Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Knowing, Unknowing or Believing? Epistemic Stance in Donald Tusk’s Testimony in the Trial on the Polish Air Force Tu-154 Air Crash

100%

Szczyrbak M.

Studies in Polish Linguistics

|

2018

|

tom 13

|

nr 4

209-236

PL

Artykuł przedstawia wyniki analizy strategii epistemicznych stosowanych przez świadka podczas przesłuchania związanego z katastrofą smoleńską. W analizie wykorzystano model KUB (Bongelli and Zuczkowski 2008) zakładający istnienie trzech stanowisk epistemicznych: Wiedzy (Knowing), Niewiedzy (Unknowing) i Przekonania (Believing). Głównym celem badania była identyfikacja środków językowych, za pomocą których świadek, były premier Polski Donald Tusk, komunikuje swoją wiedzę (pewność), niewiedzę (ani pewność, ani niepewność) oraz przekonanie (niepewność). Stwierdzono, że odnosząc się do okoliczności katastrofy, były premier Polski najchętniej komunikuje niewiedzę i przekonanie. Osądy, które można zaklasyfikować jako deklarację posiadania wiedzy (pewność), dotyczą z kolei głównie kwestii administracyjnych niezwiązanych bezpośrednio z katastrofą. Ustalono ponadto, że w zeznaniach świadka formy ‘wiem’ i ‘nie wiem’ występują dość rzadko. Preferowaną strategią okazały się natomiast odwołania do braku lub niepełnej pamięci (np. ‘to, co mam w pamięci’), które sygnalizowały, odpowiednio, brak wiedzy (niewiedzę) lub ograniczoną wiedzę (przekonanie). W analizowanym materiale zauważono także częste współwystępowania znaczników ‘wiedzy,’ ‘niewiedzy’ oraz ‘przekonania,’ obniżające ogólny poziom pewności komunikowany przez świadka. Reasumując, badanie pozwoliło na identyfikację strategii, za pomocą których w swoim zeznaniu były premier Polski zręcznie unikał udzielania jednoznacznych odpowiedzi oraz komunikował niski poziom pewności.

EN

This article reports on a study into epistemic strategies used in the trial on the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 air crash which took the lives of many high-ranking Polish officials including the President of Poland. It follows the KUB model proposed by Bongelli and Zuczkowski (2008), in which three epistemic stances are distinguished: Knowing, Unknowing and Believing. Taking into account the political context of the trial, the study focuses on the ways in which the witness, Poland’s former Prime Minister Donald Tusk, communicates his knowledge (certainty), unknowledge (neither certainty nor uncertainty) and belief (uncertainty). As the data reveal, when referring to the circumstances of the crash itself, the witness most willingly communicates unknowledge and belief while his declarations of certitude (knowledge) concern mostly procedural matters which are not directly related to the crash. As regards the explicit marking of (un)knowledge with the verb wiedzieć (‘know’), both wiem (‘I know’) and nie wiem (‘I don’t know’) are used rather sparingly. By contrast, phrases including references to the witness’s memory (e.g. to, co mam w pamięci [‘what I can remember’]) – marking either unknowledge or limited/uncertain knowledge (belief) – resurface as the witness’s preferred strategy. The data also demonstrate frequent co-occurrences of ‘knowing,’ ‘unknowing’ and ‘believing’ markers, reducing the overall degree of certainty communicated by the speaker. In sum, the study reveals how Poland’s former Prime Minister skillfully avoids unequivocal or categorical answersand conveys a low degree of certainty in his testimony.

2

Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions

100%

Szczyrbak M.

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis

|

2014

|

tom 131

|

nr 1

PL

Intended as a study of stancetaking patterns in judicial opinions, this article aims at contributing to stance-related investigations of specialist discourse. For this purpose, it builds on the work of stance researchers and interactional linguists as well as attempts to apply their concepts in an examination of written data. In particular, the analysis is informed by Du Bois’s interactional concept of stance and the two related notions of epistemicity and evidentiality. It also follows Chilton’s discourse space theory in what is proposed as a stance analysis framework intended to aid researchers in categorising individual stance acts. The study draws on data from a theme-focused corpus of US Supreme Court opinions dealing with capital punishment.

3

Pragmatic marker use in police interviews: The case of I mean and you know (Part 1)

100%

Szczyrbak M.

|

PL

Drawing on interactional approaches to comment clauses (Stenström 1994; Povolná 2010), the paper reveals the discourse functions of I mean (Part 1) and you know (Part 2) in the context of police interviews. More specifically, taking into account the socio-pragmatic setting of police-suspect interaction, it highlights the context-dependence and the multifunctionality of these markers based on data from two police interview transcripts. Thus, following the spirit of the study by Fox Tree and Schrock (2002), Part 1 of the analysis demonstrates that while the primary role of I mean is that of “forewarning upcoming adjustments” (Schiffrin 1987), the marker performs interpersonal, turn management, repairing, monitoring and organizing functions. This being the case, the study examines the potential of I meanm to modify the ongoing interaction and stresses its contribution to the coherence of the interviewees’ narratives. Attention is also drawn to the syntactic environment in which I mean occurs as well as to listener responses to I mean and I mean-introduced ideas. Finally, the discussion touches upon the issue of power relations and shows the role which I mean plays in the linguistic manifestation of power in an institutional setting.

