Eötvös Loránd University of Sciences Faculty of Humanities
THESES OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
MIKLÓS ZSOMBOR TÓTH
PUBLIC RHETORIC METAPHORS AND MYTHS IN THE HUNGARIAN POLITICAL SPEECHES
Doctoral School of Linguistics Head of the Doctoral School: Prof. Dr. Vilmos Bárdosi, CSc Applied Linguistics Doctoral Program Head of the Doctoral Program: Prof. Dr. Mária Gósy, DSc Members of the Evaluation Committee: Chairperson:
Dr. Tamás Adamik, DSc, professor emeritus
Examiners:
Dr. Judit Bóna, PhD, habil. Dr. Lóránt Bencze, CSc, professor emeritus
Secretary:
Dr. Judit Raátz, PhD
Other members, deputies:
Dr. Attila László Nemesi, PhD Dr. József Krupp, PhD (deputy) Dr. Vilmos Benczik, PhD, habil.(deputy)
Supervisor:
Dr. Mrs. Adamik Anna Jászó, DSc, professor emeritus Budapest, 2015
ADATLAP a doktori értekezés nyilvánosságra hozatalához I. A doktori értekezés adatai A szerző neve: Tóth Miklós Zsombor MTMT-azonosító: 10039147 A doktori értekezés címe és alcíme: Közéleti retorika. Metaforák és mítoszok a magyarországi politikai beszédekben DOI-azonosító: 10.15476/ELTE.2015.173 A doktori iskola neve: ELTE BTK Nyelvtudományi Doktori Iskola A doktori iskolán belüli doktori program neve: Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Doktori Program A témavezető neve és tudományos fokozata: Adamikné dr. Jászó Anna, DSc, professor emeritus A témavezető munkahelye: ELTE BTK II. Nyilatkozatok 1. A doktori értekezés szerzőjeként a) hozzájárulok, hogy a doktori fokozat megszerzését követően a doktori értekezésem és a tézisek nyilvánosságra kerüljenek az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárban. Felhatalmazom az ELTE BTK Doktori és Tudományszervezési Hivatal ügyintézőjét, Manhercz Mónikát, hogy az értekezést és a téziseket feltöltse az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárba, és ennek során kitöltse a feltöltéshez szükséges nyilatkozatokat. b) kérem, hogy a mellékelt kérelemben részletezett szabadalmi, illetőleg oltalmi bejelentés közzétételéig a doktori értekezést ne bocsássák nyilvánosságra az Egyetemi Könyvtárban és az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárban; c) kérem, hogy a nemzetbiztonsági okból minősített adatot tartalmazó doktori értekezést a minősítés (dátum)-ig tartó időtartama alatt ne bocsássák nyilvánosságra az Egyetemi Könyvtárban és az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárban; d) kérem, hogy a mű kiadására vonatkozó mellékelt kiadó szerződésre tekintettel a doktori értekezést a könyv megjelenéséig ne bocsássák nyilvánosságra az Egyetemi Könyvtárban, és az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárban csak a könyv bibliográfiai adatait tegyék közzé. Ha a könyv a fokozatszerzést követőn egy évig nem jelenik meg, hozzájárulok, hogy a doktori értekezésem és a tézisek nyilvánosságra kerüljenek az Egyetemi Könyvtárban és az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárban. 2. A doktori értekezés szerzőjeként kijelentem, hogy a) az ELTE Digitális Intézményi Tudástárba feltöltendő doktori értekezés és a tézisek saját eredeti, önálló szellemi munkám és legjobb tudomásom szerint nem sértem vele senki szerzői jogait; b) a doktori értekezés és a tézisek nyomtatott változatai és az elektronikus adathordozón benyújtott tartalmak (szöveg és ábrák) mindenben megegyeznek. 3. A doktori értekezés szerzőjeként hozzájárulok a doktori értekezés és a tézisek szövegének Plágiumkereső adatbázisba helyezéséhez és plágiumellenőrző vizsgálatok lefuttatásához. Kelt: Budapest, 2015. október 16.
