linguistic creativity secondary orality and political discourse

Linguistic Creativity, Secondary Orality, and Political Discourse:The Modern Greek Myth of the "Eloquent Orator"

Villy Tsakona

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Volume 27, Number 1, May 2009,pp. 81-106 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/mgs.0.0053

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Fairfield University at 10/24/12 1:00AM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v027/27.1.tsakona.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mgs/summary/v027/27.1.tsakona.html

Journal of Modern Greek Studies 27 (2009) 81–106 © 2009 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

81

Linguistic Creativity, Secondary Orality, and Political Discourse:

The Modern Greek Myth of the “Eloquent Orator”

Villy Tsakona

Abstract

The use of tropes is one of the most striking features of Greek political discourse. Such creative linguistic resources are not used merely to “decorate” political speeches and render them more appealing to the audience, but, most importantly, to criticize the opponent(s) and project certain aspects of political identity. While such resources are employed in the recitation of politicians’ written texts and indicate the “conversationalization” of political communication, they also seem to be important criteria for the evaluation of Greek politicians. Given that oral practices are more highly valued than literal ones in Greek culture, while at the same time school education has accorded “literary” value to linguistic creativity, Greek citizens tend to focus on creative features in assessing the political skills of public orators, thus contributing to the modern Greek myth of the “eloquent orator” as the most competent politician.

Introduction

The use of tropes in political communication is one of the most discussed issues in the study of rhetoric since Aristotle. Tropes are considered the sine qua non of political discourse, aimed at both attracting audience attention and persuading. Furthermore, such features have often been thought of as indicating the “charismatic” quality of “skillful” orators and politicians, who are able to enchant their audiences with their linguistic creativity. However, most research on tropes does not take into account the cultural and political context and the widespread views in!uencing the reception and interpretation of such creative resources. In Greek culture, in particular, it seems that politicians are often (positively or negatively) evaluated on the basis of their skillful use of tropes rather than on their political decisions and acts.

82 Villy Tsakona

Based on a set of data, including parliamentary speeches deliv-ered by the Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis and leader of the opposition George Papandreou, the following questions are addressed to illuminate the use of creative language in Greek political discourse:

1) How do various creative means interact in Greek political dis-course to encode the messages politicians wish to deliver and serve their effort to project speci"c identities?

2) How do the Greek political system and certain widely held views and stereotypes in!uence citizens’ perceptions of politicians’ creativity? In particular, how does Greek education shape the criteria for the evaluation of politicians and thus reinforce the modern Greek myth of the “eloquent orator” as the most com-petent politician?

3) What can this kind of analysis tell us about the prevailing interac-tive practices in Greek culture? More speci"cally, does it indicate a weak or strong attachment to orality?

To this end, a de"nition of linguistic creativity and a brief summary of the main points discussed in the literature on the use and function of creative language in political communication are provided. Then, it is argued that linguistic creativity contributes to the “conversationalization” of political discourse, especially in political cultures dominated by second-ary orality. The Greek context, namely the particularities of the Greek parliamentary system and the widely held beliefs and stereotypes regard-ing the characteristics of the “competent” politician, are also discussed to provide the political and cultural information deemed necessary for the purposes of the present analysis. In the analysis section, after a brief presentation of the data, it is shown that linguistic creativity is strategi-cally employed by politicians in their efforts to criticize their opponents and construct positive or negative identities. The results of the analysis are presented in the "nal section, where an interpretation is proposed, based, on the one hand, on the extensive use of creative resources in political discourse and, on the other, on the Greek political and wider cultural environment where politicians address the public. Finally, some suggestions for further research are offered at the end.

Linguistic creativity

Creativity is a concept used differently in different settings, thus notori-ously hard to de"ne. Recent approaches to creativity as a cultural phe-nomenon view it as a human activity which involves recombining different

83The Modern Greek Myth of the “Eloquent Orator”

aspects of tradition and knowledge and moving beyond existing horizons and limits to produce new forms and meanings (see, among others, Negus and Pickering 2004; Pennycook 2007). Although creativity shares some connotations with innovation and originality and has often been con-sidered to be a product of the imagination of a “charismatic” individual (e.g., an artist or orator), it is pointed out that creative practices and products are always born out of a constant dialogue with already existing themes, codes, and conventions within a speci"c culture. Creativity is, therefore, socially and culturally constituted and based on the adapta-tion and transformation of themes and codes already in circulation, in order to challenge existing rules.

Linguistic creativity has been equally hard to de"ne, but recent approaches tend to agree on its basic features. Creativity does not char-acterize the speech produced by a “creative genius” or a “charismatic individual,” but is co-constructed through interaction by “ordinary” inter-locutors, thus constituting a collective cultural and social product (Carter 2004; Goodman and O’Halloran 2006; Maybin and Swann 2006, 2007; Swann and Maybin 2007). In other words, creativity is a casual linguistic phenomenon common in everyday encounters and potentially shared by all speakers, regardless of their cultural, social, linguistic, educational, or other background. Given that creative language has traditionally been considered to be a characteristic of literary genres produced by “skillful,” “creative” individuals, an interesting reversal reveals itself: linguistic cre-ativity must have been pervasive in everyday interaction before becoming a de"ning feature of literary genres.

In this context, Ronald Carter identi"es two main creative processes: “pattern forming” and “pattern re-forming” (2004). Pattern forming includes the use of existing linguistic resources to create speci"c effects, such as repetition, parallelism, alliteration, and rhyme, all of which contribute to establishing rhythmic patterns in discourse, especially in contexts where such patterns are not expected to appear. Pattern re-forming involves punning, neologisms, hyperbole, metaphor, idioms, proverbs, and their “distorted” versions. Such linguistic uses bend existing rules and conventions, thus resulting in uncommon, “deviating” ways of conceptualizing and representing reality (see also Maybin and Pearce 2006). In both cases, speakers use existing linguistic resources in new combinations in order to produce new meanings.

The structuralist approach to the function of creative language tended to view such features as deviating from the linguistic norm and as mere “ornamentation” of discourse. Roman Jakobson included all the linguistic phenomena mentioned above in the much-quoted “poetic function” of language and considered them a means of drawing the

84 Villy Tsakona

recipient’s attention to the “language itself” and not to the message conveyed (1960). Most contemporary researchers view creativity as embed-ded in a variety of social practices and discourses that illustrate a wide range of cognitive functions and social/interactional purposes served by it (Carter 2004; Goodman and O’Halloran 2006; Maybin and Swann 2006, 2007). More speci"cally, creative elements are used to attract the attention of the audience to the information conveyed and involve them in the decoding of the message. At the same time, they help establish, maintain, and reinforce interpersonal relations by creating a pleasant atmosphere and aligning the participants. They also render interaction humorous and entertaining, and help participants construct their identi-ties by expressing their attitudes and indicating group membership. Thus, they reinforce in-group identity and bring shared evaluations and norms to the surface. In the latter case, creativity offers new perspectives on things, prompts thinking on what is said, and allows the adoption and expression of a critical stance towards reality (see also Norrick 2000–2001; Widdowson 2008).

Linguistic creativity in political discourse

As a result of the in!uence of classical rhetoric on contemporary politics, education, and culture in general, leadership in human society has been associated with superior eloquence, mastery of discourse, and the use of rhetorical tropes, such as metaphor, repetition, parallelism, and the like. Politicians are expected to demonstrate their political skills via their rhetorical ones, and to prove their “charismatic” nature via their verbal performance and use of creative linguistic skills (Flowerdew 2002:149; Chilton 2004:101, 107–109; Charteris-Black 2005:198). It seems that one of the most (if not the most) important functions of political discourse—persuasion—is not always achieved through the use of logical argument and the exchange of political ideas, but by employing creative linguistic means. It is not, therefore, accidental that political discourse analysis very often focuses on the use of creative linguistic resources.

