Lawrence Norman Berlin
@eafit.edu.co
Idiomas
Universidad EAFIT
Scopus Publications
Scholar Citations
Scholar h-index
Scholar i10-index
Scopus Publications
Lawrence N. Berlin
Springer International Publishing
Lawrence N. Berlin and Alejandra Prieto-Mendoza
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Abstract In politics, one area where both incumbents and challengers can be seen exhibiting similar verbal behavior is during debates. In their attempts to depict an opponent as unqualified for the job, politicians must respond to claims they make against their opponents by providing evidence through the means of first- or secondhand knowledge about the claim; the encoding of this evidence and the degree to which they distance themselves from that knowledge is known as evidentiality. This paper explores evidentiality as exhibited by politicians in the 2010 US Midterm Congressional Elections debates. Starting with Chafe's (1986) work on evidential analysis, the features investigated are observed through the lens of critical discourse analysis using the Multilayered Model of Context (Berlin 2007, 2011). Evidential markers (i.e., evidentials) were coded for type and analyzed in their pragmatic functions. Findings suggest that politicians, as a group, tend to use those forms of evidentials that attenuate claims less frequently while they tend to use those forms that boost claims more frequently. Furthermore, face-to-face debates inhibit the use of more reliable evidential encoding as politicians being verbally attacked are available to counter opponents' claims and the attackers are called on to respond to their accusations.
Lawrence N. Berlin
Routledge
Contents: S. Nieto, Foreword. Preface. What Is the Nature of Process Over Product? Is a New Definition of Effective Instruction Necessary? What Are the Factors That Can Affect Second Language Acquisition? What Do Teachers Believe About Effective Language Instruction? What Do Students Believe About Effective Language Instruction? What Makes Pedagogy Effective? (The Pedagogical Function) How Do Teachers and Students Relate in the Classroom? (The Environmental Function) What Does Instruction Mean for Students? (The Societal Function) A Brief Review. (The Effective Instruction Model) How Can Effective Praxis Be Adapted to Various Contexts? (The Application Model)
Lawrence N. Berlin
Elsevier BV
Abstract This article examines forms of redundancy within the testimony of Dr. Condoleeza Rice, former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, during the 9/11 Commission Hearings ( 9/11 Commission ; NCTA, 2004 ). Using a critical discourse analysis ( Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999 , Fairclough, 1995 , Fairclough, 1998 ) to investigate redundancy—facilitative and non-facilitative—as a potentially evasive pragmatic device in political discourse, I then turn to focus on markers of belief ( Chafe, 1986 ) as possible indicators of non-facilitative redundancy. Consequently, strategies for identifying evasive language under interrogation are suggested. In essence, by not giving direct answers, the examples underscore the creative and powerful crafting of political discourse by skilled speakers to assuage the appearance of culpability in actions or inactions which could prove politically damaging while providing “appropriate” responses ( Berlin, 2007 , Harris, 1991 , Janney, 2002 ) within the context of an investigative hearing.
I. Nasser, L. N. Berlin, and S. Wong
Multilingual Matters
Lawrence N. Berlin
SAGE Publications
At the crossroads of political and forensic linguistics, the notion of commitment presents a rich area for investigation into language use. An analysis of the discourse delivered by a high-level political official during testimony at the 9-11 Commission Hearings reveals three types of commitment: (a) commitment to a course of action, (b) commitment to an assertion, and (c) commitment to truth value. Within these three types, the juxtaposition of the common expression I think in terms of both evidential and non-evidential use is examined to determine whether it functions as a pragmatic trigger for the degree of commitment expressed by the speaker and, concomitantly, as an attempt on the part of the speaker to manipulate the perceptions of the hearers and overhearers to achieve specific intentions.
Shelley Wong, Lawrence Berlin, and Ilham Nasser
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
In November 2007, a unique conference was held at Al-Quds University in Abu Dis, East Jerusalem, Palestine. ‘‘Dialogue Under Occupation (DUO II)’’, a follow up to a conference of the same name held 1 year earlier in Chicago. The starting point for DUO was that scholars and professionals in applied linguistics and related fields might come together to present, discuss, and dialogue in areas of the world experiencing occupation. ‘‘Dialogue’’ is intended in the sense that understanding of differing perspectives comes through dialogue and, as scholars of language, public policy, education, language policy and communications, we came together to examine language in use from its diachronic and synchronic influences on areas of conflict. One of the challenges to understanding current language policy and planning implications of political occupation in Palestine is to uncover the historical developments and shifts in processes and policies of over 40 years of occupation (Fernea and Hocking 1992).