deictic information is important for the interpretation of utterance. Natural languages are primarily designed for use in face-to-face interactions. In deixis, Levinson writes about proximal and distal expressions (1995:34) like: now vs. then and this vs. that, but I will write more about this in the next subchapters. Here are some deictic expressions according to Levinson (1995:34) that include such lexemes as: Personal or possessive pronouns (I/you/mine/yours), Demonstrative pronouns (this/that), (Spatial/temporal) adverbs (here/there/now), Other pro-forms (so/do), Personal or possessive adjectives (my/your), Demonstrative adjectives (this/that), Articles (the). If semantics is taken to include all conventional aspects of meaning, then perhaps most deictic phenomena are probably considered semantic in Levinsons point of view (1995:34), but deixis belongs to the domain of pragmatics, because it directly concerns the relationship between the structure of languages and the contexts in which they are used. As I said above deixis belongs in the domain of pragmatics. In this domain according to Levinson (1995:34), deixis is collectively the orientational features of human languages to have reference to

points in time, space, and the speaking event between interlocutors. A word that depends on deictic clues is called a deictic or a deictic word. Deictic words are bound to a context, either a linguistic or extralinguistic context for their interpretation. And also Levinson (1995:35) said that, in linguistics, deixis refers to the phenomenon wherein understanding the meaning of certain words and phrases in an utterance requires contextual information. Words are deictic if their semantic meaning is fixed but their denotational meaning varies depending on time and/or place. Words or phrases that require contextual information to convey any meaning - for example, English pronouns are deictic. Deixis is closely related to both indexicality and anaphora, as will be further explained below. Levinson (1995:36) points out that deixis is an important field of language study in its own right and very important for learners of second languages. But it has some relevance to analysis of conversation and pragmatics. It is often and best described as verbal pointing, that is to say pointing by means of language. The linguistic forms of this pointing are called deictic expressions, deictic markers or deictic words; they are also sometimes called indexicals. The terms deixis and indexicality are frequently used almost interchangeably, and both deal with essentially the same idea: contextually dependent references. However, the two terms have different histories and traditions. In the past, deixis was associated specifically with spatiotemporal reference whereas indexicality was used more broadly. More importantly, each is associated with a different field of study; deixis is associated with linguistics, while indexicality is associated with philosophy. In conversation (Levinson, 1995:36), interpretation of indexical expressions may in part depend on a variety of paralinguistic and non-linguistic features, such as hand gestures and the shared experiences of the participants. Among philosophers and linguists, as Suchman points out (1990:21), the term indexicality typically is used to distinguish those classes of expressions, like this and that, here and now, I and you, whose meaning is conditional on the situation of their use, from those such as, for example, noun phrases that refer to a class of objects, whose meaning is claimed to be specifiable in objective, or context-free terms. But in an important sense, namely a communicative one, the

significance of a linguistic expression is always contingent on the circumstances of its use. In this sense, deictic expressions, place and time adverbs, and pronouns are just particularly clear illustrations of a general fact about situated language. (Suchman, L. 1990:21) Another researcher who studied indexicals is Charles Peirce. In his paper (1932:21) he mentioned that indexicals are closely related to demonstratives (this, that), in that both vary in meaning depending on context. Demonstratives may be thought of as forming a subset of indexicals: they are often accompanied, in ordinary usage, by pointing gestures or other non-verbal expressions of their sense. Many but not all indexicals are also egocentric, which means that in order to successfully interpret them the hearer must have knowledge of the respective speaker, time, and place of utterance. Pierce (1932:21) also points out that it is possible for signs to have two kinds of meaning, referred to as indexical and referential. Indexical meaning is meaning that is context-dependent. For example, he considers the traditional deictic categories of person, place, and time. Some frequently-used English examples are pronouns, demonstratives, and tense markings. Referential meaning, also called semantico-referential function, is when a word functions to describe events or states of affairs in the world independent of the context of the utterance. An example of this could be Unicorns drink ambrosia. (Pierce 1932:22) because the meaning that it conveys is independent of who says it, when they say it, etc. A referential indexical, also called a shifter, is a sign which contains both referential and indexical meaning. So for example, the word I, as in I went to the store. (Pierce 1932:22) is a referential indexical. It has referential content, in that it refers to the singular first person, and indexical content, in that its meaning depends on who uttered the word.

Charles Peirce also speaks (1932:23) about indexical sign types that are defined by rules of use that state and that there exists a relationship between mutually implied existence of sign vehicle token (i.e. icon, index or symbol) and certain aspects of the context of discourse. The indexical sign token presupposes the aspect of the speech situation and is referentially uninterpretable without some knowledge of context. In other words, some aspect of the context is spelled out in the rules of use, fixed and presupposed, and must be understood for the referential contribution to be made. In the use of pure indexical tokens the sign can also have a creative or performative aspect in that rather than change the context, it creates boundaries to the structure of the event. For example in the case of English indexical pronouns, I and we (as opposed to he/she/it/they) create parameters that specify the parties to whom one is referring. Indexes, both referential and non-referential, therefore exist on a sliding scale, some more presupposing, some more creative, and some containing clear aspects of both.

According to Charles Pierce (1932:24), in much of the research currently conducted upon various phenomena of non-referential indexicality, there is an increased interest in not only what is called first-order indexicality, but subsequent second-order as well as higher-order levels of indexical meaning. First-order indexicality can be defined as the first level of pragmatic meaning that is drawn from an utterance. For example, instances of deference indexicality such as the variation between informal Tu and the more formal Vous in French indicate a speaker/addressee communicative relationship built upon the values of power and solidarity possessed by the interlocutors. (1932:24) When a speaker addresses somebody using the V form instead of the T form, they index (via first-order indexicality) their understanding of the need for deference to the addressee. In other words, they perceive an incongruence between their level of power and/or solidarity, and that of their interlocutor and employ a more formal way of addressing that person to suit the contextual constraints of the speech event. Second-Order Indexicality, also analyzed by Pierce (1932:26), is concerned with the connection between linguistic variables and the metapragmatic meanings that they encode. He gives the following example (1932:26), a woman is walking down the street in Manhattan and she stops to ask somebody where a McDonalds is. He responds to her talking in a heavy Brooklyn accent. She notices this accent and considers a set of possible personal characteristics that might be indexed by it (such as the mans intelligence, economic situation, and other non-linguistic aspects of his life). The power of language to encode these preconceived stereotypes based solely on accent is an example of second-order indexicality (representative of a more complex and subtle system of indexical form than that of first-order indexicality).
Prandi (2004:40) suggests that the success of a deictic act of reference to a given book by means of an indexical expression like This book, for instance, requires the presence of the book within the visual field shared by the interlocutors, just like its gestural indication. But indexical expressions are not necessarily put to deictic use. He also says that definite noun phrases and third person pronouns allow for anaphoric and

10

cataphoric use. During anaphoric indication, the expression remains the same, but the field undergoes a change. The expression does not typically refer to an individual physically given in the perceptual field, but necessarily refers to an entity previously or subsequently named within the same discourse or text: I'm reading a paper on cataphora. I find it (this paper) interesting. (Prandi, M. 2004:40)

Levinson (1995:32) thinks that it is helpful to distinguish between two usages of deixis, gestural and symbolic, as well as non-deictic usages of frequently deictic words. Gestural deixis refers, broadly, to deictic expressions whose understanding requires some sort of audio-visual information. A simple example is when an object is pointed at and referred to as this or that. However, the category can include other types of information than pointing, such as direction of gaze, tone of voice, and so on. Symbolic usage, by contrast, requires generally only basic spatiotemporal knowledge of the utterance. So, in the examples below given by Levinson (1995:32): I broke this finger. requires being able to see which finger is being held up, whereas I love this city. requires only knowledge of the current location. In a similar vein, I went to this city one time is a non-deictic usage of this, which does not reference anything specific. Rather, it is used as an indefinite article, much the way a could be used in its place. According to Huddleston (2006:20), the term deixis applies to the use of expressions in which the meaning can be traced directly to features of the act of utterance, when and where it takes place, and who is involved as speaker and as addressee. In their primary meaning, for example, now and here are used deictically to refer respectively to the time and place of the utterance. Similarly, this country is likely to be interpreted deictically as the country in which the utterance takes place. Several of the pronouns are predominantly used deictically, with I and we referring to the speaker and a group including the speaker, you to the addressee(s) or a set including the addressee(s).

11

Deixis is clearly tied to the speaker's context, according to Huddleston (2006:21) the most basic distinction being between near the speaker (proximal) and away from the speaker (distal). Proximal deictic expressions include this, here and now. Distal deictic expressions include that, there and then. Proximal expressions are generally interpreted in relation to the speaker's location or deictic centre. For example now is taken to mean some point or period in time that matches the time of the speaker's utterance. The term deictic is applied to a word which specifies an identity or a temporal or a spatial location from the perception of a speaker or a listener in the circumstance in which the communication takes place. It could mean relating to or the distinctiveness of a word, the reference of which is dependent on the conditions of its use. Another meaning of the word deictic is directly showing or pointing out. For instance, the terms those, that, as well as this have a deictic function. The word deictic has its roots in the Greek word deiktikos, meaning able to show; which comes from the word deiktos; which is a verbal of the word deiknynai, meaning to show. A related word is deixis, used in pragmatics and linguistics where it refers to a process whereby either words or expressions are seen to rely utterly on context. Levinson (1995:39) points out that there are five types of deixis: spatial, temporal, person, social and discourse. The first three are more common than the last two. But I will write more about them in the next subchapters. I will deal with types of deixis in the following subchapters.