-----------------------------------------------Tóth Miklós Zsombor
2
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I, the undersigned Miklós Zsombor Tóth, student of the PhD in Applied Linguistics Doctoral Program of the Doctoral School of Linguistics of ELTE, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I produced my PhD-dissertation Public rhetoric. Metaphors and myths in the Hungarian political speeches (Közéleti retorika. Metaforák és mítoszok a magyarországi politikai beszédekben) independently, based partly on original research, and partly on the relevant literature review with due acknowledgement as is required by scientific ethics. Furthermore, I declare that I submit my dissertation as my own intellectual product only to the university mentioned above. 16th October 2015, Budapest -----------------------------------------------Mikós Zsombor Tóth
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and objectives ..................................................................................................... 5 II. Hypotheses of the dissertation ............................................................................................... 6 III. Material and method ............................................................................................................. 9 III. 1. The rhetorical analysis and its method ......................................................................... 9 III. 2. Principles of selection ................................................................................................ 10 IV. The structure of the dissertation ......................................................................................... 13 V. Theses of the dissertation .................................................................................................... 14 VI. Referred bibliography ........................................................................................................ 16 VII. List of publications as regards the dissertation ................................................................. 18 VIII. Presentations at conferences as regards the dissertation ................................................. 19
4
I. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES ”The duty and office of rhetoric is to apply reason to imagination for the better moving of the will.”1 (Francis Bacon) The classical European rhetoric is based on social practice, and rooted in the desire of obtaining and practising the power. I agree that there’s no rhetorical theory without practice, one supposes the other, and that the separation of the theory and practice in the 21st century could be resolved by a rhetorical approach focusing on the unique point of the discipline: the social language of verbal persuasion. According to Murray Edelman, political events are mostly the products of the language applied to describe them. Edelman considers the political events and processes as complex and obscure phenomena, which may cause us anxiety. We can simplify these complicated experiences and observations with the help of metaphors and myths, and then we can give them sense as well (Edelman 2000). Metaphors and myths can make the communication and the intimation experiential, can raise collectively associated cultural patterns – and make penetrability possible between the rational and the emotional in the political rhetoric. The metaphor paradigms and the politicians related myths forming the political speeches in the Anglo-Saxon language area have been analyzed by several people2 (see para. Tudor 1972, or Flood 2001), but this has not happened for the Hungarian political speeches in global terms yet. Therefore, the main topic of this dissertation is public rhetoric and the analysis of it – focusing on the role of metaphors and myths within the Hungarian public and political speeches at the end of the 20th and in the 21st century. In the dissertation I show the role of the most typical tropes and figures of speech in the contemporary Hungarian public speeches. As the metaphor paradigms and the politicians related myths forming the contemporary Hungarian political speeches haven’t been analyzed in global terms yet, there are still a lot of unexplored possibilities in this area such as publishing opportunities on it. 1
Bacon, Francis 1944. Advancement of Learning. Oxford University Press. London., 156‒157. In his work Politicians and Rhetoric – The Persuasive Power of Metaphore (Charteris-Black 2005) Jonathan Charteris-Black studied and analyzed the metaphor paradigms and the politicians related myths forming the British and American political speeches; so did Mark Rolfe in his paper Looking backwards to the future: The evolving tradition of ideal political rhetoric in Australia (Rolfe 2014) about the same phenomenon in the Australian political speeches. 2
5
The dissertation highlights possible pathways between rhetoric and other social sciences such as political science or literature. The discovery and the analysis of the Hungarian political speeches’ symbolism could help and facilitate the orientation in the Hungarian public and/or political sphere. It could be especially useful in the understanding process of the rhetoric of several different political forces. The separation of the rhetorical theory and practice in the 21st century could be resolved by this rhetorical approach focusing on the unique point of the discipline: the social language of verbal persuasion. II. HYPOTHESES OF THE DISSERTATION 1.
The main aim in my dissertation is to prove and demonstrate that the stylistic devices (the tropes and figures of speech) in the public and/or political speeches are not only “decorative and/or ornamental elements”, but theyhave serious argumentative and logical function as well. Therefore, the style could mark and embody the point and the content, and it’s not simply mannerism or optional and/or rejectable element of the speech. The choice of the appropriate stylistic devices can significantly determine the persuasive power of the speech (or of the argumentation of it).
2.