First of all, metaphor is one of the most important (and most extensively discussed) characteristics of political communication used mainly to persuade, but also to create coherence in political texts. It contributes to the creation of common ground by appealing to a shared cultural frame, while at the same time, allowing for new and easy-to-grasp conceptualizations in the political "eld, which may eventually naturalize speci"c accounts of reality (see, among others, Kitis and Milapides 1997; Kyratzis 1997; Santa Ana 1999; Straehle et al. 1999; Beard 2000:19–27;


Chilton and Schäffner 2002:28–29; Chilton 2004:51–52; Charteris-Black 2005).

Hyperbole, repetition, parallelism, idioms, proverbs, humor, pun-ning, neologisms, alliteration, rhyme, and assonance all function as attention-getters and rhetorical strategies which do not appeal to reason, but to the emotions of the audience, while they are also used by politi-cians to construct a positive self-image as intimate, trustworthy friends or neighbors (see, among others, Sornig 1989; Flowerdew 2002; Whaley and Halloway 1997:294; Gadavanij 2002; Van der Valk 2003; Tsakona 2008a, 2008b, 2009). Especially by punning and “distorting” "xed expressions, politicians portray themselves as competent users of language, able to deconstruct language in sophisticated ways, and as possessing critical language awareness (Van Lint 1986; Elspass 2002).

In sum, creative linguistic features are widely considered to be part and parcel of political discourse and to serve a wide range of purposes therein, mostly as rhetorical strategies aimed at persuading the public and shaping public opinion. Politicians draw the attention of their audi-ences not only to what they say, but also to themselves, thus constructing their identities as eloquent and attractive speakers.

Creative language, the conversationalization of political discourse, and secondary orality

The presence of creative language in political discourse not only results from the rhetorical tradition and relevant practices originating in the (more or less distant) past, but also relates to the particularities of con-temporary political communication. In Western democracies, and via the transmission, reproduction, and often reframing of political discourse, electronic media have become the main arena for the expression, circula-tion, and discussion of political ideas (see, among others, Negrine and Lilleker 2002; Steiner et al. 2004; Fetzer and Lauerbach 2007).1 Hence, citizens have access to political speeches, debates, interviews, and other texts mostly as members of television and radio audience or as readers of newspapers or texts on the Internet (e.g., news websites, political forums, blogs, and websites of ministries and parliament). On the other hand, politicians seem always to bear in mind that they do not address solely their colleagues or the journalists with whom they interact, but also the “overhearing” wider audience (Beard 2000:29, 37; Chilton and Schäffner 2002:22; Flowerdew 2002:155, 175; Fetzer and Lauerbach 2007).

In fact, “symbiotic relations” have been developed between politi-cal discourse and the media, as Anita Fetzer and Elda Weizman put it

86 Villy Tsakona

in their account of the interdependence between the two (2006:143). As a result, political discourse is in constant interaction with informal, everyday conversation (Chilton and Schäffner 2002:7). In this context, politicians often tend to cross the boundaries of their of"cial roles, social statuses, and thus language, by switching toward a more informal and personalized style and by drawing on discourse resources which are not considered compatible with their social statuses. Celso Alvarez-Cáccamo and Gabriela Prego-Vásquez use the term “political cross-discourse” to describe the informal conversational resources and themes coming from local social networks in political discourse and oratory, such as metaphor, metonymy, humor, polyphonic, and dialectal speech (2003).2 Such resources are strategically employed by politicians in their attempt to promote a more personalized view of political affairs and to create the illusion of involvement with the audience. In a similar vein, Carter (2004:22–23) views the use of creative language in contexts other than informal interaction as a result of what Norman Fairclough de"nes as the “conversationalization” of public discourse (1995).

The consequences of this media and politics symbiosis can also be accounted for in terms of what Walter Ong calls “secondary orality” (1982:136–138). In his discussion of the transition from orality to literacy, Ong points out several differences between primarily oral and literate cultures. Among other things, primarily oral cultures develop a strong group sense by creating intimacy and a sense of community through face-to-face interaction, while literate ones encourage distance, isolation, and introspection. In primarily oral cultures, discourse is full of repetitions, formulaic expressions, rhythmic patterns, alliteration, etc., all of which facilitate retention and continuity, while written texts can be preserved for a long time and re-read at any time, hence there is no need for such mnemonic patterns and formulary devices. Furthermore, orality favors spontaneous and agonistic verbal performances; oral discourse is com-petitive and requires not only the active participation of the speakers, but also the involvement of the audience and the dynamic interaction between all parties involved. On the other hand, in literate cultures, there is considerable spatial and temporal distance between the writer and the reader, who thus become more objective and disengaged.

Secondary orality is simultaneously post-oral and post-literal; it is directly related to the emergence of electronic media (especially televi-sion) and involves the resources exploited by speakers to enact their carefully prepared and (often) meticulously rehearsed written texts. Thus, oral public speeches appear to be spontaneous, although they are usually read from a script. Intonation, body language, image semiotics, and linguistic resources such as rhythmic patterns, repetition, assonance,


alliteration, formulas, and proverbs, are the most common means of mitigating the distancing and isolating effects of reading (even aloud) a written text and of establishing a more audience-friendly, informal, and group-oriented context. Such resources also render discourse more attractive and memorable to the audience, which may be signi"cantly larger than the one in primary oral cultures, even though it is usually spatially and temporally separate. Given that politicians addressing a wide audience through the media tend to present themselves as “spontaneous” speakers, who are using the “language of common people” and interact like and with them, their modern political speeches eventually thrive on secondary orality practices (Sauer 2007).

Despite the central role of linguistic creativity in the enactment of political discourse, research has not as yet focused on how audiences de"ne and evaluate creative phenomena and, in particular, how wide-spread beliefs and stereotypes may in!uence their perception (Carter 2007:600). For instance, traditional views on creativity relating it to “skill-ful,” “charismatic” speakers or writers of literary genres may prevail, since such views are often promoted through education and the media. In other words, people have often been trained to consider linguistic features, such as those identi"ed here as creative, to be indicative of literary style and to assign positive value, both to this kind of discourse and to its producer(s). They may not always realize that the same features originate in their everyday interactions and later on become characteristics of liter-ary genres, thus acquiring positive social and cultural connotations and value. In Greek culture, at least, this difference in perspective seems to be crucial for the investigation of political discourse.

The Greek political and cultural context

In Greece, as in most Western democracies, political deliberation and confrontation take place in parliament or, more often, on television—in political debates, interviews, and panel discussions. Thus, the majority of citizens normally encounter politics on television or through other media such as the radio and the Internet. Furthermore, parliamentary speeches seem to be the most common political speeches broadcast on television.

One of the most important contextual parameters in!uencing parliamentary deliberation and debates is the institutional design of each parliament (Van der Valk 2003:316; Steiner et al. 2005). The Greek political system is competitive, unicameral, and parliamentary. There are no party coalitions; instead, the ruling party has the majority of votes, practically controls the legislative process, and can safely ignore the

88 Villy Tsakona

opposition, since there is no second chamber to object to or counter a bill approved of by the majority. This combination strengthens the competition between the government and the opposition (in recent years, usually the two major parties, the conservative Nea Dimokratia and the socialist PASOK), so the possibility that parliamentary debates may consist of argument is rather weak. The only power of veto in the Greek political system is with the President of the Republic who is empowered by the Greek Constitution to object to any law passed by the parliament, but this has never happened, at least not during the past three decades. Therefore, the Greek political system operates essentially without the threat of veto. Finally, the Greek parliament provides free access to its proceedings via an of"cial website and citizens are allowed to attend most full sessions, the most popular of which are broadcast on television and/or the radio. Moreover, the Greek parliament has its own television channel for publicizing its work.