1.2 TYPES OF DEIXIS

Possibly the most common categories of contextual information referred to by deixis are those of person, time, and place, what Fillmore (1966) calls the major grammaticalized types of deixis.

1.2.1 Person deixis

12

In this subchapter I will describe the first type of deixis: person deixis. according to Fillmore Charles (1982). Person deixis (Charles; 1982) concerns itself with the grammatical persons involved in an utterance, (1) those directly involved (e.g. the speaker, the addressee), (2) those not directly involved (e.g. overhearer, those who hear the utterance but who are not being directly addressed), and (3) those mentioned in the utterance. Fillmore (1982:30) points out that person deixis is commonly expressed by the following kinds of constituents: pronouns, possessive affixes of nouns and agreement affixes of verbs. Pronouns are generally considered to be deictics, but a finer distinction is often made between personal pronouns such as I, you, and it (commonly referred to as personal pronouns) and pronouns that refer to places and times such as now, then, here, there. In most texts, the word deictic implies the latter but not necessarily the former. According to Fillmore (1982:30), English does not use personal deixis to indicate relative social status in the same way that other has a potential for ambiguity, i.e. between exclusive we (excludes the hearer) and the hearer-including (inclusive) we. Fillmore (1982:31) affirms that there are basic grammatical distinctions: categories of first, second and third person (three-way distinction). A speech act includes at least two persons: first person or the speaker (centre of speech act) and second person or the addressee. He (Fillmore, 1982:31) also says that if the two persons do not only refer to themselves while talking, there is a third person (the person they are talking about), which does not have to take part in the conversation. Usually the third person is not grammatically marked, because the only two persons of importance are the first person (speaker - most important) and the second person (addressee - less important, but necessary for the speech act). According to Fillmore (1982:32), the traditional category of plural is not symmetrically applied to first person (we) in the way it is to the third (they). In addition, he also mentions that there are two

13

first person `plural` pronouns, corresponding to `we-inclusive-of-addressee` and `we-exclusive-ofaddressee`. Fillmore (1982:32) gives the following examples: Let`s go to the cinema. - we-inclusive-of-addressee - includes the addressee (that is, one of the words for we means you and I), We mean to stop your plans! - we-exclusive-of-addressee - excludes the addressee (that is, another word for we means he/she and I, but not you) He gives those two examples to show the difference between we-exclusive and we-inclusive. Filmore (1982:32) also sustained that, all languages have personal pronouns or at least words, that refer to the participants of the speech act. The pronouns of the first (I-my-mine) and second person (you-your-yours) are deictic: reference to the speaking person. In this subchapter I described person deixis. Next, I will focus on temporal deixis.

1.2.2 Temporal deixis The next type, temporal deixis or time deixis, has been studied by Fillmore Charles (1966) as well. Fillmore says that time, or temporal, deixis concerns itself with the various times involved in and referred to in an utterance. This includes time adverbs like now, then, soon, and so forth, and also different tenses. A good example is the word tomorrow, which denotes the consecutive next day after every day. The tomorrow of a day last year was a different day than the tomorrow of a day next week. Time adverbs can be relative to the time when an utterance is made (what Fillmore calls the encoding time, or ET) or when the utterance is heard (Fillmores decoding time, or

14

DT). While these are frequently the same time, they can differ, as in the case of prerecorded broadcasts or correspondence. For example, if one were to write: It is raining out now, but I hope when you read this it will be sunny. (Fillmore, Charles J. 1966:219) In the first part now is relative to the time when an utterance is made ET, and the second when you read this is relative to the time when the utterance is heard. the ET and DT would be different, with the former deictic term concerning ET and the latter the DT. Tenses are generally separated into absolute (deictic) and relative tenses. So, for example, simple English past tense is absolute, such as in He went. (Fillmore, Charles J. 1966:220) while the pluperfect is relative to some other deictically specified time, as in "He had gone." (Fillmore, Charles J. 1966:220) Fillmore also speaks in his paper about deictic centre. There are two types of deictic. The deictic centre that remains on the speaker: This programme, is being recorded today, Wednesday April 1st, to be relayed next Thursday (Fillmore, Charles J. 1966:220) because the action is made in the speakers time; And also the deictic centre that is projected on the addressee: This programme was recorded last Wednesday, April 1st, to be relayed today. deictic centre was projected into the future (Fillmore, C. 1966:220) - because deictic centre was projected into the future, the addressees time Fillmore (1966:219) also points out that psychological distance can apply to temporal deixis as well. We can treat temporal events as things that move towards us (into view) or away from us (out of view). For instance, we speak of the coming year or the approaching year. This may stem 15

from our perception of things (like weather storms) which we see approaching both spatially and in time. We treat the near or immediate future as being close to utterance time by using the proximal deictic expression this alone, as in this (that is the next) weekend or this evening (said earlier in the day). In temporal deixis Fillmore (1966:220) discussed about tenses. Tenses are time relations in connection to a given point in time. We can distinguish: present is an event/action simultaneously to the speech act (work); past is an event/action before the speech act (worked); future is an event/action after the speech act (you will work); there are language systems with more than 3 possibilities; we can distinguish between levels of past, dependent on their distance from the speaker's utterance tense of immediate past. In this subchapter I spoke about temporal deixis. In the following subchapter I will present spatial deixis.

I.2.3 Spatial deixis In this subchapter I will present some notions about spatial deixis. The first type of deixis that Levinson (1995) is talking about is spatial deixis, also known as place deixis, concerns itself with the spatial locations relevant to an utterance. It can also be either bounded (indicating a spatial region with a clearly defined boundary, e.g. in the box) or unbounded (indicating a spatial region without a clearly defined boundary, e.g. over there). Levinson (1995:40) suggests that it is common for languages to show at least a two-way referential distinction in their deictic system: proximal, i.e. near or closer to the speaker, and distal, i.e. far

16

from the speaker and/or closer to the addressee. English exemplifies this with such pairs as this and that, here and there, etc. He also believes that the use of proximal and distal expressions in spatial deixis is confused by deictic projection. This is the speaker's ability to project himself or herself into a location at which he or she is not yet present. A familiar example is the use of here on telephone answering machines (I'm not here at the moment...). It is likely that the basis of spatial deixis is psychological distance (rather than physical distance). Usually physical and (metaphorical) psychological distance will appear the same. But a speaker may wish to mark something physically close as psychologically distant, as when you indicate an item of food on your plate with I don't like that. (Levinson, S. 1995:40) One characteristic according to Levinson of spatial deixis is its basic way of referring to objects: by describing or naming them and by locating them. Locations can be specified relative to the location of participants; some pure place-deictic words: here and there (adverbs); this and that (demonstrative pronouns); adverbs: here and there = contrast on a proximal/distal dimension; (Levinson, S. 1995:40) this = the object in a pragmatically given area close to the speaker's location; that = the object beyond the pragmatically given area close to the speaker's location; Below, I will give you some examples taken from Levinson (1995:41): I enjoy living in this city. This is a demonstrative pronoun referring to the city where he/she lives Here is where we will place the statue. here is an adverb locating the place of the statue. She was sitting over there.

17

there is an adverb, showing the place where she is sitting. Unless otherwise specified, place deictic terms are generally understood to be relative to the location of the speaker, as in The shop is across the street. where across the street is understood to mean across the street from where I am right now. Levinson (1995:41) believes that it is interesting to note that while here and there are often used to refer to locations near to and far from the speaker, respectively, there can also refer to the location of the addressee, if they are not in the same location as the speaker. So, while Here is a good spot; it is too sunny over there. (Levinson, S. 1995:41) exemplifies the former usage. The term here is near the speaker and there is far from the speaker. How is the weather there? (Levinson, S. 1995:42) is an example of the latter, referring to the location of the addressee even if they were not in the same place. In linguistics, demonstratives are deictic words (they depend on an external frame of reference) that indicate which entities a speaker refers to and distinguishes those entities from others. Demonstratives are employed for spatial deixis (using the context of the physical surroundings of the speaker and sometimes the listener) and for discourse deixis (including abstract concepts) where the meaning is dependent on something other than the relative physical location of the speaker, for example whether something is currently been said or was said earlier. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative_pronoun)

18

EXAMPLES OF DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS : http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/demonstrative-pronoun.html This: singular and near the speaker That: singular and at a distance from the speaker These: plural and near the speaker Those: plural and at a distance from the speaker Eg. 1.: You take these bags and I'll take those. - ("Those" refers to bags that are at a distance from the speaker.) Eg. 2: We bought this last year - ("This" refers to something that is sing., near the speaker and readily understood in the context of the conversation.) Demonstrative adjectives (this, that, these, those) show whether the noun they refer to is singular or plural and whether it is located near to or far from the speaker or writer. Eg: 1. This apartment needs to be painted.. (this is a demonstrative adjective to indicate which apartment) 2. That soup is good. (that is a demonstrative adjective because it describes the soup) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonstrative_adjectiven) Spatial deictics are often reused as anaphoric pro-forms that stand for phrases or propositions (that is, items of discourse, not items of the outside reality). Levinson gives the following example: There may be ice hidden in unexplored places of the Moon. This ice could be useful for future lunar expeditions. (Levinson 1983:66) In the above example, Levinson (1983:66) points out that this ice is not near the speaker in the physical sense, but the deictic does not refer to real ice. This ice refers to the phrase ice hidden in unexplored places, which is conceptually near the speaker in the discourse flow.

