Govorni činovi kao primer manipulatorne moći u govoru Aleksandra Vučića

Abstract

Rad proučava manipulatornu moć koju jezik može imati u političkom diskursu, odnosno u političkom govoru. Prema klasifikaciji Mišić Ilić i Radulović (2015), a koja se zasniva na kombinovanju teorija Ostina (1962) i Serla (2001), proučavani su komisivi i ekspresivi u govoru Aleksandra Vučića održanog u Kosovskoj Mitrovici 9. 9. 2018. godine. Cilj rada je da prikaže moć jezika da manipuliše slušaocem, strateškom upotrebom navedenih govornih činova, koja bi ilustrovala jedno ideološko kontrastiranje: prikrivanje negativnih strana govornika, kao i njegove lične odgovornosti, a isticanje pozitivnih aspekata svega za šta se govornik zalaže. Govorni činovi su klasifikovani po svojim eksplicitnim i implicitnim formama. Rezultati pokazuju da se češće upotrebljavaju implicitne forme, a one ujedno ilustruju postupak distanciranja govornika od direktnog preuzimanja odgovornosti za akcije na koje se obavezuje. Eksplicitne forme se pak mogu tumačiti tek u širem kontekstu izričaja, u kome se govornik obavezuje na nedovoljno konkretno delovanje.

The paper studies the manipulative power of language in political discourse, more precisely, in political speech. According to the classification of Mišić Ilić and Radulović (2015), which is based on the combination of Austin (1962) and Searle’s (2001) theories, commissives and expressives were studied in a speech given by Aleksandar Vučić, held in Kosovska Mitrovica on September 9, 2018. The aim of the paper is to show the power of language to manipulate the listener, through the strategic use of these two speech acts, which would illustrate an ideological contrast: concealing the speaker’s flaws, as well as their personal responsibility and involvement, while emphasizing the positive aspects of everything the speaker stands for. Speech acts are classified according to their explicit and implicit forms. The results show that implicit forms are more dominant, and at the same time they illustrate how the speaker dissociates from directly taking responsibility for the actions he commits to. Explicit forms, on the other hand, can only be interpreted in the wider context of the utterance, in which the speaker commits to taking insufficiently concrete action.