Given all this, one can assume that the main interest of Greek politicians is not to provide political and legal arguments on the issues discussed; rather, they address a wider audience using a familiar (i.e., everyday and conversational) mode in order to attract the attention of the public and persuade them that their policies are right, that their criticisms are justi"ed, and that they have something better to propose than their opponents. Politicians do not wish to project their work and policies, but rather themselves, as friendly and trustworthy persons, work-ing hard for the public bene"t, using the “language of common people” and, ultimately, understanding the public’s desires and needs. Hence, political issues are not actually discussed in detail; through the use of creative language, the political orientation and goals of political parties are vaguely described and not thoroughly presented and accounted for in argumentative terms. Creativity becomes a vehicle of argumentation (Tsakona 2008a, 2008b).

Research on Greek political communication further supports these suggestions. Aikaterini Bakakou-Orfanou argues that the discourse produced by Greek parliamentarians exhibits both formal and informal qualities; they employ political terminology and register in an attempt to construct their identities as experts in political issues and to reveal their political ideology and orientation, while, at the same time, they resort to everyday vocabulary and collocations (such as idioms and metaphors) to enhance the involvement of their audiences (2008). In a similar vein, Katerina Frantzi and Marianthi Georgalidou, in their investigation of the linguistic characteristics of the personal lea!ets Greek political candidates produce and distribute to attract potential voters in munici-pal and prefectural elections, argue that informal language is among


the most common strategies employed by candidates to eliminate the distance between themselves and voters and to project their image as persons who are “one of us” (2007). References to, and the discussion of, serious political issues are not on their agenda, at least not while they promote themselves before elections. Not surprisingly, even in political debates on television, where politicians are expected to focus on how to appear “more ef"cient and reliable” than their co-present adversary, Greek politicians pay particular attention to the linguistic means (e.g., pronouns) that will help them establish a strong and positive relation-ship with the wider audience (Oikonomou 1999).

The particularities of Greek political communication can also be accounted for in terms of the “con!ict between orality and literacy” in Greek culture during the last two centuries (Tziovas 2001:119). Greek culture appears to be a verbomotor one, where orality and respective practices are dominant and more highly valued than literate ones (Ong 1982:68–69). Dimitris Tziovas points out that Greek shows a clear preference (and scholarly interest) for oral (literary) genres, such as poetry, demotic songs, folk-tales, and proverbs, while written and/or prosaic genres are not considered as “congruent with Greekness” and “authentic” as oral ones (2001). Remnants of the oral life-style, such as repetition, memorization, and devotion to tradition, are among the most prominent features of Greek intellectual activity. This phonocentrism of Greek culture is directly related to the extroverted nature of Greeks and is also manifested in a variety of everyday activities: Greeks prefer the telephone to any means of written communication, they organize open-air political rallies in public places rather than political rallies in con"ned interior spaces, they engage in bargaining, they argue and dis-agree to show involvement and solidarity, they produce oral narratives to recount their everyday experiences, etc. (see also Tannen and Kakava 1992; Georgakopoulou 1997, 2001; Koutsantoni 2005).

From the Greek audience perspective, it seems that linguistic cre-ativity has traditionally been thought of as a means of discourse orna-mentation highlighting the literary skills of a writer/speaker and, most importantly in the present case, the rhetorical and political skills of a politician. The strong interconnection between language and literature in primary and secondary school education and (until very recently) the marked preference for literary genres in Greek textbooks have reinforced the widespread view that tropes and creative resources in general are a de"ning and exclusive characteristic of literary texts. Thus, literary texts were the most appropriate (hence, the only) material to be used for language-teaching purposes. As a result, Greek citizens have learned during their school years to evaluate such devices as literary and to value

90 Villy Tsakona

them accordingly. This view is still pervasive and very possibly shapes the audience’s assessment of the language used by politicians, even though it is in sharp contrast to modern approaches which suggest that linguistic creativity is very common in everyday interactions and shared by all speakers.

In a similar vein, but from an anthropological perspective, Renée Hirschon suggests that the high value assigned to language skills by Greeks may also be related to the fact that “the tradition of rhetoric, a classical Greek pursuit, has an unacknowledged currency throughout contemporary Greece, in rural and urban groups, both in everyday and in more formalized contexts.” Therefore, in Greek culture, “language skill can be seen as a matter of pride in itself, in some way, as an art form,” meaning that “the skilful use of language and oratory is an appreciated quality” (2001:36).

In this context, politicians are very often positively evaluated for their “exceptional” linguistic skills, while their political decisions and acts are relegated to a secondary position. This modern myth of the signi"cance of the “competent and eloquent orator” manifests itself in the (often extreme) negative evaluation of politicians’ slips of the tongue or hesitations in public speeches. For instance, former Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis was often mocked both by those in the media (e.g., journalists and comedians) and citizens for his accidental linguistic mistakes, while the political skills of the present leader of the opposition, George Papandreou, were questioned from his early days as the president of the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK) because his oral performance in public contexts was deemed inadequate (cf. Elspass 2002:96–106). Hence, it could be suggested that the romantic ideal of the “charismatic individual,” whose originality and creativity go far beyond the average, survives in the form of the modern Greek stereotype of the “eloquent orator” as the most competent politician (cf. Negus and Pickering 2004:1–21).

Analysis of the data

It is expressly stated in the Rules of Order of the Greek Parliament that par-liamentarians are normally not allowed to read from a text (although there are some exceptions); they can only use notes (2008). In practice, however, this stipulation is more or less violated by the majority of Greek parliamentarians (especially those who go on the forum), who usually try to act out their written interventions and present themselves as “spontaneous” orators. In short, secondary orality is dominant in Greek parliamentary speeches.3


Parliamentary speeches are a good source for illuminating aspects of the use of language in political discourse. Particularly instructive are speeches delivered during the budget debates in December 2004, 2005, and 2006 by the leaders of the two major Greek political parties—Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis (from the conservative party, Nea Dimokratia) and the leader of the opposition, George Papandreou (of the socialist party, PASOK). These two speeches alone comprise 31,851 words4 and were chosen because the budget is one of the most impor-tant (if not the most important one) topics discussed at the full sitting of the Greek parliament, always attracting the attention of the media and a wider audience, since it presents in detail the way the govern-ment plans to handle "scal issues and "nancial resources in general. One might assume that these speeches are not suitable for exploring linguistic creativity, since budget debates focus on facts and "gures and are exclusively dedicated to "scal issues, yet this is not the case; both speakers frequently used creative linguistic means, while, at the same time, they referred to a variety of topics of public interest other than "nancial ones—e.g., foreign policy, internal policy, security, immigration, health system, education, agriculture, the reform of the Greek Constitution, and the elections for the President of Greek Republic. For a detailed discussion, see Villy Tsakona (2008a, 2008b).

Analysis of the data shows that, in their budget speeches, both Karamanlis and Papandreou aimed at achieving two main goals: criti-cism and identity construction. To this end, more often than not, they resorted to a variety of creative linguistic techniques, the synergy of which resulted in a clearly “literal” (in its popular, structuralist sense) style, one full of tropes.