A good orator should choose the important persuasive elements from the opinions and beliefs accepted by the audience, and should make them (e.g. things absent in time and space) as if they were present. The tropes and figures of speech can be considered as the means of this as if the orator arouses emotions in the audience with their help. This emotional identification and acceptance could serve as the basis for the persuasion. My aim in my dissertation is to point that the stylistic devices used in the Hungarian public and/or political speeches could be linked to certain political lines, parties and/or persons, and that they play an important role during the process of the persuasion, the identification and the acceptance.
3.
The system of myths, the mythology meant a “scientific” explanation of the world, a religious doctrine and belief system and a moral guidance and the recording of the national and/or common group-distinctive traditions in the same time from the beginning. Later, most of the historical groups have set up their own mythology from the mixture of their own explanation of the world, religion, gods, heroic epics and stories. Therefore, the myth is primarily an explanation of the world. The public life and sphere, the manifestation of public figures are heavily influenced by the social and political events. The so called political myths could facilitate the 6
processing of these phenomena, including the understanding of the connection existing between them. Therefore, the political myths could simplify the study and the understanding of political events and discourse. The interpretation of the past is not their only task: they have social functions through the forming and shaping of collective remembrance. My aim in my dissertation is to prove (a) that the pubic and/or political sphere in Hungary – such as the discourse on and about it, or as the public speeches – is imbued with political myths; (b) that Hungarian political myths could be linked to certain political lines, parties and/or persons, and that they play an important role during the process of the persuasion, the identification and the acceptance – just like the stylistic devices used in the Hungarian public and/or political speeches. 4.
The publicity and the political propaganda both like to use complex or polysemous words, symbols, of which the current meaning and sense could be determined only in a given context. In addition, they create modern myths, and a certain worship to mobilize masses, and finally to generate acts or actions without prior thought. Therefore, the ramification, the sharp confrontation of the “"us" and "them"” could be important means of the publicity and the political propaganda. This is one of the main characteristics and features of the contemporary Hungarian public speeches, the political communication and rhetoric in Hungary alike.
5.
In fact, communication is the modernization of rhetoric, as many theses of it could be originated from the classical rhetoric. While the background of communication is the modern technology, the transmitting of the information and the terms of it are originated from Physics, rhetoric is strongly related to Ethics (to Philosophy) in the meantime (Adamikné 2013: 27). The application of the communication could help to understand the contemporary public speeches, the political relations and intensions since we can use and also abuse spoken words. Abuse of the spoken words might be the means of the political power of the time, therefore, it is always important to people to have education and values, and to be able to recognize and handle the manipulation on the other hand. Briefly: to learn how to say no (Adamikné 2013: 25). Communication could be useful in the analyzing of campaigns, but also in the (rhetorical) analyzing of public and/or political speeches.
6.
There are fewer and fewer good orators according to Cicero in the public and/or political life after the Changes of the system in 1989/1990 in Hungary (regardless of the
7
political tendency) compared to the excellent and prominent public figures of the previous centuries. Good orators according to Cicero are able to arrange their thoughts into logical structures, and are able to choose simple and noble words to facilitate the comprehension. Nowadays, only a few people refers to values, with which the audience could identify (the definition of the values could raise new questions on the other hand), although and their arguments could match the audience’s mentality and mood. Finally, there are hardly any rhetoricians in the present public life, which would be regularly able to make the audience think and which would be able to please, to touch, to teach, to set an example and to show a way to follow in the same time.
