Email this article Discursive construction of ethos-based framework for public identity. Investigative congressional hearings
Abstract
The construction of ethos-based self-representation in public discourse is particularly evident when it comes to politicians and corporate leaders who, in their public prominent role, may need to convince their audience they behave and have behaved ethically. This seems to be even more evident in case of suspicion of wrongdoing, which is typically the reason why investigative congressional hearings are conducted. The hearings can give researchers the possibility to discover whom the Congress is listening to, who the players are and how they position themselves in a debate. However – to the author’s knowledge – the subject has not been of much scrutiny on the part of discourse scholars, an attitude somehow contrasting with lay public’s general interests and a missed opportunity to shed light on the actors and the issues. It is the scope of the present study to analyse discursive strategies aimed to construct ethos-based framework for public identity in the opening statements of investigative hearings. The strategies are expected to be displayed both by politicians facing a controversial topic and by highly influential company CEOs whose companies have been under public scrutiny for suspected unethical behaviour. The methodological framework adopted in the study makes synergic use of discourse analytical perspective combined with the traditional definition of text types by Egon Werlich, and especially argumentative type. It is believed that by discourse analysis readers can become aware of linguistic choices and the arguments that they imply – i.e. the way writers put forth a standpoint and defend it in opposition to its contrary. In this case, it is the witnesses’ portrait as ethical persona which is questioned and needs to be asserted.
References
Ansolabehere S., Iyengar S., Simon A. and Valentino N. 1994, Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? in “The American Political Science Review” 88 [4], pp. 829-838.
Bhatia V.K. 2008, Towards Critical Genre Analysis, in Bhatia V.K., Flowerdew J. and Jones R. (eds.), Advances in Discourse Studies, Routledge, London/ New York, pp. 15-28.
Bednarek M. 2009, Corpora and Discourse: A Three-pronged Approach to Analysing Linguistic Data, in Haugh M., Burrige K., Mulder J. and Peters P. (eds), Selected Procedings of the 2008 HCSNet Workshop on Designing the Australian National Corpus, Cascadilla Proceeedings Project, Somerville (MA), pp. 55-78.
Cap P. and Okulska, U. 2013, Analyzing Genres in Political Communication. Theory and Practice, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Carr T.P. 2006, Hearings in the House of Representatives: A Guide for Preparation and Procedure, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/ metadc824733/ (20.7.2017).
Charteris-Black J. 2004, Critical Metaphor Analysis, in Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 243-253.
Charteris-Black J. 2013, Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor, Pelgrave, London.
Chilton P. A. 2004, Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, Routledge, London/New York.
Chilton P. A. and Schaffner C. 2002, Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse, in Chilton P. and Schaffner C. (eds.), Politics as Text and talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 1-41.
Diermeier D. and Feddersen, T. J. 2000, Information and Congressional Hearings, in “American Journal of Political Science” 44 [1], pp. 51-65.
De Gregorio C. 1992, Leadership Approaches in Congressional Committee Hearings, in “The Western Political Quarterly” 45 [4], pp. 971-983.
Fairclough N. 2006, Genres in Political Discourse, in Brown K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 32-38.
Giglioni C. 2017, Congressional Hearings as Privileged Loci to Display Rhetorical Strategies: Hillary Clinton on Benghazi, in Garzone G., Catenaccio P., Grego K. and Doerr R. (eds.), Specialized andPprofessional Discourse across Media and Genres, Ledizioni, Milan, pp. 161-175.
Goffman E. 1956, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Doubleday, New York.
Government Publishing Office 2003, Our American Government, Washington.
Grimi Elisa (ed.) 2019, Virtue Ethics: Retrospect and Prospect, Springer International Publishing, New York.
Gross A. and Stärke-Meyerring, D. 1999. Medical Advice Editorials: Transferring Medical Science into Clinical Practice in “Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine” 134, pp. 185-189.
Harp D., Loke J. and Bachmann I., 2016, Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Hearing Coverage: Political Competence, Authenticity, and the Persistence of the Double Bind, in “Women’s Studies in Communication” 39 [2], pp. 193-210.
Hearit K.M. 2006, Crisis Management by Apology. Corporate Response to Allegations of Wrongdoing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah (NJ).
Heitshusen V. 2015, Types of Committee Hearings, Government Publishing Office, Washington.
Lischinky A. 2011, In times of Crisis: a Corpus Approach to the Contruction of the Global Financial Crisis in Annual Reports, in “Critical Discourse Studies” 8 [3], pp. 153-168.
Müller P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. and Rainer, F. 2015, Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 1, Walterde Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.
Jones P. E. and Collins C. 2006, Political Analysis Vs. Critical Discourse Analysis in the Treatment of Ideology: Some Implications for the Study of Communication, in “Atlantic Journal of Communication” 14 [1-2], pp. 28-50.
Park D. B. 1982, The Meaning of Audience, in “College English” 44 [3], pp. 247-257.
Porter J. E. 1996, Audience, in Enos T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition: Communication from ancient times to the information age, Garland Publishing, London/ New York, pp. 42-49.
Sachs R.C. 2004, Hearings in the U.S. Senate: A Guide for Preparation and Procedure, https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc824537/m2/1/high_res_d/RL30548_2004Jul19.pdf (9.20.17).
Scott M. 2012. WordSmith Tools. Version 6, Lexical Ana¬lysis Software, Liverpool.
Sevetson A. n.d., Hearings and the LexisNexis®Congressional Hearings Digital Collection, https://www.lexisnexis.com (9.25.17).
Swales J. 1990, Genre Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Swales J.M. 2004, Research Genres: Explorations and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
U.S. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Collapse of Enron Corporation, (CGHR 107-1141; Date 26 February 2002). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
U.S. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce, BP’s Pipeline Spills at Prudhoe Bay: What Went Wrong? (CGHR 109-135; Date: 7 September 2006). https://www.govinfo.gov/(10.03.2019).
U.S. House. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast Oil Spill, (CGHR 111-122; Date 12 May 2010). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
U.S. House. Committee on Foreign Relations, Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s view, (CGHR 113-11; Date 23 January 2013). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
U.S. House. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S: Tax Code - Part 2, (CGHR 113-90; Date 21 May 2013). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
U.S. House. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Reviewing the Rising Price of Epipen (CGHR 9-135; Date: 21 September 2016). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
U.S. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce, Transparency and Use of Consumer Data, (CGHR 115-114; Date 11 April 2018). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
U.S. House. Committee on Intelligence, Foreign Influence Operations’ Use of Social Media Platform, (CGHR 115-460; Date 5 September 2018). https://www.govinfo.gov/ (10.03 2019).
Van Eemeren F. H. and Grootendorst R. 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectial Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ware B.L. and Linkugel Wil A., 1973, They Spoke in Defence of Themselves: On the Generic Criticism of Apologia, in “Quarterly Journal of Speech” 59, pp. 273-283.
Werlich E. 1976, A Text Grammar of English, Quelle & Meyer, Wiebelsheim.
Full Text: pdf
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