19

In this subchapter I described spatial deixis. In the next subchapter I will speak about the social deixis.

I.2.4 Social deixis Though the traditional categories of deixis are perhaps the most obvious, there are other types of deixis that are similarly pervasive in language use. These categories of deixis (social and discourse), were first discussed by Fillmore and Lyons (1982), and I will talk about these in the next two subchapters. From the beginning Fillmore (1982:20) defines social deixis. He believes that this type of deixis concerns the social information that is encoded within various expressions, such as relative social status and familiarity. Two major forms of it are the so-called T-V distinctions and honorifics. Furthermore, he (1982:20) also points out that, T-V distinctions, named for the Latin tu and vos (informal and formal versions of you) are the name given to the phenomenon when a language has two different second-person pronouns. The varying usage of these pronouns indicates something about formality, familiarity, and/or solidarity between the interactants. So, for example, the T form might be used when speaking to a friend or social equal, whereas the V form would be used speaking to a stranger or social superior. Honorifics are a much more complex form of social deixis than T-V distinctions, though they encode similar types of social information. They can involve words being marked with various morphemes as well as nearly entirely different lexicons being used based on the social status of the interactants.

20

Fillmore (1982:22) mentions that social deixis is the use of different deictics to express social distinctions. He gives as example the difference between formal and polite pro-forms. Relational social deixis is where the form of word used indicates the relative social status of the addressor and the addressee. For example, one pro-form might be used to address those of higher social rank, another to address those of lesser social rank, another to address those of the same social rank. By contrast, absolute social deixis indicates a social standing irrespective of the social standing of the speaker. Thus, village chiefs might always be addressed by a special pro-form, regardless of whether it is someone below them, above them or at the same level of the social hierarchy who is doing the addressing. Another aspect pointed by Fillmore (1982:22) is that social deixis concerns those aspects of language structure that encode the social identities of participants, or the social relationship between them, but these usages are only relevant to the topic of social deixis in so far as they are grammaticalized: polite pronouns, address titles. Social relations concern the relation between the speaker and the addressee. In this subchapter I detailed the notion of social deixis. In the following subchapter I will describe discourse deixis.

I.2.5 Discourse deixis Levinson (1983:63) also discusses about discourse deixis, and in the next and the last subchapter I will try to describe discourse deixis. He defines discourse deixis, where reference is being made to the current discourse or part thereof. He also gives examples as: that was a really mean thing to say, This sentence is false. The last is an example of token-reflexive discourse deixis, in which a word in the utterance refers to the utterance itself. (Levinson 1983:63)

21

Discourse deixis, also referred to as text deixis according to Levinson (1983:68), refers to the use of expressions within an utterance to refer to parts of the discourse that contains the utterance including the utterance itself. And for this, he gives the example above: This is a great story. (Levinson 1983:68) this refers to an upcoming portion of the discourse Characteristics of discourse deixis, also called text deixis: concerns the use of expressions referring to a part of the discourse, e.g. in the next chapter, in the last paragraph. (Levinson 1983:70) Levinson states that in discourse deixis, there are many words and phrases in English that indicate the relationship between utterance and the prior discourse; but, therefore, in conclusion, to the contrary, still, however, anyway, well, besides, actually, all in all, so, after all. All these words make reference to a statement, sentence etc. that was said before. Some languages have morphemes that mark such discourse notions.

I.3. CONCLUSION At the beginning of this chapter, I defined deixis. In summary deixis is an important field of language study in its own right - and very important for learners of second languages. But it has

22

some relevance to analysis of conversation and pragmatics. It is often and best described as verbal pointing, that is to say pointing by means of language. A word or phrase whose meaning requires this contextual information - for example, English pronouns - is said to be deictic. Deixis is closely related to both indexicality and anaphora, as will be further explained below. My B.A. project deals largely with deixis in spoken language, but the same concepts can apply to written language and gestures as well. In this chapter I dealt with deixis, types of deixis, more precisely the five categories: person, temporal, spatial, discourse and social deixis. I also presented some characteristics of each of them. Person deixis in English comprises personal pronouns. The simplicity of these pronouns often disguises the complexity of their use. Grammatically, the basic division of first person, second person, and third person is easy to understand. Place deixis specifies the locations relative to the speech event. Here and there are two pure place deictic words in contemporary English. The concept of distance is implied in them as well as in other words which have spatial deictic sense. Bring that here and Take this there are two expressions which involve the concept of distance. Time deixis in English refers to words and phrases like now, then, today, yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last year, in three days, etc. Now is a proximal term, as it indicates the time of speaking and hearing. Then is a distal expression which applies to both past and future time relative to the time of speaking. I also spoke about deixis and indexicality. The terms deixis and indexicality are frequently used near-interchangeably, and both concern essentially the same idea; contextually-dependant references. However, both have different histories and traditions associated with them. In the next chapter I will pay more attention to political discourse according to Teun A. van Dijk (1995) and Chilton (2004), and I will try to review their researches for a better understanding of the concept of political discourse.

23

2. POLITICAL DISCOURSE

In this chapter I will present political discourse from the point of view of researchers, such as Teun A. van Dijk (1995), Paul Anthony Chilton (2004), Brown (1960) and Arroyo (2000). I will detail how they analyze political discourse. I will start with political discourse.

24

2.1 WHAT IS POLITICAL DISCOURSE? A definition I picked up from the internet said that Political discourse is a field of discourse analysis which focuses on discourse in political forums (such as debates, speeches, and hearings) as the phenomenon of interest. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/politicaldiscourse) On the one hand, politics is viewed as a struggle for power, between those who seek to assert and maintain their power and those who seek to resist it. [...] On the other hand, politics is viewed as cooperation, as the practices and institutions that a society has for resolving clashes of interest over money, influence, liberty, and the like.(Chilton 2004:3) In any case, whether struggle or cooperation, politics cannot be conducted without language (Chilton and Schffner 1997:206). Human interaction to a large extent involves language, and linguistic interaction is embedded in and determined by socio-cultural, historical, ideological, and institutional conditions. In relation to politics, we can say that the specific political situations and processes (discursive practices, such as parliamentary debates, political press briefings) determine discourse organization and textual structure of a variety of discourse types (or genres) in which political discourse as a complex form of human activity is realized.

In this subchapter I am going to present political discourse. Teun A. van Dijk made an interesting research on political discourse. Van Dijk (1995:10) affirms that Political Discourse is identified by actors or authors (politicians). His study is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as president and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and international levels.

25

He (1995:11) mentions that political activity and the political process also involve people as citizens and voters, people as members of pressure and issue groups, demonstrators and dissidents. All these groups and individuals (their organizations and institutions), can take part in the political process, and many of them are involved in political discourse. He thinks that categorization of people and groups should be strict, in the sense that their members are participants of political discourse only when acting as political actors, and hence as participating in political actions, such as governing , ruling, legislating, protesting, dissenting, or voting.(1995:13) Teun A. van Dijk (1995:13) also thinks that politicians talk politically also if they and their talk are contextualized in such communicative events as cabinet meetings, parliamentary sessions, election campaigns, rallies, interviews with the media, protest demonstrations. Van Dijk (1995:14) argues that text and context mutually define each other, it means that a session of parliament is only when elected politicians are debating (talking, arguing, etc.) in parliament buildings in an official capacity (as MPs), and during the official session of parliament. According to him (1995:16), the integration of political texts and contexts in political encounters may be characterized by accomplishing specific political aims and goals, such as making or influencing political decisions, decisions that pertain to joint action, the distribution of social resources, the establishment or change of official norms, regulations and laws. In the third chapter van Dijk (1995:19) shows that politics may not only include all official or unofficial political actors, events, encounters, settings, actions and discourses, but also, political processes, political systems, political ideologies (like liberalism), and political (group) relations (power, inequality, oppression). According to van Dijk (1995:20), interrogations may take place in congressional hearings, in courtrooms and classrooms or police stations, and in most of these cases official speakers will ask

26

official questions, but the precise roles of the speakers and recipients and the aims of the interaction will be different. In the fourth chapter van Dijk (1995:21) argues that a textual (written, printed, computer) communication may not be face-to-face, but therefore no less a form of action and interaction. Accomplishing political action, or simply doing politics by text and talk is obviously more than producing or perceiving discourse in political contexts and by political actors. In his research it is also pointed out that technically, a number of further conditions are required, such as speaking out loud, sometimes only when they have been allocated a speaking turn (except in special cases, as in interruptions, where allowed, as addressing the assembly, and when speaking relevantly. Once spoken, such speech will be recorded, corrected, printed and eventually published or maybe made public. (1995:24) In view of his analysis, van Dijk (1995:24) continues to specify that as soon as a discourse or part of a discourse is directly or indirectly functional in the political process (e.g., of campaigning, canvassing or otherwise of influencing or being influenced in view of elections), such discourse should be categorized and analyzed as being political. For instance, an editorial commenting on a government decision, a parliamentary debate or the actions of politicians, obviously has a possible political condition and consequence. The author would not categorize editorial, news, or most TV programs as political discourse, but essentially as media discourse, even when also directed at politicians. (1995:25) link The author believes that the official language of government decisions, or the laws and regulations, are both, discursively, politically and legally mandatory. Similarly, also parliamentary debates are expected to be held in relatively formal style of address and dialogue. (1995:25). Metaphors in politics will function in a political context, for instance in the attack on political opponents, the presentation of policies of political power.

