جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « مناظره های تلویزیونی » در نشریات گروه « علوم اجتماعی »

In this study, one of the most important election campaigns in Iran, the presidential election debates, one of the most important and most popular programs of the presidential election’s candidates in IRIB has been studied from the perspective of critical discourse analysis. For this purpose, representatives of the two dominant discourses in the debates of the thirteenth Iranian presidential election were selected, Mr. Raisi as the representative of the discourse near to the revolutionary discourse or the same as ‘fundamentalism’ and Mr. Hemmati as the representative of the discourse near to the reformist and constructive discourse. To analyze this discourse, Van Dijk’s critical discourse analysis method has been used, and the study’s population included the first debate on economy. Of the three debates, this debate was chosen because of the importance of the economic situation in the country. The debate has been examined at three levels (Semantic, Style, and Argument) and finally, the basic proposition of the debate was extracted. Data analysis shows that the keynotes of Raisi’s speeches in the economic debate have been "supporting the national production", "fighting corruption", "pragmatic government to revive economic conditions" and "criticizing Hassan Rouhani's government", and Hemmati's main statements include "engineering of the election", "unreality (covering nature) of the other candidates" and "the effects of sanctions and non-membership in the FATF Convention on the economy."

Language in its social function, discourse, plays a very important role in determining social power. Since metaphor is a very common phenomenon in the language and governs the conceptual system, it can play a prominent role in this regard. Since in the presidential and parliamentary elections, society exposes to a rivalry of discourses to change power relations more than ever, in this research, we want to study the metaphors used in Iran's television debates of Iranian presidential candidates in 2016, within the framework of the Charteris-Black's "Critical Analysis of Metaphor" approach (2004). Three hypotheses were investigated in this study and the findings confirmed all three hypotheses: 1)A common experimental ground with voters, their logical and emotional persuasion, to legitimize one's own views and to delegitimize competing perspectives, are among the most important motivations for applying and choosing metaphors in these debates; 2) In these debates, the domains of journey, conflict, and building are the most frequent conceptual domains for metaphors; 3) Despite the similarities in the use of political currents from the source domains of metaphors, there are differences In the calling of entities from these domains which reflect the ideological differences of these currents.