8
III. MATERIAL AND METHOD III. 1. The rhetorical analysis and its method The analysis is the means of cognition and comprehension. A work, an essay or a text can be analyzed in as many different ways as many disciplines there are. The evaluations and studies of works of art have classical methods: the rhetorical analysis is one of them. The need for rhetorical analysis is as old as the formation of rhetoric. The rhetorical analysis keeps the whole rhetoric system in mind, as it is essential to “interpret and define other’s speeches and literary works: to explore the false and the truth in them” (Adamik 1998a: 47). Rhetorical analysis is an important field; it’s the main part of the modern rhetoric according to Heinrich Plett (Plett 1988: 133, 135). The analysis of the rhetorical speeches and (their) argumentations helps the cognition (see para. Perelman 1977/1982), so it is applicable to a maximum in the practice – whether in the public sphere or in the education. There is no rhetorical theory without practice, one supposes the other. Practice without theory is blind – theory without practice is sterile. Texts for learning by heart were analyzed for the sake of cognition and comprehension in the ancient times already as it was known that if a work was created in accordance with the rules of rhetoric, the rules of rhetoric would help in the understanding of the work as well. The rhetorical analysis takes the interaction between the work, the author and the audience into consideration and it’s interested both in the outcome, the process and the effect of the linguistic activity. The method of the rhetorical analysis could be qualitative and quantitative too. For example, Stephen Toulmin English philosopher’s analysis model (published in his book The uses of argument (1958) (see description in Adamik – Jászó – Aczél 2004: 145-146; and Bencze 2003: 13-29), or the structural analysis by Kenneth Burke in which the stylistic devices can be examined structure embedded, pointing to their functionality (Burke 1968: 123-183) are qualitative analyzing methods. But if the audience values are determined by a questionnaire process, it is already a quantitative analysis. Rhetorical analysis is an applied rhetoric field. The transfer of the theory into practice is a great challenge, and applying analytical aspects on greater material is even more difficult.
9
The existing Hungarian speech analyses are mainly content and/or political analyses. The analyses published in various press organs are focusing mostly on the content of the speeches, and the analysts often study the influence of the speeches (and/or the speakers) on the audience, and the structure of the speeches, but these are not complex rhetorical analyses. Although there were several rhetorical analyses written and published in Hungary: such as the analyses of speeches (or of parts of the speeches) in “A régi új retorika” (The Old and New Rhetoric) /the series are published since 2000/, in Lóránt Bencze’s work from 2004 “Boldog a nép, amely tud ünnepelni. Beszédek, előadások” (Blessed is the people that is able to celebrate. Speeches, presentations, lectures) (Bencze 2004), in the book “22 híres beszéd” (22 Famous Speeches) (22 híres beszéd 1995), and in the “A XX. század magyar beszédei” (Hungarian Speeches of the 20th Century) (Vajda (ed.) 2007) etc. The works of Mrs. Adamik Anna Jászó (Adamikné 2006, 2011, 2012) are relevant in the topic of the rhetorical analysis. The author suggests criteria and guidelines to rhetorical analyses in them – based on the classical rhetorical theory and the results of the modern rhetorical researches (mainly from the Anglo-Saxon language area). In her opinion the rhetorical thinking and the determining of the style and the “appearance” of the text (the interpretation) are the main points of the rhetorical text analysis. This analysis could complete and complement the grammatical and pragmatical aspects of the text reading comprehension (Adamikné 2011a). The theoretical background of the rhetorical analysis (see the word article Rhetorical Analysis in the Rhetorical-lexicon, Adamik Tamás (ed.) 2010: 1029-1031) is an almost untouched area. Rhetorical analysis is as complex as complex and diverse is rhetoric itself. The theoretical background and the development of the analyzing criteria are both necessary for the analysis. Several different methods are known by the rhetorical analysis; perhaps the most effective is the combination of classical rhetorical criteria with new perspectives. With this qualification of the original criteria the analyses could be more flexible, and suitable to analyze various texts. III. 2. Principles of selection Public and political speeches are analyzed rhetorically in the dissertation (especially in chapter 4 and 5). In Chapter 5 there are several complete analyses of “contemporary” (the decades from the Changes of the system in 1989/1990 to present days) public and political
10