27

According to him (1995:26), campaigning politicians speak about themselves as candidates, about the elections, about voting for them, and the policies they promise to support when elected. They speak about opponents and political enemies and about the bad politics and policies of previous presidents, governments or parliaments. Sometimes non-elite individuals may appear as victims, and occasionally as celebrities, or they may have a special rhetorical effect, e.g., in persuasive discourses `with a personal touch', typically about one (brave or miserable) family, mother or child. Van Dijk points out that typically conservatives may refer to the good old times, but so may progressive environmentalists referring to unspoiled nature, or even socialists when referring to the solidarity, class struggle and the blessings of the welfare state now being destroyed. (1995:28) Topics may also feature evaluations. Descriptions and references to politicians use the pronoun deixis to refer to them (the speakers) and they (the addressee): WE are democratic, THEY are not, and Our soldiers, or those who share our cause, are freedom fighters, those of the Others are obviously terrorist. (Chomsky 1985:34) For the characterization of topics in political discourse, the semantics will be biased, e.g., through positive evaluations of us and negative evaluations of THEM, i.e. our political and ideological competitors, opponents, or even enemies. Our group (party, ideology, etc.) will tend to be described in more positive terms than their group (party, ideology, etc.), a polarization that in general will result in contrastive meanings. (van Dijk 1995:33) He (1995:34) believes that one other main semantic strategy is to make propositions with positive predicates about our own group rather explicit than implicit, rather direct than indirect, and stated rather than presupposed. Similarly, given the possibility to vary the level of generality and specificity and the degree of completeness in description of people, events and actions, we may similarly expect that Our good deeds will be described with plenty of detail. According to van Dijk (1995:36), volume (shouting and whispering), pitch and intonation of speakers may influence modes of attention and understanding of what they say following the

28

principles of the ideological square. Preferred meanings are thus emphasized by shouting, high pitch, raising intonation, and the opposite is true for dispreferred meanings. In the sixth, and the final chapter, the recognition of the relevance of discourse analysis presupposes realization of the perhaps trivial fact that the many ways of doing politics often involves engaging in discursive practices. Upon some reflection, even political scientists who are not working on political communication or political rhetoric will accept that many if not most political acts and events consist of text and talk. Examples: cabinet meetings and parliamentary debates, to bureaucratic 'red tape' (documents of many types) and forms of verbal resistance, as in revolutionary tracts and slogans during demonstrations. (1995:40)

Another researcher who made a research on political discourse is Paul Anthony Chilton (2004). In the first part he paid attention to the indexicality and the dimension of deixis. According to him (2004:10), the language-in-use is the language that consists of utterances generated and interpreted in relation to the situation in which the utterer(s) and interpreter(s) are positioned. The term positioned looked as a spatial metaphor conceptualizing the speakers and/or hearers relationship to their interlocutor(s), to their physical location, to the point of time of the ongoing utterance, and to where they are in the ongoing discourse. Indexical expressions or deictic expressions are linguistic resources used to perform deixis - that is, to generate meaning by expecting the interpreter to relate the uttered indexical expression to: 1. the persons (I, you, we...) involved in the utterance: person deixis 2. the social or attitudinal relationships among utterers and interpreters (e.g. T and V forms, terms of address, regional or class accent, pitch of voice, etc.): social deixis 3. the place of uttering (here, come vs. there, go): spatial deixis 4. the time of uttering (now, verb tenses and aspects): temporal deixis 5. the ongoing discourse discourse deixis e.g. the last example (cf. Verschueren 1999:18)

29

In the next chapter Chilton discusses about space, time and society. He mentions (2004:12), that pronouns are one class of words that can perform deictic functions. For example, in political discourse the first person plural (we, us, our) can be used to include interpreters to conceptualize group identity, coalitions, parties, and the like, either as insiders or as outsiders. He thinks that social indexicals arise from social structure and power relations, and not just from personal distance. Spatial indexicals relate to political space. Thus here may mean in parliament, in London, in the UK. Temporal deixis can have a political significance, that mean, it can require one to assume a particular historical periodisation for example nowadays, today, or just now could require to be understood as after the election of New Labor. (2004:13) While spatial, temporal and social deixis are usually distinguished from one another, Chilton believes that space is in some way more fundamental than the others. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) pointed out, time appears to be conceptualized as an object moving towards the speaker or as the speaker moving towards a time. Similarly, social (and political) relationships are lexicalized, and conceptualized, in terms of space metaphors: for example, close allies, distant relations, rapprochement, are part of the vocabulary of politics (Lakoff and Johnson1980; Johnson 1987; Lakoff 1987). As Chilton points out (2004:20), spatial representation, including metaphorical ones, takes on an important aspect in political discourse. In politics we can also speak about the relations between social groups, viewed literally or metaphorically as spatially distinct entities. Political actors are, always situated with respect to a particular time, place and social group. Because of factors such as these, Chilton said that we shall treat spatial representation in discourse as particularly important in the study of political discourse. According to Chilton (2004:59), speaker and listener alike must operate within a realm of indexical or deictic expressions, the dimensions of which are not only time and space, but also a third dimension of modality' according to which Self is not only here and now, but also the origin of the epistemic true and the deontic right.

30

There are some structural and functional flaws in this edifice constructed by Chilton. First of all, it seems to be the case that his characterizations of man's interaction in the polis pertain to all serious conversation; man is indeed a political animal, always and in all settings. (2004:60) After I spoke about political discourse from the point of view of Teun A van Dijk and Chilton, my next intention is to describe the notion of debates.

2.2. THE NOTION OF DEBATES In this chapter I am going to define the notion of debates picked up from internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate), and I want to highlight some interesting things about this. Debate is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Though logical consistency and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate) In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Parliamentary Debate is conducted under rules derived from British parliamentary procedure. It features the competition of individuals in a multi-person setting. It borrows terms such as

31

"government" and "opposition" from the British parliament (although the term "proposition" is sometimes used rather than "government" when debating in the United Kingdom). This is usually very formal. (Brown, 1995:121) Throughout the world, parliamentary debate is what most countries know as "debating", and is the primary style practiced in the United Kingdom, India, Greece and most other nations. The premier event in the world of parliamentary debate, the World Universities Debating Championship, is conducted in the British Parliamentary style. (Brown, 1995:123) After I explained the notions, political discourse and debates, my next intention is to speak about The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Political Discourse from the point of view of Brown, Hylan and others. (1995:124)

2.3. THE USES OF THE SECOND-PERSON SINGULAR PRONOUN IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Many studies have pointed out that pronominal usage is not only related to variables such as formality, attitudes, status, and sex, but more importantly, it can encode different aspects of the communicative intentions of speakers. Brown (1960) found that the exchange of pronouns can shape or confirm the power dynamics and solidarity of a relationship. While a reciprocal usage implies relative equality and solidarity, nonreciprocal usage (e.g., I say vous to you, but you say tu to me) implies social distance and an unequal power relationship, with the dominant speaker using the informal pronoun. (1960) One of the most used set of pronouns noticed by Brown (1960) are the person pronouns, in particular third person plural, we and us. By using we and us throughout his speech, he creates an atmosphere where the reader is welcomed into the text. In addition Brown claims an equality with his audience (Hyland, 2005:71) thus creating a sense of reader-writer combination towards common goals.