Criticism. One of the most important aspects of the work politicians are expected to do is to criticize their opponents, both as individual political actors and as members of a political party. As far as individual attacks are concerned, the prime minister, other ministers, and party leaders are the most common targets of criticism, but this does not mean that parliamentarians do not attack each other. In the cases examined, both Karamanlis and Papandreou launched personal attacks in an attempt to discredit each another and delegitimize their respective policies. In the following example, the leader of the opposition attacks Karamanlis for his supposed failure to perform and deliver, not only as Prime Minister, but also as Minister of Culture:5

(1) !"!"#$%&'( )&*%)+',: -./01 -2/232456, 751849 :;38<=4>?@ A2@ 7?>0 B=; 8A9@ 42 CD1>1 E1D?A10: F>0 18A>1 720 (B=;/GH@ !"#$%$&'"(. )$* #*+,- .*/"$'0* #12$ 3%$ «%* /4&* 526 ,46"76 %"6 .*.4». -20 A’ 2;>64 >I4 B1/8B>9AI :2 B1/03C4231

92 Villy Tsakona

2BH C424 !/9:;B=;/GH B=; :C510 6* 7.8/2%-&2$ %"6 ."#$%$&'3, 6* %"6 7.8/2%-&2$ A>I4 B/?EI. -20 18420 A>0G3C@ B=; = B=50>0A3H@ 18420 24J>1/=@ >I@ =07=4=382@. -20 2;>6 18420 720 302 K2:0? B2/?L=AI >=; 9##86$&'"(, >94 9##-6:6.

; ."#$%$&'3< 206*$ I 255I51GG.I 31 >=4 M>9DH>1/= A>I4 7=049482 32@. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ I LI3=7/2>076 L02K=.51;AI. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ I 2E0=7/2>82. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ I 7=0494076 L0720=A.4I. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ 8 2.1657&8 A>I4 B20L182. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ = A1K2A3H@ A>= B1/0K?55=4, 8 ,*%*."#1'8&8 %8< =26">"?0*<. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ 8 2.1657&8 A>2 B51=417>632>? 32@ 720 HD0 " *>"/$&'3< %:6 ./"?#8'4%:6 '*<. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ 8 5$*>462$*. !"#$%$&'3< 206*$ I B/=A>2A82 >94 24:/9B8494 L072093?>94 . . .

!"#$%$&'3< 206*$ 8 $&3%8%* ,*$ 8 $&"6"'0*, B=; 20A:?41>20 = B=58>I@ 2BC424>0 &%" 63'", &%8 5$,*$"&(68, &%86 2="7&0* . . .

-./0=0 A;4?L15M=0, >= A;3BC/2A32 18420 2B5H: -./01 -2/232456, L14 7?41>1 G02 (B=;/GH@ !"#$%$&'"( >I@ DJ/2@ 32@.

GEORGE PAPANDREOU: Mr. Karamanlis, I conclude by reminding you of something you may have forgotten: that you are also Minster of Culture. A popular proverb goes “a cowl does not make a monk.” And, in this case, we would expect from a Prime Minister willing to serve culture, to serve it with his acts. And there are moments when culture is more important than "nancial affairs. And this is one of the deep-rooted traditions of the Greek nation and the Greeks.

Civilization is solidarity with the poorest in our society. Civilization is democratic deliberation. Civilization is meritocracy. Civilization is social justice. Civilization is investing in education. Civilization is preserving the environment, !ghting against xenophobia. Civilization is investing in our

Figure 1. Opposition Leader George A. Papandreou addressing Parliament. Image courtesy of Athens News Agency.


advantages and not excommunicating our problems.6 Civilization is transparency [of institutions]. Civilization is respecting human rights . . .

Civilization is the equality and isonomy experienced by citizens when facing the law, the system of justice, the authority . . .

Dear colleagues, the conclusion is simple: Mr. Karamanlis, you are not suited to being the Minister of Culture of our country. (2005)

Papandreou attacked the Prime Minister, who was also Minister of Culture at that time (December 2005), for his neglect of cultural issues. First, he uses the common popular saying, >2 /?A2 L14 7?4=;4 >=4 B2B? (a cowl does not make a monk), implying that it is not enough to be of"cially in charge of the Ministry of Culture, but one has to prove by his work that one deserves to hold such a position. In other words, Papandreou claims that Karamanlis has not shown any interest in cultural affairs and that his accomplishments are limited (if not non-existent) in this area. In general, proverbs are used as a means of persuasion; they epitomize popular wisdom and add an evaluative and didactic tone to the discourse. They also attract audience attention and arouse emotional interest, while their recognition and appreciation signal group member-ship and contribute to bonding between group members (see Norrick 1985:11–30; Gavriilidou 2003:193–195, and references therein).

The use of a proverb so popular among Greek people is undoubt-edly strategic: the leader of the opposition aims at imposing a speci"c interpretation and evaluation of the situation under discussion and, simultaneously, at establishing common ground between himself and his audience by appealing to a shared cultural framework. Hence, it becomes very easy for the Greek audience to understand his perspective on and negative evaluation of the way Karamanlis handles cultural and state affairs in general. Simultaneously, in primary oral cultures (and most probably in secondary oral ones as well), proverbs function as sum-maries of accumulated cultural knowledge and as challenges to a verbal duel; Papandreou appeals to “what is widely known in Greek culture” and invites his opponent to refute it (cf. Ong 1982:44).

The repetition of the verb, 42 ;BI/1>6A10 (to serve), underlines the Minister’s duty, while the repetition of the Greek word for culture, B=50>0A3H@ (genitive—B=50>0A3=.; accusative—B=50>0A3H), and of >=; &55I40A3=. (of the Greek nation) and >94 E556494 (of the Greeks) in the "rst paragraph and of I 1BC4L;AI (investing) in the second paragraph, all have the same effect. Lexical repetition here aims at emphasizing the main topic of discourse (i.e., Greek cultural affairs), at offering a negative evaluation of Karamanlis’s work in this area, and, eventually, at persuading the audience of the projected attitudes and views (cf., among others, Labov 1972; Kakridi-Ferrari 1998:108–126).

94 Villy Tsakona

The most striking use of creative language here is the pun involving the two meanings of the Greek word B=50>0A3H@ (culture and civilization). Although at the beginning of the speech the word is used to mean “cul-ture,” it is later switched to its meaning as “civilization.” Puns consist of words or phrases bringing together two different semantic scripts (or frames of reference) in the same (con)text; they indicate the speaker’s metalinguistic ability to deconstruct language in a sophisticated way. Not only do they display wit, but they also test for shared knowledge and attitudes among participants, who are expected to identify the different scripts and disambiguate the play on words. Thus, they constitute a sort of verbal aggression and create a competitive environment. As Neal Norrick puts it, “verbal aggression [is] often associated with puns: The punster moves into an antagonistic relationship with one or more listeners, thus realigning the participants” (1993:62).

It is important to note here that what is included in the concept B=50>0A3H@ as “civilization” obviously falls outside the province of the Min-istry of Culture, rather it is related to the accomplishments Karamanlis is expected to achieve as the head of the government and coordinator of its policies. Hence, the pun is strategically used to bring together in a single word his responsibilities as both Prime Minister and Minister of Culture. At the end of the extract, the leader of the opposition concludes that for all those reasons Karamanlis should not continue as Minister of Culture, thus returning to the previous meaning of B=50>0A3H@ as “culture.”

A series of identical syntactic structures, B=50>0A3H@ 18420 . . . (civiliza-tion is . . .), creates a parallelism and a rhythmic pattern, thus emphasizing what is included in the concept B=50>0A3H@ as “civilization,” and indirectly pointing out what Karamanlis has supposedly failed to accomplish as both Prime Minister and Minister of Culture. Parallelism underlines both similarities and differences between parallel structures, while it simultaneously creates coherence and involvement with the audience (see, among others, Tannen 1989:12; Kakridi-Ferrari 1998:71–77).

