Academic Paper Writing Service

1. This is a pre-publication manuscript that was subject to a few minor corrections before publication in Journal of
Language and Politics 13 (2), 289-312. To quote from this article, please refer to the published version.
Addressee Orientation in Political Speeches:
Tracing the Dialogical ‘Other’ in Argumentative Monologue
This article suggests that the addressees as the dialogical ‘other’ loom large in monological political
speeches. However, political speeches are produced under conditions of addressee heterogeneity, i.e.
the speakers do not actually know who they will be talking to. It will be argued that the addressees are
nevertheless a crucial element in speakers’ context models, that speakers orientate towards imagined
addressees and that certain aspects – what possible addressees may do, think or believe and that they
are a part of an imagined community – are particularly relevant from the speakers’ point of view. An
analysis of addressee orientation in political speeches aims at reconstructing speakers’
conceptualisations of possible addressees. The analysis reveals patterns of addressee orientation
which suggest that the addressees are framed in terms of presumed nearness (i.e. agreement) or
distance (i.e. disagreement) to the speakers. Both presumed agreement and disagreement will be
discussed in terms of how the speakers aim to impose their default perspectives on the addressees.
The analysis is based on examples from a substantial corpus of German chancellors’ political
speeches from 1951-2001.
1. Introduction
Political speeches are generally considered a monological genre. However, although the text
and the speech situation by themselves can be considered monological, there might for
instance be heckling, possibly leading to dialogical intersections. In actual speech situations,
the speaker does not just appear in order to reel off a lengthy expression of self and then
disappear again. Considering the overall communicative event, at least part of the audience
may have the opportunity of replying in some way and of obtaining a response to their reply.
Media reporting about (parts of) the speech might also trigger response.
Apart from the not always strictly monological speech situation and context, a more general
notion should also be considered, namely that social symbolic interaction is innately
reciprocal (Mead 1959), cooperative (Grice 1989) and dialogic (Bakhtin 1981). This also
includes monological genres. Concepts like that of audience design (Clark/Carlson 1982; Bell
1984) have shown that irrespective of the audience’s (inter)active involvement in the
communicative event, the audience does play a role in the speaker’s anticipation of the
situation and, consequently, in the design of the text.
In this paper, textual clues to political speakers’ audience design will be looked at, in the
form of addressee orientation. The concept of audience design, or recipient design,
understood by Sacks et al. (1978: 43) as "a multitude of respects in which the talk by a party
in a conversation is constructed or designed in ways which display an orientation and
sensitivity to the particular other(s) who are the coparticipants" has been used for the analysis

2. 2
of dynamic, mostly interpersonal face-to-face conversations as well as mass communication
(Bell 1984). The term addressee orientation is introduced here to account for the difference
between the dynamic process of audience or recipient design in interactive settings and the
way in which the anticipation of (possible) addressees influences (conceptually) written,
monological texts with a higher level of planning and lower level of response (cf.
Martin/White 2005, Schindler 2004). Textual clues to addressee orientation in political
speeches help to reconstruct the dialogical ‘other’ in argumentative monologue and affirm the
inherently interactional nature of monologue since audience design is a “fundamental
property of utterances” (Clark/Carlson 1982). The focus will therefore not be on explicit
forms of address – although the way these are used can be rather salient in political discourse
(cf. Jaworski/Galasińki 2000) –, but on more implicit patterns of addressee orientation by
which political speakers’ imagined addressees can be traced in an attempt to reconstruct the
speakers’ view of the audience; who do they think they are talking to and what aspects of
possible addressees are salient for the speakers?
This article builds on previous research (Schröter 2006) that looked at forms and patterns of
addressee orientation on the basis of 114 speeches from all German chancellors between
1951 and 2001. Two speeches were selected per speaker per year in office and four – two for
each speaker – in years where there was a change of chancellor. The corpus was built
according to the following premises: Only speeches held in and relating to domestic politics
contexts were selected and the speakers all act in the same role, i.e. as German chancellors.
Within these premises, diverse occasions for holding the speeches were selected in order to
capture the broadest possible variety of addressee orientation phenomena. From looking
through registers of all chancellors’ speeches documented by the German ‘Presse- und
Informationsamt der Bundesregierung’ (the federal government’s press and information
office), it became clear that most of the speeches given by chancellors related to specific
occasions, such as opening ceremonies of e.g. trade fairs or large investment or infrastructure
projects, anniversaries of big businesses or associations or annual conventions of e.g. trade
unions or other large professional or umbrella associations. Therefore, a majority of 57
speeches in the corpus were from this sphere of chancellors’ public speech. Fewer speeches
were held before the parliament or at party conventions (altogether 34 in the corpus) and on
commemorative occasions such as national remembrance days – a sphere of public speech
largely reserved for the German president – or events held on the occasion of anniversaries of
historically important Germans such as Martin Luther (altogether 18 in the corpus)1
.

