Stance-taking in Iranian presidential debates: Social practices and cultural frames

Abstract

The current study examines stance-taking in televised electoral debates while seeking to provide an account of how patterns of stance are conveyed in the discourse studied. To this end, the 2009 televised Iranian presidential campaign debates (more specifically, those involving the ultimately victorious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) are analysed in terms of the use made of evaluative language. In attending to the use of evaluative language in these debates, specifically Ahmadinejad’s use of evaluative language, the study provides findings around the presentation of self in televised political debates and how such a “presentation” is conditioned by the socio-cultural context. The thesis presents findings as to the stances Ahmadinejad adopts in these debates by way of reaching some broad conclusions as to how patterns in this stance-taking may be interpreted in terms of a particular political “presentation of self”. These findings relate to the nature of the Attitude resources Ahmadinejad typically adopts and how he negotiates these with his interlocutors. Associated with the broader conclusions regarding patterns in Ahmadinejad’s stance-taking are some more specific findings related to the mechanisms by which evaluations are conveyed. These are as follows: a) The analysis revealed that in the Iranian political context, certain context-specific assertions, which do not by themselves explicitly pass positive or negative charge, have the potential to activate attitudinal assessment through intertextual processes which can act as such to cultural insiders, b) As stance also deals with positioning oneself or one’s perspective vis-à-vis others’ perspective, the findings indicate that Ahmadinejad tended to marginalize contesting positions and foreground his own mainly through dismissing, challenging or ruling out other voices. This aspect of Ahmadinejad’s discourse along with the previous one (a) might be connected with the reported perception of him as a “populist” politician, and c) The results of this study also indicate that Ahmadinejad came across mainly as an attacker in neck-and-neck competitions with more attacks on the opponents’ character; while, in less fierce competitions, he tended to be an acclaimer or a defender with more evaluations of his opponents’ and his own policy proposals. The findings of this study have relevance for different disciplines ranging from linguistics to political communications and rhetoric.