The play on words is accompanied by metaphors such as K2:0? B2/?L=AI (deep-rooted tradition), I 72>2B=5C3IAI >I@ E14=M=K82@ ("ght-ing against xenophobia), = 2M=/0A3H@ >94 B/=K5I3?>94 32@ (excommu-nicating our problems), and L02M?4102 [>94 :1A3J4] (transparency [of institutions]), all of which conceptualize in speci"c ways what the Minister of Culture should have done or has failed to achieve, and contribute to a negative representation of his performance. Creativity also involves the alliteration established by the words 0AH>I>2 (equality/isótita) and 0A=4=382 (equality before the law/isonomía), and the tripartite parallelism in the phrase, >=4 4H3=, >I L0720=A.4I, >I4 1E=;A82 (the law, the system of justice, the authority). Tripartite repetitions and parallelisms are very common


in Greek oral discourse (Georgakopoulou 1997:65–88; Georgakopoulou and Goutsos 1999:160–163; see also example 2).

In sum, through a variety of creative linguistic means, the leader of the opposition criticizes Karamanlis’s lack of policy and accomplish-ments in his double ministerial role. Such linguistic features as the pun on the different meanings of the Greek word B=50>0A3H@ are also used to attract the attention of the audience and give the impression that the speaker is a sophisticated manipulator of language, and hence a competent politician.

Identity construction. The same linguistic resources are employed by politi-cians to build positive identities for themselves or for their parties. The data reveal that politicians may simultaneously build negative identities for their adversaries, thus indirectly enhancing their own identities by comparison and contrast (see Ilie 2003:36). The following example comes from the 2006 budget speech of Prime Minister Karamanlis who, in response to something said earlier by Papandreou, tries to present himself as a decent, lawful, and trustworthy politician:

(2) -"%"N"#OP, -*,Q",: R7=;A2 302 242M=/? B1/8 B/=175=G07J4 B2/=DJ4. &GJ, 5=0BH4, 42 A2@ 2="'"#"@8AB H>0 *7%- %86 %1C68 526 %86 =1/:, 526 %86 .$&%2(:, 526 A1#: 6* %86 '4A: . . .

";>64 >I4 %1C68 >I4 2M649 A>=;@ 2$5$,"(<, G02>8 1A18@ 18A>1 5$*,2-,/$'16"$ 2.$&%-'"62< 72>’ 1B24?5ISI A’ 2;>H >= *'*/%:#3 B20D48L0 >I@ 307/=B=50>076@ . . .

Q= 3H4= A9A>H B=; 18B2>1, 18420 H>0 20'*$ " &C25$*&%-<, " &76%"6$&%-< ,*$ " "/@*6:%-< *7%-< %8< ."#$%$,-< [LI52L6 >I@ G1407H>1/I@ B=50>076@ 720 >=; C/G=; >I@ 7;KC/4IAI@]. -20 7232/J49 B=; 20'*$ " &C25$*&%-<, " &76%"6$&%-< ,*$ " "/@*6:%-< *7%-< %8< ."#$%$,-<.

Figure 2. Greek Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis addressing Parliament. Image courtesy of Athens News Agency.

96 Villy Tsakona

COSTAS KARAMANLIS: I heard a reference [by the leader of the opposi-tion] to bene"ts [provided by the government to the citizens] before the elections. Well, I shall confess to you that I am not a master of this craft, I do not believe in it, I do not want to learn it . . .

I leave this craft to the experts, because you [i.e., the members of the opposition] have repeatedly been distinguished scholars in this sinful game of petty politics . . .

The only thing you got right is that I am the planner, the coordinator, and the organizer of this policy [i.e., of the governmental policy and work in general]. And I am proud of being the planner, the coordinator, and the organizer of this policy. (2006)

Here the Prime Minister aims to build a positive self-image. Previ-ously, Papandreou had accused him of having promised "nancial bene"ts for the citizens, in an attempt to gain their support and votes, but without intending to keep his word. Karamanlis denies these accusations using creative language. First, he presents this practice metaphorically as a >CD4I (craft) in which he is not (and does not want to become) compe-tent, thus rendering an abstract concept in concrete terms (Marmaridou 1994). He also uses a tripartite structure, 2;>6 >I4 >CD4I L14 >I4 EC/9, L14 >I4 B0A>1.9, L14 :C59 42 >I4 3?:9 (I am not a master of this craft, I do not believe in it, I do not want to learn it; cf. example 1), in order to emphasize his aversion to the “craft.” Alliteration is also established by the repetition of the words L14 (not) and >I4 (this) contributing to the same effect. At the same time, his claims are metaphorically framed as a confession (42 1E=3=5=GI:J [to confess]) revealing something unknown but, most importantly, signi"cant or even sacred. Hence, through these metaphors, he highlights the importance of his claims and presents himself as a truthful, honest, and moral person who refuses to deceive the public and con"des in the people, as he would in his friends.

In order to construct his positive image indirectly and by contrast, he builds a negative identity for his opponents once again via meta-phorical conceptualization: he characterizes them as 10L07=8 (experts) and L02717/03C4=0 1B0A>63=41@ (distinguished scholars) in this “craft,” that of being especially keen on and competent in promising bene"ts to Greek citizens to gain their support and eventually deceiving them. In the end, Karamanlis portrays himself as a successful and proud coordinator of the policies put forward by his government by using another tripartite structure—18320 = AD1L02A>6@, = A;4>=40A>6@ 720 = =/G249>6@ 2;>6@ >I@ B=50>076@ (I am the planner, the coordinator, and the organizer of this policy). By repeating this parallel structure, he creates a rhythmic effect which renders these words more memorable to the audience.

In the Greek text, alliteration is also created by the repetition of the


sounds [s], [t], [i], and [o] and of the syllable [tís] (18320 = AD1L02A>6@, = A;4>=40A>6@ 720 = =/G249>6@ 2;>6@ >I@ B=50>076@ (I am the planner, the coordinator, and the organizer of this policy/eimai o schediastís, o synto-vistíis kai o organotís aftís tis politikís). The rhythmic effect is ultimately enhanced by the fact that it is the "nal syllable of most content words of this utterance that is stressed. Alliteration and rhythm contribute to involvement and elicit emotional reactions from the audiences; therefore, they are often employed indirectly to persuade by creating a favorable impression and making a speech memorable (see, among others, Tan-nen 1989; Kakridi-Ferrari 1998:61–63).

In short, different kinds of linguistic creativity are exploited by the Prime Minister for the promotion, both of himself as a competent orator and politician and of his accomplishments as the head of the government. His words, especially his metaphors, appeal to the moral values of the audience: he attempts to create a contrast between himself as a reliable and moral person, who does not believe in enticing and cheating the Greek people, and his opponents, who are presented as immoral and deceitful individuals who would supposedly do anything to become the ruling party in the next elections.

Consequently, since linguistic creativity is an integral part of political discourse, it is important for citizens/voters to be able to read between the creative lines, as well as to evaluate such linguistic means and those employing them. The present analysis reveals that the fact that the audi-ence considers eloquent orators to be competent, even “charismatic,” politicians, can only partly account for the presence of linguistic creativity in parliamentary discourse. The other, more “covert,” aspect of parlia-mentarians’ linguistic creativity is related to their efforts to arouse the emotions of their audience and make them feel that they can be relied upon, despite the fact that their speeches may often exclude mention of the political means to accomplish this.

Citizens’ critical awareness is thus required and should become a central goal of contemporary education. This can be achieved by the compilation and use of teaching material based on contemporary linguistic and pragmatic theories on creativity, not on outdated literary approaches, such as the structuralist de"nition of literariness which frames creativity as “deviation” from the linguistic system and capitalizes on the “deviation” of literary language (in comparison with non-literary genres) ( Jakobson 1960). Only if this material involves a variety of genres in addi-tion to literary ones will students be able to appreciate the pervasiveness of creativity in most communicative contexts and understand the range of its functions (see Archakis and Tsakona 2009).