3. 3
The analysis suggested that the speakers envisage their addressees in different roles (Schröter
2006);
 as people who do things, who act in certain ways (see 4.1 and 4.2 below);
 as people who have attitudes, who think (in certain ways) and who believe certain
things (see 3.1 and 3.2 below);
 finally, as people who are a part of the society that the speaker to a certain degree
represents, who are supposed to share experiences chosen and worded by the speaker
and who are seen as part of a hegemonic historical narrative (cf. Wodak et al. 2009)
In the following, the focus will be on the first two addressee roles; the addressees as people
who might act in certain ways, and as people who have certain attitudes.
2. The addressees – who?!
2.1 Conceptualising the addressees as part of the context
Even though there might be more easily definable primary addressees physically present at
the communicative event of a political speech – such as the staff of the German Opel
(Vauxhall) car production plant – in modern media democracies political speakers generally
face a situation of addressee heterogeneity. The speakers have to take into account multiple
and principally infinite groups of addressees – intended or self-appointed (cf. Kühn 1992),
overhearing or eavesdropping (cf. Bell 1984). For this reason, Bell (1984) postulates that,
especially in service encounters, public speaking and mass communication speakers
conceptualise speeches with imagined, intended addressees in mind (170ff.). The addressees
can thus be conceived of as a speaker-construct rather than empirical persons – which also
makes it possible to analyse the phenomenon of ‘address’ in political speeches without
information about empirical addressees. Petter-Zimmer (1990) differentiates between
strategies of contacting (i.e. forms of address) and strategies of orientating towards
addressees. The latter relies on the speaker “characterising the addressees only via specific
assumptions about the addressees’ knowledge or about the relation between himself and the
addressees without at the same time signalling the fact that or whom he is addressing" (278;
my translation, MS).

4. 4
The speakers can never know exactly who the addressees will be and what they are likely to
think about the speaker and the speech, and therefore speakers have to anticipate possible
addressees and their possible attitudes. If it is accepted that audience design is a generic
phenomenon in communication, this will also apply to political speeches even under
conditions of addressee heterogeneity. If political speeches too are conceptualised and written
with the addressees in mind, then this is likely to happen on the basis of a tentative modelling
of ideal, abstract, constructed addressees and it should therefore be possible to find textual
traces of such addressee conceptualisations. It can be further argued that a retrieval of such
textual traces will allow a re-construction of what it is about the addressees that is relevant for
the speaker. If textual clues allow a re-construction of the addressee that the speaker had in
mind, it could on this basis be argued that these speakers’ models of the addressees will
reveal what aspects about possible addressees are salient in the speakers’ conceptualisations
of who they will be talking to. 2
Arguably, for political speakers, the addressees – the targets
of efforts of persuasion – are a very crucial component of the context and it is likely that their
choice of topics is at least partly determined by anticipated addressees. Approaches to context
(van Dijk 2008) and common ground (Clark 1996, 92-121) both argue in different ways that
speakers seek to establish and build on shared knowledge between themselves and the
addressees. In broader, theoretical terms, common ground and shared knowledge to a certain
degree is necessary for communication to succeed. However, the point to be made here more
specifically is that political speakers under conditions of essentially indefinite addressee
situations rather project certain cognitive content (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs) into ideal
addressees. Thereby, they frame the addressees in terms of proximity – how much what is
presumed to be on their minds agrees with the speakers’ own perspectives. Addressee
orientation, the treatment of the dialogical other in argumentative monologue, must therefore
be seen as part of the speakers’ attempts at persuasion. It could also be argued that gauging
common ground under conditions of indefinite (intended or unintended) address would be
impossible so that the speaker has to orientate towards possible addressees. The speakers’
treatment of the addressees – as part of their context model (van Dijk 2008) will be
influenced by what they consider to be relevant about possible addressees from their own
perspective.
We see that the notion of subjective context models theoretically implies the important criterion
of relevance, namely that only those properties of communicative situation are construed as
forming part of the context, if they are (now) relevant for the participant. Note that relevance is
not absolute or (only) socially determined, but is relative to the current knowledge, goals,