32

Examples given by Hyland (2005:71): -I believe that we have real achievements together -The only reason any of us are here is that we are in politics as servants -Success in the global economy will depend upon us engaging the creative talents -We must aim to be number one Brown, (1960) a linguist, uses in his paper we sometimes inclusively as in we will do so best to include the reader or listener. In other instances such as and as we listen to and seek... he uses we exclusively. In the latter instance, Brown refers specifically to the Labour party. There are even situations where Brown uses we in a somewhat ambivalent way. He states that And while we do not today have a written constitution it comes back to being sure about and secure in the values that matter. We can be interpreted, on the one hand, as Browns attempts to place everyone under one umbrella, while on the other hand placing him in a leadership role as one who can speak for the people. Through these vague and shifting uses of we, he claims the right to speak for the people as a whole argues Fairclough (1995:181). Brown continues in his language use with attitude markers in the form of the pronoun us. Maitland and Wilson (1987: 40) and Wilson (1990:23), are focusing mainly on personal pronouns employed by three British politicians, investigating the pragmatic manipulation of pronouns within various political contexts. Their studies show how pronominal choices reflect the thinking and attitude of politicians towards particular political topics and political personalities. It has been found that politicians tend to manipulate pronouns to develop and indicate their ideological positions on specific issues. (Wilson, 1990: 46) De Fina (1995:45) has analyzed and compared two discourses by two Mexican participants in a conference on the Chiapas revolt of January 1994 in Mexico. In her study she found out that, the predominance of use of we as self-reference shows that the speaker is not speaking as an individual

33

but his words point to a principal, that is, the group or organization that he has come to represent, and when self-referencing is realized mostly with the pronoun I, the speaker is expressing high commitment to the words that he is saying, and therefore stressing the dimension of authorship as the most relevant in his speech. Bolivar (1999) examines how two Venezuelan politicians from opposing parties use pronouns in political interviews and discourses at different political moments. The first-person pronoun I is more frequently used in political interviews. She found out that, both politicians use first-person pronouns differently at different political moments. Firstly, they tend to exclude themselves in plural reference when there is a need to distance themselves from responsibility for their future actions. And secondly, when they are interested in producing a good effect during an election campaign or when they are just beginning their presidency, they make use of other pronouns as well as first-person pronouns for self-reference. The most recent research on this topic, and also the one most related to the present study is Arroyo (2000). She analyzes the main reference meanings of personal pronouns by the two principal participants in the Spanish political electoral debate of June 1993. Distinguishing three main domains of reference (i.e., the world of the speaker, the world of the interlocutor, and an intermediate world between them), Arroyo has found that there are considerable differences in the two debaters strategic use of pronouns. In the case of the president and socialist candidate, there is a balanced alternation between the description of his own political agenda (in which the presidential I and the partisan we have a special importance) and his criticism of his opponents. The conservative candidate, on the other hand, tends to use personal pronouns when attacking his rival rather than explaining his own political proposals. Arroyo has contended that the structure of the debate also significantly affects the pronominal choices. While in the sections in which the speaker has the audience as his primary interlocutor, the use of personal pronouns is structured around the first person, in the stages in which the dialogic conflict is most intense, the secondperson pronouns are always used for attacks and political aggression. OConnor (1994) explores the variation in indexicality and the subsequent shifts in agency shown by the pronouns you and I She argues that when the speaker switches to you, yet still indexes the

34

self, this self-indexing you serves three functions: self-distancing (the speaker is distancing himself from the act), other-involving (the speaker is drawing the interlocutor in to share in the feeling), and self-addressing (the speaker is addressing the figure of the self in his own past). OConnor proposes that such variation in pronoun use tends to appear in segments of evaluative discourse and contributes to the construction of story as well as the social construction of the self. (1994: 45).

2.4. CONCLUSION In this chapter I described political discourse according to Teun A. van Dijk, and Paul Chilton. This political discourse can be a debate or speech, in which participants involved in this discourse are politicians, such as president or prime minister and other members of government. I also specified that debates take place only when are elections (when people, citizens have to choose for their future), and the aim of these debates is to influence the voters, citizens to vote for the speaker or against the opposite parties. I reviewed the use of second person pronoun in a political debate. One of the most used set of pronouns noticed by Brown are the person pronouns, in particular third person plural, we and us. The next chapter is the practical part of my BA project, in which I will analyze the use of deixis in political debates.

35

3. DEIXIS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE - ANALYSIS

The aims of this chapter are to analyze deixis in political discourse; to understand the importance of deixis in political discourses and debates. Our knowledge and opinions about politicians, parties or presidents are largely acquired, changed or confirmed by various forms of text and talk during our socialization (Merelman 1986), formal education, media usage and conversation. Political action and participation is accomplished by discourse and communication.

36

The theoretical framework of this chapter is complex. It contains all five types of deixis, i.e. person, time, spatial, social and discourse. It relates various levels and dimensions of the political domain. The base level consists of individual political actors, as well as their beliefs, discourses and interactions in political situations. In the next subchapter I will speak about my research.

3.1. METHODOLOGY The sequence of political debate that I will analyze is taken from the internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnkUF6VWOlI,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election2010/7655577/BBC-leaders-debate-Gordon-Brown-admits-David-Cameron-is-set-to-take-power.html),

and an orthographic transcription can be found in appendix. This is a political debate which takes place between the three party members. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Conservative party leader David Cameron prepare to take part in the first of Britain's leadership election debates. This debate is a dialogue, more precisely, a confrontation between the leaders of the three parties for the candidacy of Prime Minister. After becoming the star of the past two debates, Nick Clegg frequently found himself marginalized in the debate as the two main party leaders attacked one another. He appeared weak on policy detail during several exchanges and his portrayal as an outsider may have lost its novelty value.

3.2. ANALYSIS OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE

37

In my discourse analysis, I will present a sequence, covered during the entire campaign of a political debate for The Prime Minister position in the U.K. Political Discourse is identified by actors or authors (politicians); in this debate the politicians are Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron. As van Dijk says (1995:16), "the integration of political texts and contexts in political encounters may be characterized by accomplishing specific political aims and goals, such as making or influencing political decisions, decisions that pertain to joint action, the distribution of social resources, the establishment or change of official norms, regulations and laws", all three candidates are trying to convince the people to vote for them. David Cameron says, in turn 17, "I think that we can do great things in this country, if you vote Labor you can get more of the same, if you vote Liberal as we seen tonight is just uncertainly, if you vote Conservative on Tuesday, you can have a new fresh government, making a clean break, and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need." - David tries to convince people to vote for him and not his opponents because he will do good things for the country. In turn 18, Nick Clegg says: "This is your election, this is your country. When you go to vote next week, choose the future you really want. If you believe like I do that we can do things differently this time, then together we will really change Brit." Nick let people to choose the wanted future, but for their own good and for the good of the country the best choice is to vote for him in the next election. In turn 19, Gordon Brown "We are desperate to get this country through the recession and into the recovery, and that is why I intend to continue to do, but is apt to the people to decide, and is your decision." He tries to convince people to vote for him because he will make things much better for the country.

38

Also, a number of further conditions are required, such as speaking out loud, sometimes only when they have been allocated a speaking turn (except in special cases, as in interruptions, where allowed, as addressing the assembly, and when speaking relevantly. All three candidates speak loudly and clearly to be understood the message they want to send. Campaigning politicians speak about themselves as candidates, about the elections, about voting for them, and the policies they promise to support when elected. They speak about opponents and political enemies and about the bad politics and policies of previous presidents, governments or parliaments. (Teun A. van Dijk; 1995:26). All three MPs presents all the things they will do if they are voted. In turn 9, Gordon Brown says : "I think we should raise the standard of the bank...we have to take actions against lots of MPs who betrayed the public trust and in the politics...but we gonna take action that makes a real difference in the future". Brown presents things that should be made for the country. Also Gordon Brown, in turn 13 says : "Were going to put into a referent next year and let the people decide what politics breaks down in the way it did, and we had corrupt them (please ), then, we gonna have a new start, a referent of next year of a new House of Commons and a new House of Lords". He believes that the country needs a new leader who will make new things for the country. In turn 17, David Cameron try to convince people to vote for him: "We can go on, solve our problems and do great things, but we need a government with the right values, we need a government with the vast families and understand that family is the most important thing in our society. We need a government with the best work, with people who try to do the right thing, and we need a government that always understands that keeping in safe and secure is the most important thing of all... if you vote Labor you can get more of the same, if you vote Liberal as we seen tonight is just uncertainly, if you vote Conservative on Tuesday, you can have a new fresh government, making a clean break, and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need". David Cameron wants to take the country in a new and good direction, with a government with the right values. 39

Nick Clegg, in turn 18, says "I will work tirelessly to deliver fairly for you, fair taxes that you pay less, but people the top pay their fair share, a fair stop, smaller class size for your children a different approach to the economy and decent open politics that you can trust once again. I believe all these can happen. This is your election, this is your country. When you go to vote next week, choose the future you really want. If you believe like I do that we can do things differently this time, then together we will really change Brit". Nick believes that he can do things differently this time. He will work hard for the good of the country. I made my discourse analysis on the term deixis in the debates. I will analyze one by one the five types of deixis. First, I will analyze person deixis in this conversation, this debate.