speeches. The acquaintance and the popularity of the politicians/public figures, and/or the speeches (as well as the reasons of these) were taken into account as criteria of the selection. I made an effort to be objective and “politically correct” – there are speech analyses in the dissertation from the complete political spectrum (i.e. from the left- and rightwing as well) in various speech genres. The first analysis, "Thanks – Respect – Compromise" („Köszönet – Tisztelet – Kiegyezés”) (5.2.2. – the reference refers to the title of the chapter in the dissertation) is the complex rhetorical analysis of János Áder’s presidential inauguration speeches in May 2012. The further analyses follow the chronological order of the speeches. Viktor Orbán gave a speech (5.2.3.) on the occasion of the reburial of Imre Nagy and his fellow national martyrs of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution on June 16, 1989. This speech could be considered as a kind of a milestone or landmark in the history of the Hungarian public rhetoric as the rhetorician broke the rhetorical traditions of the era (and of the previous decades’) and gave a brave speech in accordance with the classical rhetorical traditions. (The speech brought him wide national and political acclaim, and it surely played an important role in the establishing of the political myths related to him.) Árpád Göncz couldn’t tell his festive speech (5.2.4.) on October 23, 1992 – the President of the Republic was interrupted by several demonstrators on Kossuth Square. Therefore, the situation arising from the ethos of the speaker and the relationship between the speaker and the audience played the main part in the selection of this speech. Ferenc Gyurcsány gave a famous-illfamed speech in Balatonőszöd in May 2006, which ignited mass protests around Hungary and rioting in Budapest. This “Őszöd speech” (Őszödi beszéd) (5.2.5.) was analysed most of all by its style (it’s notable for its obscene language), but other aspects (the way it was recorded and broadcasted/published, its view and representation in the media and in the public sphere etc.) could be the cause for putting it into the corpus. Ferenc Mádl’s speech on József Antall /”József Antall – The credo of a politician and a statesman” (Antall József – egy politikus és államférfi ars poeticája) (5.2.6.) 29 January 2009/ was chosen by its genre, content, and because of the Joseph Antall linked political myths. Viktor Orbán’s /”We won’t be a colony!” (15. 03. 2012) (Nem leszünk gyarmat!) (5.2.7.)/ and Gordon Bajnai’s festive speech on 23 October of the same year (5.2.8.) are both chosen because of their genre (ceremonial/festive speech), and the public and/or political discourse 11
determined metaphors and myths used in these speeches. That was also the reason for choosing Viktor Orbán’s festive speech given on the St. Stephen’ Memorial Year on August 19 2013 at Székesfehérvár /”We couldn’t be here without St. Stephen” (Szent István nélkül nem lehetnénk itt) (5.2.10.)/. An earlier anti-Semitic parliamentary speech made the majority of Hungarian public life to do firm manifestations and to give definite speeches. From the speeches (5.2.9.) on the “Mass Demonstration Against Nazism” (organized by the NEM, Budapest, 02. 12. 2012) Antal Rogán’s (5.2.9.2.), Attila Mesterházy’s (5.2.9.3.) and Gordon Bajnai’s (5.2.9.4.) occasional and consultant speeches excelled by their argumentation, structure and message.
12
IV. THE STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION In the chapters after the one presenting the objectives (Chapter 1) the dissertation gives theoretical background for the actual research: for analyzing recent Hungarian public discourse and speeches. The second chapter defines rhetoric, gives a summary of rhetorical theory’s fundamental concepts, and presents the related sciences of classical rhetoric as well as the new rhetoric trends and tendencies in the 20th–21st centuries. It covers the relationship between rhetoric and language, as well as the relationship between rhetoric and style, and – based on these – the relationship of stylistic devices and rhetoric. Based on the definition of myth, public sphere, public opinion, and politics, the third chapter presents the political myths of Hungary – supporting the theory by examples. The chapter following this (Chapter 4) presents the Hungarian public and political speeches, and proposes periodization concerns. It analyzes the contemporary political rhetoric based on the communicational and rhetorical presentation of the 1994, the 1998 and the 2002 Hungarian Parliamentary Elections and the elements of the campaigns. Then it illustrates the theory discussed earlier with examples of the usage (or to be more precise the most typical tropes and figures mark the speeches) and sentence construction of contemporary Hungarian public speeches as well. The fifth chapter contains the combined, complex rhetorical criticism of current Hungarian public, political speeches. Similarly to the previous chapter it is preceded by a theoretical summary: by the presentation of the rhetorical analysis and its method, and the Hungarian analyses. The digression about the text analysis of contemporary lyrics in terms of rhetorical analysis proves the applicability of rhetorical analysis on other text types. The collection of contemporary speech analyses comes next. The description of the selection’s principles and criteria is followed by several analyses of – for different reasons – characteristic and/or of its time outstanding public speeches – based on the theories showed in the previous chapters. The sixth chapter of the thesis includes theses and conclusions formulated through the research, as well as opportunities for further research. The chapter is followed by the list of the sources (Chapter 7 – Bibliography), diagrams and pictures (Chapter 8). The dissertation’s last, the ninth chapter (Appendix) is the corpus of the complete text versions of the analyzed speeches. 13