98 Villy Tsakona

Discussion

Politicians resort to linguistic creativity to improve their oral performance and to satisfy the expectations of the (voting) audience. The analysis of linguistic creativity in Greek parliamentary discourse con"rms recent approaches to creativity: such features do not originate in the “unparal-leled” linguistic or cognitive skills of a “charismatic genius;” rather, they are located in everyday discourse and are exploited by politicians so that they can effectively communicate with the public and share their points of view. They are also used for the enhancement of a competitive environment as political accusations, provocations, and challenges are often encoded in creative terms. Hence, politicians participate in the dynamic and never-ending circulation and transformation of creative resources by using them for political purposes, both for persuasion and for the projection of a positive and reliable identity for themselves and a negative and unreliable one for their opponents.

The Greek political system favors this kind of verbal dueling. Due to strong party discipline and the absence of a viable veto mechanism in the Greek parliamentary system, politicians (at least inside the parliament) have no apparent need or motive to persuade their colleagues or adver-saries by using political or legal argumentation. Instead, showmanship prevails; the winner is the most creative, the most competent, and most eloquent orator. On the other hand, Greek citizens are convinced (by public education, common views, etc.) that competent politicians must speak !awlessly and “poetically.” If they cannot impress an audience with their rhetorical style, they cannot (and should not) be trusted.

Given all this, it could be suggested that secondary orality can only partly account for the particularities of the Greek case. It seems that Greek culture is more driven by oral tradition than patterned after the printed age, and, although it is a literate culture, it remains strongly oriented to orality and face-to-face interaction (cf. Ong 1982:68–69). The strong attachment to rhetoric and its importance for the evaluation of public speakers (and writers), as well as the negative evaluation of hesitations, corrections, or other indications of inadequate oral performance, are all indicative of this trend.7 Another characteristic of cultures driven by oral tradition is their emphasis on group relations: the sense of community and group solidarity are most desirable and highly valued. In Greek political communication, this is achieved by using linguistic creativity and other resources which actually imitate everyday expressions and interactional patterns in order to enhance audience involvement (see Oikonomou 1999; Frantzi and Georgalidou 2007; Bakakou-Orfanou 2008). In sum, even though most Greek political speeches are no longer delivered in


open-air rallies nor in front of live audiences, but rather between four walls for a television or radio audience, they seem to retain their oral features.

These "ndings are compatible with those suggested by a number of sociolinguistic and ethnographic studies on Greek. It appears that a prominent feature of Greek culture is the importance attached to the distinction between in-groups and out-groups and, in particular, to the creation and enhancement of solidarity bonds between in-groups via mostly oral means of communication. To this end, Greeks prefer posi-tive politeness strategies to negative ones (Si"anou 1992), they use the telephone for interpersonal rather than transactional purposes (Si"anou 1989; Mavreas and Tsakona 2008), they employ oral narratives to con-struct and cultivate in-group relations and to project respective identi-ties (Archakis and Tsakona 2006; Archakis and Tzanne in press), and they capitalize on relations of intimacy and closeness, even in television settings or in encounters with people they will most probably never see again (Tzanne 1997, 2001, 2007).8

To take this argument a step further, and to reveal its diachronic dimension, Hans Eideneier (2004) underscores the importance of rhythm in a variety of genres, both poetic and prosaic (including rhe-torical ones), throughout the history of the Greek language. In his view, rhythmic patterns and formulas, albeit underestimated in the history of the language, play an essential role in Greek word order and clause structure, even in written genres since many of these genres were initially composed for oral presentation in front of an audience, not for silent reading (cf. Ong 1982:34–35, 60, 115–116). Eideneier also claims that the insertion of extracts in “conversational(ized)” style is also typical of Greek written and literary texts, in order to add “spontaneity” and render the narrated events and their protagonists more “authentic” (2004:106–107, 116–119).

It appears that the use of creative language in Greek political communication is related to Greek political history and culture as they have developed over the years. Diachronic studies, or studies focusing on different political genres, would be most revealing in this respect; however, linguistically-oriented studies on Greek political discourse are quite limited and based exclusively on contemporary material (Kyratzis 1997; Archakis and Tsakona 2008, 2009; Bakakou-Orfanou 2008; Si"anou 2008; Tsakona 2008a, 2008b, 2009). Consequently, it seems that, until Greeks become conscious that creativity is not restricted to literary genres, but, on the contrary, is pervasive in their everyday life and interactions, Greek politicians will be evaluated as “educated,” “eloquent,” and even “reliable” for their skillful use of such linguistic means. In this way,

100 Villy Tsakona

citizens fail to see that politicians actually make conscious and strategic use of everyday conversational resources to persuade, to legitimize their policies, and, eventually, to avoid political argumentation.

#$%&'()%*+ ,- %,.$$%$. .$/ #$%&'()%*+ ,- 0.*(.)

NOTES

Acknowledgments. This is part of a post-doctoral research project funded by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation. The author wishes to thank Maria Si"anou and Argiris Archakis for insightful discussions of the present paper.

1 On the newspapers’ representation and reframing of parliamentary discourse, see Slembrouck (1992) and Archakis and Tsakona (2008, 2009).

2 Crossing, in general, “focuses on code alternation by people who are not accepted members of the group associated with the second language they employ. It is concerned with switching into languages that are not generally thought to belong to you. This kind of switching, in which there is a distinct sense of movement across social or ethnic bound-aries, raises issues of social legitimacy that participants need to negotiate . . .” (Rampton 1995:280).

3 A thorough investigation of the resources exploited for the re-oralization of written political speeches (including intonation, paralinguistic features, image semiotics, etc.) would require the use of videotaped material (cf. Sauer 2007). However, videotaped material from Greek parliamentary sessions is not available to journalists, citizens, or researchers. Besides, given that the focus here is on linguistic creativity, the written proceedings were deemed adequate.

4 The data for this study come from the written proceedings available at the of"cial website of the Greek Parliament (www.parliament.gr). They were originally compiled in order to investigate political timing as a factor determining what is said and how it is said in this particular context; i.e., the budget debate (see Tsakona 2008a, 2008b). The 2004 budget speeches were the "rst ones after Nea Dimokratia became the ruling party and PASOK the opposition in March 2004, while the 2006 budget speeches were the last ones before elections, delivered at a time when the media predicted that elections were not far away and that the government would not last for the whole four years (i.e., until March 2008).

5 The Greek parliamentary discourse extracts are translated into English by the author. In both versions, italics are used to indicate linguistic creativity. Needless to say, the interlingual transference of such features has not always been a simple task and may have had undesirable stylistic effects in the target version. Thus, glosses and additional pragmatic information are provided in the analysis wherever necessary. Square brackets in the English version include additional contextual information and dots in both versions indicate omissions, mostly of paralingual information appearing in the written proceedings (e.g., “applause from PASOK’s wing”), which were not deemed relevant for the present study. The year of publication of each speech from which the extract was taken appears in parentheses at the end of the English version.


6 Excommunicating our problems in this context means “avoiding our problems;” however, using the verb avoid in the translated version would ruin the metaphor of the original text.

7 Primarily oral cultures encourage eloquence, exaggeration, and talkativeness, while they are not tolerant of pauses, hesitations, and repairs in oral discourse (Ong 1982:39–41, 104, 165).

8 For more references on this issue, see the relevant discussion in Koutsantoni (2005: 98–106) and Archakis and Tzanne (in press).

REFERENCES CITED

Alvarez-Cáccamo, Celso and Gabriela Prego-Vásquez2003 “Political Cross-Discourse: Conversationalization, Imaginary Networks, and

Social Fields in Galiza.” Pragmatics 13, 1:145–162.