3.2.1. PERSON DEIXIS Person deixis is an important component of pragmatics. With reference to the addresser (I), the addressee (you) and the third party involved in a conversation (he, she), person deixis indicate the social status, interpersonal relationship and other factors of the conversational parties. In conversation, each person constantly changes from being I to being you. This kind of deixis operates on a three-part division, exemplified by the pronouns for first person I, second person you, and third person he, she, it. Pronouns play a key role in the construction of person deixis. They are not merely a way of expressing person, number and gender as is suggested by traditional grammarians nor do they only do referential and deictic work. English does not use personal deixis to indicate relative social status in the same way that other languages do. But the pronoun we has a potential for ambiguity, i.e. between exclusive we (excludes the hearer) and the hearer-including (inclusive) we. Inclusive "we" specifically includes the addressee (that is, one of the words for "we" means "you and I"), while exclusive "we"

40

specifically excludes the addressee (that is, another word for "we" means "he/she and I, but not you"), regardless of who else may be involved. Person deixis is commonly expressed by some kinds of constituents. The most important are the pronouns. All languages have personal pronouns or at least words, that refer to the participants of the speech act. Right from the start, in turn 1, Gordon accuses David using the pronoun you, that he doesnt want to take actions for the country and David lets be honestyou voted against taking actions. You dont want back to happenedyou blocked it only in the last weekthe key issue here is that we will take responsibility for a better form of politics.... In the first part the addresser is Gordon and the addressee is David. The next passage, in turn 3 is a monologue, the addresser is David Cameron. He speaks about their Conservative Party using the pronoun we: we should all be frank, We all have MPs with dreadful expenses problems, .the Conservative Party (we) is been too lot for too long and he uses the pronoun I referring to him: Let me just take one point of the all that Nick said I think..., I think a criminal on the run. Here, the we which Cameron refers to, is the we inclusive i.e. includes the hearer. Sometimes, people speak not only about themselves, there is still a third person who is not speaking and who does not take part in the conversation - the overhear. Usually the third person is not grammatically marked, because the only two persons are important i.e. the first person (speaker) and the second person (addressee). As we see in this dislogue David speaks also about the opposite party the liberal-democrats give two and a half million pound to someone who steal, to accuse them of fraud. In turn 4, Nick Clegg attacks David Cameron. He also uses the pronoun we Before we bound about these things, lets be absolutely clear, we were completely exonerated for that, it was years ago, Im talking about whats going now. we is also inclusive. Nick refers to him and his interlocutor David Cameron.

41

Nick, in turn 6, continues to describe what happens in parliament. Always the same, when elections are approaching all Parties make every effort to be elected and after winning elections, they do not make any effort for anything. Where MPs have jobs for life, where that basically all you need to get 20-30% to your vote in their areas, then no questions are until the next time in election. Here the pronoun you is used to refer to the opoosite MP who does this. In turn 7, David defends himself saying I disagree with you!. As I said above that in conversation, each person constantly changes from being I to being you, the roles are changing, David becoming the addresser and Nick the addressee. The pronouns used here are I and you. Nick continues in turn 8, his speech saying neither of you want to clear the system from top to toe in a way that makes me forgive and again he is interrupted by David who specifies what measures must be taken to a better governance. I think we should raise the standard of the bank, we have to take actions against lots of MPs who betrayed the public trust and in the politics I hold the seven republics, not serving ourselves, but we gonna take action that makes a real difference in the future; not next support me and report me at the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The pronouns used here are: I (me), we, ourselves, emphasizing that their Party is the most suitable to be voted. In this sequence we is exclusive, excludes the hearer. Nick refers to him and his party and not to the hearer. In turn 10, when David finishes what he has to say, Nick continues his speech describing in negative terms the opposite party cause Im seeing nothing to support. They did nothing for thirty years, and there is nothing new., what I support, is something I supported all my adult political life, which is complete clean up, they should be there just cause they dont favors to politicians making the rule uses to getting big money, fair votes for everybody. The pronoun they is used here in order to accuse the opposite party to what they have done for years.

42

In turn 13, Gordon Brown presents his point of view regarding his candidacy Were going to put into a referent next year and let the people decide what politics breaks down in the way it did, and we had corrupt them, then we gonna have a new start, using the pronoun we like the other candidates to highlights what they are going to do we gonna have a new start. In the sequence above we is exclusive, exclude the hearer. Gordon refers to him and his party excluding the addressee. In turn 13, it seems that David wants something that all three agree to make things work better. let me try and found something that we all agree on it, every change will make the difference, I think it is time that when an MP breaks the rules, the most constituent should be able to throw that member of the parliament and not having to wait for general election. Here, we is inclusive because David refers to him and his opponents (we means you and I), In turn 15, recognizing the extent of the challenge faced by Labour to win support, the Prime Minister said: "From now until next Thursday we have got to campaign like we have never campaigned before." Another we inclusive, used by the Prime Minister (include the hearer). By contrast, in turn 16, some seconds later his rival Mr. Cameron said: "We've got just six and a half days to go between now and polling day. Don't waste one minute, don't waste one hour, this country is crying out for change, we need to explain to people the only way to get it is a Conservative government. Both candidates use the pronoun we, referring to themselves, each being the addressee and the addresser. Here, we is exclusive. Cameron refers to the audience (that is, another word for we means he/she and I, but not you). At the end of the debate each candidate tries to convince the public to vote them, to vote their party. And the first who begins the speech is Cameron.

43

In turn 17, David Cameron will now hope that he can persuade Liberal Democrat voters to switch to the Conservatives in the final days of intense campaigning. We can go on, solve our problems and do great things, but we need a government with the right values, we need a government with the vast families and understand that family is the most important thing in our society. We need a government with the best work, with people who try to do the right thing, and we need a government that always understands that keeping in safe and secure is the most important thing of all. He uses the pronoun we to show that he is not alone. He has a good, united and strong party, appropriate to govern the country. Also in turn 17, in the second part of his speech Cameron uses the pronoun I to highlight what he really thinks about this campaign I believe the test of a good and strong society is how we look after the most valuable and the poorest thats true in good times but is even more true in difficult times, and will be difficult decisions, but I want to lead as through those to better times ahead. I think that I got a great team behind me, I think that we can do great things in this country. In the last part Cameron uses the pronoun you, to address to the public.He tries to convince the audience to vote for him and not for the opposite parties:if you vote Labor you can get more of the same, if you vote Liberal as we seen tonight is just uncertainly, if you vote Conservative on Tuesday, you can have a new fresh government, making a clean break, and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need. Nick Clegg appeared weak on policy detail during several exchanges and his portrayal as an outsider may have lost its novelty value. In turn 18, Nick Clegg urged voters not to be frightened by the other parties out of voting for real change. As his opponent, Clegg speaks to the people, to vote for him, for his party, using the pronoun you. Just think how many times youve been give lots of promises from these old parties and when they get back in to the government you find that nothing really changes at all, we can do so much better than that this time., This is your election, this is your country. When you go to vote next week, choose the future you really want. If you believe like I do that we can do things differently this time, than together we will really change Brit, dont let anyone tell you that it cant

44

happen. It can! This time you can make the difference., all problems you faced cant be solved over night, that you can trust once again. And also in turn 18, in his speech, he uses the pronoun I to say that he will do great things for the country. Of course I cant guarantee, but I can guarantee that I will work tirelessly, I believe all these can happened., you believe like I do. The Prime Ministers repeated insistence that he was the only leader with the experience to lead the economic recovery failed to convince viewers. In turn 19, Gordon Brown attempted to fight back by warning about the ideological drive of the Conservative party. He attempted to focus on Conservative plans to cut inheritance tax and cut the child tax credit for middle income earners. I believe that hes planning to cut the schools budget and he hasnt denial yet. I believe also that John Teskot will be cut by both parties if they came into a coalition. I believe too, that pleasing will be at risk from a conservative government, because they have not set that they would match us on pleasing either. Brown uses the pronoun he to refer to his opponent, as a last attempt to change public opinion. Brown uses the pronouns I, we and they to make comparisons between his party and the opposite parties. This debate is the answer to people that say politics doesnt matter. And I want to thank everybody whos been involved in this debate over the last few weeks. They showed that there are big causes we can fight for. They also showed that big differences exist between the parties. I know that if things stay as they are, perhaps in eight days' time David Cameron, perhaps supported by Nick Clegg, would be in office. But I have the duty of telling you this evening that while we have policies for the future, the Conservatives would put the recovery immediately at risk with an emergency Budget. No, I dont like having to do this, but Im gonna tell you that things are too important to be left to risky policies under this two people. They are not ready for government because they are not sort through the policies. We are desperate to get this country through the recession and into the recovery, and that is why I intend to continue to do, but is apt to the people to decide, and is your decision.

45

Examples of Indefinite and specific pronouns: what I support, what politics breaks down, people who try to do, whos been involved. And examples of indefinite and non-specific pronouns: give...to someone who steal, Im seeing nothing to support. They did nothing for thirty years, and there is nothing new., is something I supported. Pronouns are generally considered to be deictics, but a finer distinction is often made between personal pronouns such as I, you, and it (commonly referred to as personal pronouns) and pronouns that refer to places and times such as now, then, here, there. In most texts, the word deictic implies the latter but not necessarily the former. Pronouns that refer to place and times: key issue here, whats going now, there is a direct relation, there were awful things, there is nothing new, they should be there, then, there are big causes. In the first subchapter I analyzed the person deixis in the political debate. My next intention is to analyze temporal deixis. 3.2.2. Temporal deixis English refers to words and phrases like now, then, today, yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last year, in three days, etc. Now is a proximal term, as it indicates the time of speaking and hearing. Then is a distal expression which applies to both past and future time relative to the time of speaking, The temporal expressions containing last and next are also distal. The actual time referred to must be worked out in relation to the time of the utterance. In time we have single deictic words (yesterday, recently, soon) -->ambiguity in now and then, and modifiers and measure words (next day, last week) --> tendency to categorize in moving away or towards the speaker in time.