V. THESES OF THE DISSERTATION 1.
During my dissertation I proved and demonstrated in several ways that the stylistic devices (the tropes and figures of speech) in the public and/or political speeches are not only “decorative and/or ornamental elements”, but they have serious argumentative and logical function as well. Therefore, the style could mark and embody the point and the content, and it’s not simply mannerism or optional and/or rejectable element of the speech.
2.
The stylistic devices (the tropes and figures of speech) used as the means of the persuasion in the Hungarian public and/or political speeches couldn’t be linked exclusively to certain political lines, parties and/or persons, and this makes the process of the persuasion, the identification and the acceptance more difficult.
3.
The public life and sphere, the manifestation of public figures are heavily influenced by the social and political events, and this is a reciprocative relationship. The so called political myths could facilitate the processing of these phenomena, including the understanding of the connection existing between them. Therefore, the political myths could simplify the study and the understanding of political events and discourse. These political myths of the era and the political discourse after the Changes of the system in 1989/1990 in Hungary are not always and exclusively settled. The present political myths – such as the stylistic devices (the tropes and figures of speech) used as the means of the persuasion – in the present Hungarian public and/or political speeches couldn’t be linked exclusively to certain political lines, parties and/or persons, and this also makes the process of the persuasion, the identification and the acceptance more difficult.
4.
The publicity and the political propaganda both like to use complex or polysemous words, symbols, of which the current meaning and sense could be determined only in a given context. In addition, they create modern myths, and a certain worship to mobilize masses, and finally to generate acts or actions without prior thought. Therefore, the ramification, the sharp confrontation of the “„us” and „them”” is important means of the publicity and the political propaganda. This is one of the main characteristic and feature of the contemporary Hungarian public speeches, the political communication and rhetoric in Hungary alike.
14
5.
As communication is the modernization of rhetoric, the application of it could help to understand the contemporary public speeches, the political relations and intensions as well. Communication could be useful in the analyzing of campaigns, but also in the (rhetorical) analyzing of public and/or political speeches.
6.
There are only a few good orators according to Cicero in the public and/or political life after the Changes of the system in 1989/1990 in Hungary (regardless of the political tendency) compared to the excellent and prominent public figures of the previous centuries. Good orators according to Cicero are able to arrange their thoughts into logical structures, and are able to choose simple and noble words to facilitate the comprehension. Nowadays, only a few people refers to values, with which the audience could identify (the definition of the values could raise new questions on the other hand), although and their arguments could match the audience's mentality and mood. Finally, there are hardly any rhetoricians in the present public life, which would be regularly able to make the audience think and which would be able to please, to touch, to teach, to set an example and to show a way to follow in the same time.