Archakis, Argiris and Villy Tsakona2006 “Script Oppositions and Humorous Targets: Promoting Values and Constructing

Identities via Humor in Greek Conversational Data.” Stylistyka XV:119–134. 2008 "/G./I@ "/D?7I@ 720 T855; QA?7942, «"425.=4>2@ >I4 7=04=K=;51;>076 10LIA1=G/2-

M82 A>0@ 155I407C@ 1MI31/8L1@» (“Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse as Reported in Greek Newspaper Articles”). In ; #3@"< %8< '*D$,-< 2.$,"$6:60*<: E" 2##86$,3 .*/452$@'* (The Discourse of Mass Communication: The Greek Example), edited by Periklis Politis, 25–49. Thessaloniki: Institute for Modern Greek Studies, Manolis Triantafyllidis Foundation.

2009 “Parliamentary Discourse vs. Newspaper Articles on Parliamentary Issues: The Integration of a Critical Approach to Discourse into a Literacy-Based Language Teaching Programme.” Journal of Language and Politics 8, 3 (in press).

Archakis, Argiris and Angeliki Tzannein press “Constructing Social Identities Through Story-Telling: Tracing Greekness

in Greek Narratives.” Pragmatics.

Bakakou-Orfanou, Aikaterini2008 "072>1/84I NB27?7=;-'/M24=., «!/=M=/07H>I>2 720 B=50>07H@ 5HG=@» (“Orality

and Political Discourse”). In F#B&&8< C4/$6. E3'"< *>$2/:'16"< *.3 %"6 E"'1* F#:&&"#"@0*< &%"6 ,*A8@8%- F2B/@$" ).*'.$6$B%8 (For Language. Festschrift for Professor George Babiniotis by the Department of Linguistics), edited by Amalia Moser, Aikaterini Bakakou-Orfanou, Christoforos Charalambakis, and Despina Chila-Markopoulou, 389–401. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

Beard, Adrian 2000 The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.

Carter, Ronald 2004 Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. Routledge: London.2007 “Response to Special Issue of Applied Linguistics Devoted to Language Creativity

in Everyday Contexts.” Applied Linguistics 28, 4:597–608.

Charteris-Black, Jonathan 2005 Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke and Milton

Keynes: Palgrave Macmillan, the Open University.

102 Villy Tsakona

Chilton, Paul A. 2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Chilton, Paul A. and Christina Schäffner2002 “Introduction. Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse.”

In Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, edited by Paul A. Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–41. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Eideneier, Hans 2004 GH2$< %8< $&%"/0*< %8< 2##86$,-< @#B&&*<. I.3 %"6 G'8/" 1:< &-'2/* (Von Rhapsodie

zu Rap. Aspekte der griechischen Sprachgeschichte von Homer bis heute/Aspects of the History of the Greek Language. From Homer to the Present). Translated by Evangelia Thomadaki. Athens: Papadima.

Elspass, Stephan 2002 “Phraseological Units in Parliamentary Discourse.” In Politics as Text and Talk.

Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, edited by Paul A. Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 81–110. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Fairclough, Norman1995 Media Discourse. London: Arnold.

Fetzer, Anita and Elda Weizman2006 “Political Discourse as Mediated and Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics

38, 2:143–153.

Fetzer, Anita and Gerda Eva Lauerbach, editors2007 Political Discourse in the Media: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam and Phila-

delphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Flowerdew, John 2002 “Rhetorical Strategies and Identity Politics in the Discourse of Colonial With-

drawal.” Journal of Language and Politics 1, 1:149–180.

Frantzi, Katerina T. and Marianthi Georgalidou2007 “Conversational Strategies in Written Political Discourse: A Corpus Linguistics

Approach.” Paper presented at the 10th International Pragmatics Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–13 July.

Gadavanij, Savitri 2002 “Intertextuality as Discourse Strategy: The Case of No-Con"dence Debates in

Thailand.” Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 9:35–55.

Gavriilidou, Zoe 2003 “Le Proverbe dans la Presse Grecque.” Proverbium 20:187–203.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra 1997 Narrative Performances: A Study of Modern Greek Storytelling. Amsterdam and

Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.2001 “Arguing about the Future: On Indirect Disagreement in Conversations.”

Journal of Pragmatics 33, 12:1881–1900.

Georgakopoulou, Alexandra and Dionysis Goutsos1999 "51E?4L/2 )19/G27=B=.5=; 720 $0=4.AI@ )=.>A=@, J20'26" ,*$ 2.$,"$6:60* (Text

and Communication). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.


Goodman, Sharon and Kieran O’Halloran, editors2005 The Art of English: Literary Creativity. Basingstoke and Milton Keynes: Palgrave

Macmillan, the Open University.

Hirschon, Renée 2001 “Freedom, Solidarity and Obligation: The Socio-Cultural Context of Greek

Politeness.” In Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turk-ish, edited by Arin Bayraktaroglu and Maria Si"anou, 17–42. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Ilie, Cornelia 2003 “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse.” Studies in

Communication Sciences 3, 1:23–53.

Jakobson, Roman 1960 “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, edited by

Thomas Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kakridi-Ferrari, Maria 1998 N2/82 -27/0L6-U1//?/0, 9.*64#8H8: 8 #2$%"7/@0* %8< :< ?*&$,"( '8C*6$&'"( &%8

@#B&&* (Repetition: Its Function as a Basic Linguistic Mechanism). Doctoral dis-sertation. Athens: University of Athens.

Kitis, Eliza and Michalis Milapides1997 “Read it and Believe it: How Metaphor Constructs Ideology in News Discourse.

A Case Study.” Journal of Pragmatics 28, 5:557–590.

Koutsantoni, Dimitra 2005 “Greek Cultural Characteristics and Academic Writing.” Journal of Modern Greek

Studies 23, 1:97–138.

Kyratzis, Athanasios1997 Metaphorically Speaking. Sex, Politics, and the Greeks. Doctoral dissertation. Lan-

caster: Lancaster University.

Labov, William 1972 Language in the Inner City. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marmaridou, So"a A. S. 1994 “Conceptual Metaphor in Greek Financial Discourse.” In Themes in Greek Lin-

guistics. Papers from the First International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Reading, September 1993, edited by Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Katerina Nicolaidis, and Maria Si"anou, 247–252. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Maybin, Janet and Michael Pearce2006 Literature and Creativity. In The Art of English: Literary Creativity, edited by

Sharon Goodman and Kieran O’Halloran, 3–48. Basingstoke and Milton Keynes: Palgrave Macmillan, the Open University.

Maybin, Janet and Joan Swann, editors2006 The Art of English: Everyday Creativity. Basingstoke and Milton Keynes: Palgrave

MacMillan, the Open University.2007 “Everyday Creativity in Language: Textuality, Contextuality, and Critique.”

Applied Linguistics 28, 4:497–517.

104 Villy Tsakona

Mavreas, Dimitris and Villy Tsakona2008 $I36>/I@ N2;/C2@ 720 T855; QA?7942, «Scripta manent, SMS volant? $01/1;4J-

4>2@ >I 510>=;/G82 >94 SMS A>I4 24:/JB04I L01B8L/2AI» (“Scripta Manent, SMS Volant? Exploring the Function of Text-Messaging in Human Interaction”). In !/*,%$,4 %"7 1"7 K$2A6"(< L7625/0"7 «M @#B&&* &2 16*6 ,3&'" ."7 *##4D2$», IA-6*, 9–11 K2,2'?/0"7 2005 (Proceedings of the 1st International Conference “Language in a Changing World.” Athens, 9–11 December 2005), edited by Eleni Leontaridi, Kon-stantina Spanopoulou, Anastasia Georgountzou, So"a Evangelidou, Mariangela Ielo, Evdokia Balasi, Nikoletta Tassopoulou, and Eleni Tsitou, 344–350. Athens: University of Athens, Language Center.

Negrine, Ralph and Darren G. Lilleker2002 “The Professionalization of Political Communication.” European Journal of Com-

munication 17, 3:305–323.

