AUTHORITY LEGITIMATION IN CAMPAIGN DISCOURSE OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Abstract

: This article addresses legitimation in discourse seen as a complex and multifaceted concept. The specific focus is on authority legitimization which is understood not simply as ethos construction but rather as a claim to rightness, i.e. the claim to be normatively right to perform the speech act. Building upon work on legitimation by van Leeuwen and van Dijk, the article studies intertextuality as one aspect of authority legitimation. The presence of elements of one text in other texts can take various forms and degree of visibility and intensity. Therefore the main purpose of the article is to identify the types and functions of intertextuality. A framework within the scope of Critical Discourse Studies is proposed by which a small corpus of acceptance speeches of contemporary American political leaders is analyzed. The results from the quantitative and qualitative analysis have shown that speakers of different political backgrounds use intertextuality similarly. It is revealed that the most common source of intertextuality is the voice of the political opponent. The main functions of intertextuality in the analyzed speeches are solidarity and credibility building as well as downgrading opposing points of view.