15
VI. REFERRED BIBLIOGRAPHY 22 híres beszéd 1995 = 22 híres beszéd. 1995. Móra Könyvkiadó, Budapest. Aczél 2009 = Aczél, Petra 2009. Új retorika – Közélet, kommunikáció, kampány. Kalligram, Pozsony. Adamik 1998 = Adamik, Tamás 1998. A szöveg értelmezése. In: Havas László (ed.): Bevezetés az ókortudományba. I. KLTE BTK, Debrecen, 37–65. Adamik, Tamás (ed.) 2010 = Adamik, Tamás (ed.) 2010. Retorikai lexikon. Kalligram, Pozsony. Adamik–Jászó–Aczél 2004 = Adamik, Tamás – A. Jászó, Anna – Aczél, Petra 2004. Retorika. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest. Adamikné (ed.) 2008 = Adamikné, Jászó Anna (ed.) 2008. Az előadásmód és a szónoki beszéd. Trezor, Budapest. Adamikné 2006 = Adamikné, Jászó Anna 2006. Az olvasás múltja és jelene. Trezor Kiadó, Budapest. Adamikné 2011a = Adamikné, Jászó Anna 2011. A szövegértő olvasás fejlesztésének új lehetősége: a retorikai elemzés. In: Könyv és Nevelés 2011/4. http://olvasas.opkm.hu/portal/felso_menusor/konyv_es_neveles/a_szovegerto_olvasas _fejlesztesenek_uj_lehetosege_a_retorikai_elemzes (Downloaded: 14:15, 13. 04. 2012.) Adamikné 2012 = Adamikné, Jászó Anna 2012. A retorikai elemzésről. In: Markó Alexandra (ed.) 2012. Beszédtudomány – Az anyanyelv-elsajátítástól a zöngekezdési időig. ELTE BTK – MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézet, Budapest, 171–191. Adamikné 2013 = Adamikné, Jászó Anna 2013. Klasszikus magyar retorika. Holnap Kiadó, Budapest. Babits 1909/1978 = Babits, Mihály 1909/1978. Irodalmi nevelés. Egy tantárgy filozófiája tanulók számára. In: Babits, Mihály 1909/1978. Esszék, tanulmányok (I. kötet). Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 87–99. Bencze 2004 = Bencze, Lóránt 2004. Boldog a nép, amely tud ünnepelni. Beszédek, előadások. Corvinus, Budapest. Burke 1968 = Burke, Kenneth 1968. Counter-statement. University of California Press, Berkeley. Charteris-Black 2005 = Charteris-Black, Jonathan 2005. Politicans and Rhetoric – The Persuasive Power of Metaphore. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.
16
Cooper 1989 = Cooper, Martha 1989. Analyzing public discourse. Waveland, Prospect Heights, Illinois. Corbett – Connors 1965/1999 = Corbett, Edward P. J. – Connors, Robert J. 1965/1999. Classical rhetoric for the modern student. (Fourth edition.) Oxford University Press, New York – Oxford. Corbett (ed.) 1969 = Corbett, Edward P. J. (ed.) 1969. Rhetorical analyses of literary works. Oxford University Press, New York – London – Toronto. Edelman 2000a = Edelman, Murray 2000. A politika szimbolikus használata. In: Szabó, Márton – Kiss, Balázs – Boda, Zsolt (eds.) 2000. Szövegváltozatok a politikára. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Universitas, Budapest, 179–193. Edelman 2000b = Edelman, Murray 2000. Metafora és nyelvi formák a politikában. In: Szabó, Márton – Kiss, Balázs – Boda, Zsolt (eds.) 2000. Szövegváltozatok a politikára. Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Universitas, Budapest, 214–215. Ehninger 1968 = Ehninger, Douglas 1968. On Systems of Rhetoric. In: Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1968: 131–135. Flood 2001 = Flood, Christopher 2001. Political Myth. Routledge, New York. Perelman 1977/1982 = Perelman, Chaim 1977/1982. The realm of rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame – London. Plett 1988 = Plett, Heinrich F. 1988. Retorika és stilisztika. In: Kanyó, Zoltán – Síklaki, István (eds.): Tanulmányok az irodalomtudomány köréből. Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 131– 167. Rolfe 2014 = Rolfe, Mark 2014. Looking backwards to the future: The evolving tradition of ideal political rhetoric in Australia. In: Uhr, John – Walter, Ryan (eds.): Studies in Australian Political Rhetoric. The Australia National University Press, Canberra, 121– 142. Tudor 1972 = Tudor, Henry 1972. Political Myth. MacMillan, London. Vajda (ed.) 2007 = Vajda, Barnabás (ed.) 2007. A XX. század magyar beszédei. Agave Könyvek, Budapest.