Negus, Keith and Michael Pickering2004 Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value. London and Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Norrick, Neal. R. 1985 How Proverbs Mean: Semantic Studies in English Proverbs. Berlin and New York:

Mouton. 1993 Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.2000–2001 “Poetics and Conversation.” Connotations 10, 2/3:243–267.

Oikonomou, Konstantina1999 -94A>24>842 '07=4H3=;, «$18G32>2 155I407=. B=50>07=. 5HG=;: !J@ =0 B=50>07=8

L023=/MJ4=;4 >I ADCAI >=;@ 31 >=;@ SIM=MH/=;@ >=;@» (“Samples of Greek Politi-cal Discourse: How Politicians Shape their Relationship with their Voters”). In 9##86$,- F#:&&"#"@0* ’97. !/*,%$,4 %"7 FN K$2A6"(< F#:&&"#"@$,"( L7625/0"7 @$* %86 9##86$,- F#B&&*. !*62.$&%-'$" IA86B6. E"'1*< F#:&&"#"@0*< (Greek Linguistics ’97. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics. University of Athens. Department of Linguistics), edited by Amalia Moser, 737–744. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

Ong, Walter J. 1982 Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York:

Routledge.

Pennycook, Alastair 2007 “‘The Rotation Gets Thick. The Constraints Get Thin’: Creativity, Recontex-

tualization, and Difference.” Applied Linguistics 28, 4:579–596.

Rampton, Ben1995 Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London and New York:

Longman.

Rules of Order of the Greek Parliament 2008 J*6"6$&'3< %8< O"7#-< %:6 9##-6:6. Athens: The Greek Parliament.

Santa Ana, Otto 1999 “‘Like an Animal I Was Treated’: Anti-Immigrant Metaphor in US Public

Discourse.” Discourse and Society 10, 2:191–224.


Sauer, Christoph2007 “Christmas Messages by Heads of State: Multimodality and Media Adapta-

tion.” In Political Discourse in the Media, edited by Anita Fetzer and Gerda Eva Lauderbach, 227–273. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Si"anou, Maria1989 “On the Telephone Again! Differences in Telephone Behavior: England versus

Greece.” Language in Society 18, 4:527–544.1992 Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.2008 N2/82 ,IM024=., «-=04=K=;51;>07H@ 5HG=@ 720 1;GC4102» (“Parliamentary Dis-

course and Politeness”). In F#B&&8< C4/$6. E3'"< *>$2/:'16"< *.3 %"6 E"'1* F#:&&"#"@0*< &%"6 ,*A8@8%- F2B/@$" ).*'.$6$B%8 (For Language. Festschrift for Professor George Babiniotis by the Department of Linguistics), edited by Amalia Moser, Aikaterini Bakakou-Orfanou, Christoforos Charalambakis, and Despina Chila-Markopoulou, 464–474. Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

Slembrouck, Stef1992 The Study of Language Use in its Societal Context: Pragmatics and the Representation

of Parliamentary Debates in Newspaper Discourse. Doctoral dissertation. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Sornig, Karl 1989 “Some Remarks on Linguistic Strategies of Persuasion.” In Language, Power and

Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse, edited by Ruth Wodak, 95–113. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Marco R. Steenberger2004 Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Straehle, Carolyn, Gilbert Weiss, Ruth Wodak, Peter Montigl, and Maria Sedlak1999 “Struggle as Metaphor in European Union Discourses on Unemployment.”

Discourse and Society 10, 1:68–99.

Swann, Joan and Janet Maybin2007 “Introduction: Language Creativity in Everyday Contexts.” Applied Linguistics

28, 4:491–496.

Tannen, Deborah 1989 Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Tannen, Deborah and Christina Kakava 1992 “Power and Solidarity in Modern Greek Conversation: Disagreeing to Agree.”

Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10, 1:11–34.

Tsakona Villy2008a T855; QA?7942, «-=04=K=;51;>07H@ 5HG=@: N02 B/J>I B/=ACGG0AI» (“Parliamen-

tary Discourse: A Linguistic Analysis”). In )2#1%2< @$* %86 2##86$,- @#B&&*. !/*,%$,4 %8< 288< 2%-&$*< &7646%8&8< %"7 E"'1* F#:&&"#"@0*< %"7 %'-'*%"< P$#"#"@0*< %8< P$#"&">$,-< LC"#-< %"7 I/$&%"%2#20"7 !*62.$&%8'0"7 Q2&&*#"60,8<, 21–22 I./$#0"7 2007, «F#B&&* ,*$ ,"$6:60*» (Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceed-ings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, School of Philology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 21–22 April 2007, “Language and Society”),

106 Villy Tsakona

391–401. Thessaloniki: Institute for Modern Greek Studies, Manolis Trian-tafyllidis Foundation.

2008b “Creativity in Parliamentary Discourse: Pragmatic Goals and Institutional Affordances.” Paper presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 17. Amster-dam, 3–5 April.

2009 “Humor and Image Politics in Parliamentary Discourse: A Greek Case Study.” Text and Talk 29, 2:219–237.

Tzanne, Angeliki1997 “The Pragmatics of Interventions in Encounters among Greeks.” In 9##86$,-

F#:&&"#"@0* ’95. !/*,%$,4 %"7 ON K$2A6"(< F#:&&"#"@$,"( L7625/0"7 @$* %86 9##86$,- F#B&&*. L4#%&'."7/@, 22–24 L2.%2'?/0"7 1995 (Greek Linguistics ’95. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Salzburg 22–24 September 1995), edited by Gaberell Drachman, Angeliki Malikouti-Drachman, Jannis Fykias, and Sila Klidi, 335–344. Salzburg: University of Salzburg.

2001 “‘What you’re Saying Sounds Very Nice and I’m Delighted to Hear it.’ Some Considerations on the Functions of Presenter-Initiated Simultaneous Speech in Greek Panel Discussions.” In Linguistic Politeness. The Case of Greece and Turkey, edited by Arın Bayraktaroglu and Maria Si"anou, 271–306. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

2007 "GG15076 Q<?441, «P G59AA076 =07=LH3IAI >I@ >2;>H>I>2@ A>I4 155I4076 >I51H-/2AI: I B1/8B>9AI >=; L76 ,*$ !#86» (“The Linguistic Construction of Identity on Greek Television: The Case of Syn kai Plin” [the title of a Greek television show that can be translated, More or Less]). In F#:&&$,3< !2/0.#"7<: )2#1%2< *>$-2/:'162< &%8 K-'8%/* Q2">*6"."(#"7-J"6%"( (Linguistic Voyage: Studies Dedicated to Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou), edited by the Department of Linguistics, University of Athens, 352–363. Athens: The Book Institute, Kardamitsa.

Tziovas, Dimitris2001 “Residual Orality and Belated Textuality in Greek Literature and Culture.” In

A Reader in Greek Sociolinguistics. Studies in Modern Greek Language, Culture and Communication, edited by Alexandra Georgakopoulou and Marianna Spanaki, 119–134. Bern: Peter Lang (First published in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies 7, 2 [1989]:321–335).

Van Der Valk, Ineke 2003 “Right-Wing Parliamentary Discourse on Immigration in France.” Discourse and

Society 14, 3:309–348.

Van Lint, P. 1986 “The Expressive Strategy in the Political Interview: A System Error.” In Discourse

Analysis and Public Life: Papers of the Groningen Conference on Medical and Political Discourse, edited by T. Ensink, A. Van Essen, and Ton van der Geest, 359–378. Dordrecht: Foris.

Whaley, Bryan B. and Rachel L. Holloway1997 “Rebuttal Analogy in Political Communication: Argument and Attack in Sound

Bite.” Political Communication 14, 3:293–305.

Widdowson, Henry G. 2008 “Language Creativity and the Poetic Function. A Response to Swann and

Maybin (2007).” Applied Linguistics 29, 3:503–508.

linguistic creativity secondary orality and political discourse

Documents