46

These terms as proximal or distal are defined in relation to the deictic center: central person is the speaker central time is the time of utterance production central place is the speakers location at utterance time

In the first part Gordon Brown says you blocked it only in the last week. Here, we have in this utterance, distal form in Past Tense, the tendency to move the speaker in time. In describing what happened in the House of Lords and House of Commons, Nick Clegg says: it was years ago, Im talking about whats going now. years ago distal term, past tense, and now is a proximal term, indicates the time of speaking and hearing of the speaker, in our case, the speaker is Nick Clegg. Nick also says: then no questions are until the next time in election. Just as I said above, next time is a distal form and it is a modifier. When Nick describes the opposite party, he uses They did nothing for thirty years. Thirty is a big number, so thirty years indicate the time, a long time, from then until now. This term shows ambiguity. Gordon Brown describes what his party will do. Were going to put into a referent next year... then, we gonna have a new start. In this sequence next year and then are both distal terms. And then is ambiguous. Gordon Brown in turn 15 says: From now until next Thursday we have got to campaign. now is a proximal term, indicates the time of speaking and hearing. And next Thursday is a distal term, indicates the future time and not the time of speaking.

47

David Cameron gathers the world to vote: We've got just six and a half days to go between now and polling day. Don't waste one minute, don't waste one hour, this country is crying out for change. The words as six and a half days present the period between now - the moment when Cameron is speaking and the polling day the moment on the future. now indicates the time of speaking, proximal term and polling day refers to the future and is a distal term. one minute and one hour indicate the time, but not the time of speaking. David says in his speech: as we seen tonight is just uncertainly, if you vote Conservative on Tuesday. Tonight is proximal term, the time of speaking. Tuesday is distal term, the future time. Nick also says in his speech: we can do so much better than that this time, When you go to vote next week, then together we will really change Brit...This time you can make the difference this time appear twice in his speech, showing the time of speaking. next week is measure word and distal term. And then shows ambiguity, also a distal term. Gordon Brown in turn 19 says: perhaps in eight days' time of telling you this evening that while we have policies for the future In eight days time is ambiguous and distal term. This evening is distal term. policies for the future is not close to the speaker, show the future time, so is distal term. In the first chapter I also spoke about time adverbs. They can be relative to the time when an utterance is made ("encoding time", or ET) or when the utterance is heard ("decoding time", or DT).
sa dezvolt next week

48

I believe all these can happen. This is your election, this is your country. When you go to vote next week, choose the future you really want. In this example, the ET (encoding time) and the DT (decoding time) occur at the same time, ie the time of the speech. In temporal deixis I also discussed about tenses - time relations in connection to a given point in time. We have: present - an event/action simultaneously to the speech act; past - an event/action before the speech act and future - an event/action after the speech act. Examples of tenses i.e. past, present and future, in the debate: Past tense: it was years ago, you blocked it, They did nothing, you paid the money back, I supported Present tense: this country is crying out for change, we can do so much better, I cant guarantee, Im talking about whats going now, I disagree with you, I think, we have to take actions, I mean, what I support, Im sorry, I think it is time, we need a government, I want to thank everybody. Future: every change will make the difference, I will work tirelessly, will be difficult. As we see in the examples above, the time dominant during a political debate is the present tense, and not past tense or future. In this subchapter I analyzed temporal deixis in the political debate. In the next subchapter I will focus on spatial deixis.

3.2.3. Spatial deixis The concept of distance is considered relevant to spatial deixis, whenever relative location of things is being indicated. Contemporary English uses only two adverbs: here and there. There are also some verbs of motion, such as come and go, which retain a deictic sense when they are used

49

to mark movement toward the speaker, for example, Come to my room, or away from the speaker, as in Go to my room . The location, from the speakers perspective, can be fixed mentally as well as physically. Speakers temporally away from their home location will often continue to use here to mean the home location, as if they still were in that location. It is described as deictic projection and we can make more use of its possibilities when technology allows us to manipulate location. In turn 9, Brown affirms: report me at the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This sequence indicates a special region with a clearly defined boundary the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Nick Clegg argues, in turn 10: direct elections of House of Lords...they should be there. In the first part House of Lords is bounded, i.e. the location is specified. And in the second part there is a distal expression i.e. far from the speaker. In turn 14, Gordon Brown states: should be able to throw that member...of the parliament...we can put that in place. that is far from the speaker and is a distal expression. of the parliament is bounded, i.e. indicates a spatial region with a clearly defined boundary. In the last part of the speech the demonstrative pronoun that appears again and it is a distal term. In turn 16, David Cameron states: this country. this is the object in a pragmatically given area close to the speakers location

In turn 18, from these old parties...this is your country. these old parties is bounded, indicate a spatial region with a clearly defined boundary. this is a demonstrative pronoun and it is the object in a pragmatically given area close to the speakers location. In turn 19, Gordon Brown says: This debate is the answer...whos been involved in this debate...would be in office...We are desperate to get this country. this debate used twice, is an

50

adjective and a proximal expression, it is near to the speaker who is Brown. in office is bounded and it is far from the speaker. And this country is close to the speakers location. There are demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adjectives (this, that, those, or these) that can appear in the political debates. Examples of demonstrative pronouns and demonstrative adjectives: we bound about these things, this robber system, They got these safety jobs, " this time", This is your election, this is your country, This time you can make, This debate. which is which? In this subchapter I focused on spatial deixis. My next step is to analyze social deixis in the same political debate.

3.2.4. Social deixis Social deixis concerns the social information that is encoded within various expressions, such as relative social status and familiarity. Two major forms of it are the so-called T-V distinctions and honorifics. Fillmore (1982:22) mentions that social deixis is the use of different deictics to express social distinctions. He gives as example the difference between formal and polite pro-forms. Relational social deixis is where the form of word used indicates the relative social status of the addressor and the addressee. For example, one pro-form might be used to address those of higher social rank, another to address those of lesser social rank, another to address those of the same social rank. Social deixis is reference to the social characteristics of, or distinctions between, the participants or referents in a speech event. (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSocialDeixis.htm)

51

Social deixis deals with aspects of sentences in which codification of the social status of the speaker, addressee or third person or entity referred to as well as the social relationships between them takes place; information included: social class, kin relationship, age, sex, profession, ethnic group; closely associated with (and sometimes even sub-categorized as) person deixis; expression of social deixis can be accomplished by several linguistic devices including personal pronouns, forms of address, clitics/ particles and the choice of vocabulary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language)

In this debate we can see that the participants at the dialogue are persons with the same social class, the same profession, but different ages. In their confrontation we can not figure out what kind of 'you' is used.
Languages (e.g., English) which have no syntactic TV distinction, may have semantic analogues to convey the mentioned attitudes towards the addressee, such as whether to address someone by first or last name, or whether to use "sir" / "ma'am" in US English. The boundaries between formal and informal language differ from language to language, as well as within social groups of the speakers of a given language. In some circumstances, it is not unusual to call other people by first name and the respectful form, or last name and familiar form. Showing respect in English usually just means inserting the word sir or maam somewhere into the sentence. In most other languages, however, there is some additional grammatical work involved in displaying an appropriate level of resepect. Perhaps the most common way of doing this is by use of the T-V distinction. In some cases, the 2nd person pronoun is augmented with an additional word, like sir in English, or pan in Polish. To me, this gives the impression of maintaining grammatical order while showing formality. You are talking directly to someone, but addressing them with respect.

In the fourth subchapter I analyzed the social deixis. In the next subchapter I will analyze discourse deixis. 3.2.5. Discourse deixis According to Levinson (1983:63) discourse deixis (spoken and written discourse), also referred to as text deixis, refers to the use of expressions within an utterance to refer to parts of the discourse that contains the utterance - including the utterance itself. For example, in This is a great story. this refers to an upcoming portion of the discourse, and in That was an amazing day.

52

that refers to a prior portion of the discourse. The rule of thumb to distinguish the two phenomenon is as follows: when an expression refers to another linguistic expression or a piece of discourse, it is discourse deictic. When that expression refers to the same item as a prior linguistic expression, it is anaphoric. An important area of discourse deixis concerns discourse markers, like anyway, but, however, actually, in conclusion, still, well, so, after all, at all. All these words make reference to a statement, sentence etc. This political debate is a spoken discourse, because it is an oral communication or confrontation between three different parties. In turn 6, Nick Clegg says: and listen...none of this is going to make any difference if we allow this. this is not near the speaker in the physical sense. It is conceptually near the speaker in the discourse. In turn 18, Nick Clegg states: This is your election. this refers to an upcoming portion of the discourse. In turn19, Gordon Brown affirms: This debate is the answer to people that say, politics doesnt matter. this refers to an upcoming portion of the discourse. Discourse markers: but we gonna take, but you have Lords?, but we need a government, that nothing really changes at all, but people the top pay their fair share, But I have the duty, but is apt to the people to decide.