17
VII. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AS REGARDS THE DISSERTATION Tóth M. Zsombor 2012. Zene és szöveg: A dalszövegek helye „Az irodalom határterületei” érettségi tételtípusban. In: Anyanyelv-pedagógia. 2012/3. (ISSN 2060-0623) http://www.anyanyelv-pedagogia.hu/cikkek.php?id=413 Tóth M. Zsombor 2013. „Köszönet - tisztelet – kiegyezés”: Áder János beiktatási beszédeinek retorikai elemzése. In: Dr Raátz Judit; Dr Tóth Etelka (szerk.) Az egyházi retorika: „A retorika a társadalomban - a társadalom a retorikában” konferencia előadásai és a tizenegyedik országos Kossuth-szónokverseny beszédei. Budapest, Közreadja: ELTE BTK Mai Magyar Nyelvi Tanszék/Trezor Kiadó, pp. 81–109. (ISBN 978-963-284348-3) Tóth M. Zsombor 2013. Dalszöveg – a velünk élő irodalom. In: Magyartanítás 2013/4., pp. 9–17. (ISSN 0464-4999) Tóth M. Zsombor 2014. Recenzió. Péter Mihály: A leplező nyelv. Álcázás és ámítás a nyelv használatában c. művéről (In: Az ékesszólás kiskönyvtára 22., Tinta Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 2012.). In: Magyar Nyelv 2014/1., pp. 102–107. (ISSN 0025-0228) Tóth M. Zsombor 2014. Zene és szöveg. Dalszövegek retorikai elemzése. In: MANYE XXIII. Nyelv – Társadalom – Kultúra. Interkulturális és multikulturális perspektívák I–II. A XXIII. Magyar Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Kongresszus (ELTE BTK Budapest, 2013. március 26–28.) előadásaiból készült tanulmánykötet. Szerk.: Ladányi Mária – Vladár Zsuzsa – Hrenek Éva. (MANYE, Vol. 10/I–II.). pp. 483–489. (ISBN 978-615-521966-5 /nyomtatott változat/; ISBN 978-615-5219-67-2 /elektronikus változat/) Tóth M. Zsombor 2014. „A stílus maga az ember.” A mai magyar politikai beszédek stílusa. In: Dr Raátz Judit, Dr Tóth Etelka (szerk.): A politikai beszéd. „A retorika a társadalomban – a társadalom a retorikában” konferencia előadásai és a tizenötödik országos Kossuth-szónokverseny beszédei. In memoriam Dobos Krisztina. Budapest, Közreadja: ELTE BTK Mai Magyar Nyelvi Tanszék/Trezor Kiadó, pp. 54–65. (ISBN 978-963-8144-43-0)
18
VIII. PRESENTATIONS AT CONFERENCES AS REGARDS THE DISSERTATION “Music and lyrics. Rhetorical analysis of lyrics.” /„Zene és szöveg. Dalszövegek retorikai elemzése”/ (At the XXIIIth Hungarian Applied Linguistic Congress: Language – Society – Culture. Intercultural and multicultural perspectives. 26–28. 03. 2013 – on 28. 03. 2013., from 11:10 to 11:30 at section XII., in room R/423 /XXIII Magyar Alkalmazott Nyelvészeti Kongresszus: Nyelv – Társadalom – Kultúra. Interkulturális és multikulturális perspektívák/.) ”The style is the man himself” – Style of the present Hungarian political speeches.” /„A stílus maga az ember” – A mai magyar politikai beszédek stílusa/ (At the XVth Lajos Kossuth Rhetorician Contest and Conference on 8. 11. 2013. /2013. november 8-án az ELTE BTK Mai Magyar Nyelvi Tanszéke, az ELTE BTK Magyar Nyelvtudományi és Finnugor Intézete, valamint a Rákóczi Szövetség szervezésében megrendezésre került XV. Országos Kossuth Lajos Szónokversenyen és Retorikai Konferencián
(melynek
témája
a
politikai
retorika
volt),
az
ELTE
Bölcsészettudományi Karának tanácstermében./) ”»Music is needed« – the place of the lyrics at teaching literature in secondary schools”/„"A zene az kell" – a dalszövegek helye a középiskolai magyartanításban”/ (At the József Eötvös Rhetorician Contest and Conference on 25. 04. 2013. /2015. április 25-én a TÁMOP-4.1.2.B.2-13/1-2013-0007 „ORSZÁGOS KOORDINÁCIÓVAL A
PEDAGÓGUSKÉPZÉS
MEGÚJÍTÁSÁÉRT”
című
pályázat
keretében
megrendezésre került retorikai tanártovábbképzésen az Eötvös József országos középiskolai
szónokverseny
regionális
fordulójához
kapcsolódva,
az
ELTE
Bölcsészettudományi Karának tanácstermében./)
19