4

PRAGMATIC MARKER USE IN POLICE INTERVIEWS: THE CASE OF I MEAN AND YOU KNOW (PART 2)

100%

Szczyrbak M.

|

nr 4

PL

Intended as a follow-up to Part 1 of the study focusing on the use of I mean in police interview data, Part 2 of the analysis offers insight into the recruitment of the related marker you know by the interviewers and the interviewees, respectively. In particular, acknowledging that the primary function of you know is that of “inviting addressee inferences” (Jucker, Smith 1998) and in agreement with the categorisation of functions proposed by Fox Tree and Schrock (2002), the paper reveals how you know is deployed for interpersonal, turn management, repairing, monitoring and organising purposes. To this end, it focuses on the syntactic behaviour of you know and examines the patterns of use linked to individual interview participants. What is more, given the potential of you know to invite addressee feedback, the analysis also looks at listener responses to you know and you know-introduced ideas, revealing at the same time the linguistic coding of power asymmetry in institutional interaction. In sum, Part 1 and Part 2 of the study highlight the subjective and intersubjective meanings conveyed by the markers I mean and you know in police interviews and draw attention to the contribution that pragmatic marker research can make to court and police interpreting practice.

5

Responding to Omicron: Speaker Commitment and Legitimisation in COVID-related Press Conferences

63%

Szczyrbak M. , Tereszkiewicz A.

Studies in Polish Linguistics

|

2023

|

tom 18

|

nr 1

25-54

EN

This paper examines the ways in which New Zealand and Polish government officials communicated the easing of COVID restrictions to the general public. The study aimed to identify legitimising strategies used to justify the lifting of restrictions and related measures, and to establish how agency and responsibility were discursively constructed in the subgenre of political press conference in two different socio-political settings. Informed by the notions of legitimisation (Chilton 2004), speaker commitment and stance (Marín Arrese 2011, 2015, 2021), the research looked into the linguistic marking of effective stance (deonticity, assessments, attitudinals and directives) and epistemic stance (epistemic modality, truth-factual validity as well as experiential, cognitive and communicative stance), considering both the subjectivity/intersubjectivity dimension and the explicitness/implicitness of the speaker’s role. In addition, the study considered the key discursive strategies used to (de)construct agency in the discourses of NZ and Polish policymakers seen as proponents of divergent public health policies. As the findings indicate, the Polish officials conveyed chiefly experiential stance and projected less involvement, whereas the NZ Prime Minister favoured cognitive stance and deonticity as well as direct appeals to the audience. The analysis shows that the speaker’s (dis)identification with the respective policy finds reflection in the varying degrees of speaker commitment and the (de)construction of agency.

6

Leadership and expressivity: The interplay of speech and gesture in Andrzej Duda’s anti-war rhetoric

51%

Szczyrbak M. , Tereszkiewicz A. , Ushchyna V.

|

nr 2

131-151

PL

Praca omawia związek przywództwa z ekspresywnością na przykładzie wystąpienia Prezydenta RP wygłoszonego w ukraińskim parlamencie 22 maja 2022 r. Badanie czerpie z dotychczasowych ustaleń dotyczących ekspresywności oraz przywództwa dyskursywnego, a także badań nad zachowaniami niewerbalnymi polityków. W pracy zwrócono uwagę na rolę gestów towarzyszących mowie w wyrażaniu emocji i wartościowań, a także na ich udział w budowaniu publicznego wizerunku oraz tożsamości mówcy. Analiza ekspresywności Prezydenta RP, przeprowadzona zgodnie z założeniami Bednarek (2011) na poziomie mikro, mezo i makro, pozwoliła na identyfikację szeregu zasobów językowych i niewerbalnych, za pomocą których Andrzej Duda komunikuje emocje oraz buduje intensywność actio, podkreślając swoje zaangażowanie i pozytywność przekazu. W analizie wskazano ponadto na związek między ekspresją językową i gestyczną a zachowaniami przywódczymi, wyjaśniając, w jaki sposób budowanie relacji z odbiorcą oraz kreślenie wizji mogą poruszać emocje odbiorców i mobilizować ich do działania w dobie wojny i niepewności.

EN

The paper discusses the relationship between leadership and expressivity as exemplified by the Polish President's address to the Ukrainian Parliament delivered on 22 May 2022. The study draws on existing understandings of expressivity and discursive leadership as well as previous studies on gesture in political rhetoric. Co-speech gestures are discussed as an interactional resource linked to emotion and evaluation, and as an inseparable part of the speaker’s public persona and identity. Following Bednarek (2011), the analysis considers the president’s expressivity at the micro-, meso- and macro-level, and it identifies a range of linguistic and gestural resources with which Andrzej Duda constructs a positive involved style while “communicating emotion” and “doing intensity.” The analysis also links the president’s linguistic expression of ardour and gestural behaviour to leadership capabilities, explaining how “relating to the audience” and “visioning” can stir and mobilise the audience in times of war and uncertainty.