53

What I did in this chapter was to analyze deixis in a political debate. First, I defined the notions and then I analyzed person deixis, temporal deixis, spatial deixis, social deixis and discourse deixis in the debate. To know and understand deixis is important. Understanding the meaning of certain words and phrases in an utterance requires contextual information. To know the persons involved in a conversation, the time and the location.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of my B.A. project was to learn about notion of deixis in political discourse. I have learned that deixis concerns the ways in which languages express features of the context of utterance or speech event in a different way. Deictic information is important for the interpretation of utterance. Deixis is closely related to both indexicality and anaphora, as explained below. My B.A. project deals largely with deixis in spoken language, but the same concepts can apply to written language and gestures as well.

54

At the beginning, I exemplified some definitions about deixis. In summary deixis is very important for learners of second languages. But it has some relevance to analysis of conversation and pragmatics. I presented the five types of deixis: person, temporal, spatial, discourse and social deixis. I also present some characteristics about each one. I paid more attention to the first three types of deixis, because they are more common and more important than the last two. Person deixis comprises personal pronouns. The simplicity of these pronouns often disguises the complexity of their use. Place deixis specifies the locations relative to the speech event. Time deixis refers to words and phrases like now, then, today, yesterday, tomorrow, next week, last year, in three days, etc. I spoke about deixis and indexicality, The terms deixis and indexicality are frequently used nearinterchangeably, and both concern essentially the same idea; contextually-dependant references. However, both have different histories and traditions associated with them. Indexicality probably played a crucial part in the evolution of language. I have read in Teun van Dijk book, that political discourse is identified by actors or authors (politicians) and political activity or political process also involve people as citizens and voters, people as members of pressure and issue groups. I have learned that many studies have pointed out that pronominal usage is not only related to variables such as formality, attitudes, status, and sex, but more importantly, it can encode different aspects of the communicative intentions of speakers. In the last part of my project I made an analysis on deixis in a political debate. In the first part, I defined the notions and then I try to analyzed person deixis, temporal deixis, spatial deixis, social deixis and discourse deixis in the debate. I accomplished that, by using some definitions and characteristics adopted by some researchers as Levinson, Fillmore, Huddleston, Pierce and others.

55

I chose a political debate because I found it very interesting. How some people fight for power, how they expose their point of view regarding their candidacy, how they try to convince the audience to vote for them and not for the opposite parties.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Brown, R., Gilman, A. "The pronouns of power and solidarity, IN: Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. 2. Chilton Paul Anthony Analysing political discourse: theory and practice, 2004 3. Fairclough, Norman (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

56

4. Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R. J. 5. Huddleston Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006) 6. Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. Cognitive anthropology. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Verschueren 7. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 8. Levinson, Stephen C. (2004) "Deixis". The Handbook of Pragmatics, pp. 978120. Blackwell Publishing. 9. Lyons, John. (1977). Deixis, space and time. Semantics (Vol. 2, Chap. 15, pp. 636-724). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10. Nunberg, Geoffrey Indexicality and Deixis, 1992. 11. Peirce, C.S., "Division of Signs" in Collected Papers, 1932 [1897] 12. Prandi Michele, The Building Blocks of Meaning: Ideas for a Philosophical Grammar. John Benjamins, 2004) 13. Stephen R.; & Keenan, Edward L. (1985). Deixis. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typololgy and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (Vol. 3, pp. 259-308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14. Suchman, Lucy A"What Is Human--Machine Interaction?" Cognition, Computing, and Cooperation, ed. by Scott P. Robertson, Wayne Zachary, and John B. Black. Ablex, 1990) 15. Teun A van Dijk What is Political Discourse Analysis?, 1995. (cf. Verschueren 1999:18)

57

16. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnkUF6VWOlI) 17. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election 2010/7655577/BBC-leaders-debate-Gordon-Brownadmits-David-Cameron-is-set-to-take-power.html. 18. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis) 19. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate) 20. (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/demonstrative-pronoun.html)

Appendix Britain's leadership election debates (BBC leaders' debate) 1. Gordon Brown: ...and David lets be honestyou voted against taking actions. You dont want back to happenedyou blocked it only in the last weekthe key issue here is that we will take responsibility for a better form of politics... 2. Gordon Brown: ...every free call right to petition and a better House of Commons and Lords.

58

3. David Cameron: Let me just take one point of the all that Nick said I think we should all be frankand politics has been a mess for all of us. We all have MPs with dreadful expenses problemsYes, the Conservative Party is been too lot for too long, all rich individuals, and yes the liberal-democrats give two and a half million pound to someone who steal, I think a criminal on the run, all the money hasnt been paid back. 4. Nick Clegg: Before we bound about these things, lets be absolutely clear, we were completely exonerated for that, it was years ago, Im talking about whats going now. 5. David Cameron: If you paid the money back. 6. Nick Clegg: and listen...none of this is going to make any difference if we allow this.. this robber system in Western where carry on; where MPs have jobs for life, where that basically all you need to get 20-30% to your vote in their areas, then no questions are until the next time in election; there is a direct relation between of hundreds of Labor and MPs. They got these safety jobs for lives and a level of abuse quite inexpensive; neither of you 7. David Cameron: I disagree with you! 8. Nick Clegg: neither of you want to clear the system from top to toe in a way that makes me forgive. 9. Gordon Brown: I think we should raise the standard of the bank; there were awful things that happened, we have to take actions against lots of MPs who betrayed the public trust and in the politics I hold the seven republics, not serving ourselves, but we gonna take action that makes a real difference in the future; not next support me and report me at the House of Commons and the House of Lords

59

10. Nick Clegg: cause Im seeing nothing to support. They did nothing for thirty years, and there is nothing new. I mean, what I support what I support, is something I supported all my adult political life, which is complete clean up, from top the toe politics direct elections of House of Lords, they should be there just cause they dont favors to politicians making the rule uses to getting big money, fair votes for everybody. 11. Gordon Brown: The truth is that Nick does support from eventual vote of House of Commons and House of Lords 12. Nick Clegg: but you have Lords? 13. Gordon Brown: Were going to put into a referent next year and let the people decide what politics breaks down in the way it did, and we had corrupt them (please ), then, we gonna have a new start, a referent of next year of a new House of Commons and a new House of Lords, thats the way forward; Im sorry that the conservative rejected report. 14. David Cameron: Well, its rather difficult cause Gordon says Nick agrees with Gordon and Nick said Nick doesnt agree with Gordon; let me try and found something that we all agree on it, every change will make the difference, I think it is time that when an MP breaks the rules, the most constituent should be able to throw that member of the parliament and not having to wait for general election. I think we all agree about that and who ever wins the next election we can put that in place, straight away. 15. Gordon Brown: From now until next Thursday we have got to campaign like we have never campaigned before. 16. David Cameron: We've got just six and a half days to go between now and polling day. Don't waste one minute, don't waste one hour, this country is crying out for change, we need to explain to people the only way to get it is a Conservative government.

60

17. David Cameron: We can go on, solve our problems and do great things, but we need a government with the right values, we need a government with the vast families and understand that family is the most important thing in our society. We need a government with the best work, with people who try to do the right thing, and we need a government that always understands that keeping in safe and secure is the most important thing of all. I believe the test of a good and strong society is how we look after the most valuable, and the poorest thats true in good times, but is even truer in difficult times, and will be difficult decisions, but I want to lead as through those to better times ahead. I think I got a great team behind me, I think that we can do great things in this country, if you vote Labor you can get more of the same, if you vote Liberal as we seen tonight is just uncertainly, if you vote Conservative on Tuesday, you can have a new fresh government, making a clean break, and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need. 18. Nick Clegg: Just think how many times youve been give lots of promises from these old parties and when they get back in to the government you find that nothing really changes at all, we can do so much better than that this time. Of course I cant guarantee that all problems you faced cant be solved over night, but I can guarantee that I will work tirelessly to deliver fairly for you, fair taxes that you pay less, but people the top pay their fair share, a fair stop, smaller class size for your children a different approach to the economy and decent open politics that you can trust once again. I believe all these can happen. This is your election, this is your country. When you go to vote next week, choose the future you really want. If you believe like I do that we can do things differently this time, then together we will really change Brit. Dont let anyone tell you that it cant happen. It can! This time you can make the difference. 19. Gordon Brown: This debate is the answer to people that say, politics doesnt matter. And I want to thank everybody whos been involved in this debate over the last few weeks. They showed that there are big causes we can fight for. They also showed that big differences exist between the parties. I know that if things stay as they are, perhaps in eight
61

days' time David Cameron, perhaps supported by Nick Clegg, would be in office. But I have the duty of telling you this evening that while we have policies for the future, the Conservatives would put the recovery immediately at risk with an emergency Budget. I believe that hes planning to cut the schools budget and it hasnt denial yet. I believe also that John Teskot will be cut by both parties if they came into a coalition. I believe too, that pleasing will be at risk from a conservative government, because they have not set that they would match us on pleasing either. No, I dont like having to do this, but Im gonna tell you that things are too important to be left to risky policies under this two people. They are not ready for government because they are not sort through the policies. We are desperate to get this country through the recession and into the recovery, and that is why I intend to continue to do, but is apt to the people to decide, and is your decision.

62