5. 5
wishes, interests and personal experiences of the current speaker or recipient at each moment of
a communicative event. (van Dijk 2009: 75)
Where the speakers refer to activities of possible addresses, these references can be described
in terms of an axis of desirability from the speakers’ perspective (see 4.1 and 4.2 below).
Where the speakers refer to imagined addressees as people who think (in certain ways) or
believe certain things, these references can be described in terms of an axis of (dis)agreement
(see 3.1 and 3.2 below).
2.2 Framing the addressees in political speeches
Following on from Goffman’s influential book on Frame Analysis (1974), the concept of
frame has been used in various disciplinary contexts (cf. Ensink/Sauer 2003: 3f.) for a
number of empirical studies especially of mass media communication (e.g. Iyengar 1991),
but also for conceptual and experimental research in (micro) sociology (social) psychology
(e.g. Tversky/Kahneman 1981). However, it has been noted, most notably by Entman (1993)
that, as a concept, ‘frame’ remains under-specified and rather vague. Loosely defined uses of
the term are common, which is seen as a productive advantage by D’Angelo (2002). The
smallest common denominator however seems to be that frames influence interpretation,
representation and perception of events or (social) reality. In this sense, frame analysis can
reveal how communicators interpret or present ‘reality’ and/or focus on how receivers are
likely to perceive ‘reality’ that is represented as framed in a certain way (and not another).
The term ‘frame’ – with a different conceptual ontogenesis building especially on Fillmore’s
(e.g. 1985, 2006) work – is also used as a concept within a cognitive approach to lexical
semantics and here it refers to structures of stored knowledge that is triggered by the use of
lexical items rather than to patterns of perception and interpretation. In a media studies
context, Entman (1993) argues that communicators “make conscious or unconscious framing
judgments in deciding what to say, guided by frames (…) that organize their belief systems”
(52). Thereby, frames “highlight some bits of information about an item (…), thereby
elevating them in salience.” (53) It appears that both notions – frames as knowledge
structures as well as patterns of perception and interpretation – influenced the way in which
frame has occasionally been used in discourse analysis, as the following definition suggests,
according to which frames can be understood as:

6. 6
[…] relational knowledge structure prototypically representing or shaping a stereotyped
situation. The associated framing process is a fundamental cognitive strategy to organize our
experience of reality, to conceptually structure or make sense of the world by imposing a logic
of its own, and thus serves as a natural locus for the construction and reflection of received and
alternative ideology. The kind of framing or construal that takes place is signalled by linguistic
features and structures previously at the disposal of language users. (Sànchez-García/Blanco-
Carrión 2007: 236)
The reference to frame/framing here with regard to the addressee orientation leans more
towards an understanding of frames as a term that captures the notion of structured
conceptualisations of (social) reality within a broader socio-cognitive approach to discourse.
Frames here refer to how the speakers’ conceptualisation of the addressees is structured, and
it is argued here that it is structured in terms of nearness/distance. Kendall (2004) describes
participant alignment as part of speakers’ frames:
[…] participants position self and other through the frames they create and maintain.
Participants create frames by taking up and making certain positions available to other
participants (…). Positions claim and attribute qualities such as
knowledgeable/unknowledgeable, competent/incompetent. In addition, they align the
participants in particular ways on a number of social dimensions. The symbolic, social
relationship the participants create between themselves and others […] is the PARTICIPANT
ALIGNMENT. Alignments are constituted by dimensions of social relations that most
influence individuals’ verbal and non-verbal conduct when in the presence of others. (63)
Thus, inherently egocentric deixis (cf. Chilton 2004, 56ff.) and the constitutive role of the
speakers’ own perspective means that the speaker positions the addressees, their attitudes and
actions, relative to her-/himself. Relevant dimensions of the ‘dialogical others’ become part
of the speakers’ context model also in argumentative monologue, whereby the addressees are
framed by the speakers in terms of nearness and distance, which can be specified as
agreement or disagreement: The speaker anticipates more or less (dis)agreement between her-
/himself and the addressees with regard to knowledge and attitudes as well as with regard to
the desirability or usefulness of their actions. This plausibly reflects van Dijk’s notion of
‘relevant properties of the communicative situation’ and Entman’s reference to ‘salient
aspects of a perceived reality’: Whether the addressees agree or disagree or act in accordance
with the speaker is perhaps the most relevant aspect from the speaker’s perspective with
regard to any addressee at any time. Chancellors’ speeches are part of an ongoing campaign
in support of the government’s policy. Campaigning means the speaker must strive to leave
the addressees with the most favourable impression possible, if not convinced or persuaded.

7. 7
The speaker aims at the highest possible level of agreement – leaving the addressees with the
impression
 that the government takes the addressees’ concerns seriously or that they work for the
same goals
 that government policies deal with the addressees’ concerns and/or help them to
achieve their goals, or that the government is planning such policies under
consideration of the addressees’ concerns or goals
 that planned or implemented policies do/might/will show effects that are desirable for
the addressees.
2.3 Tracing the Addressees in Political Speeches
The discussion above suggests that for speakers in the role of German chancellor, the most
relevant aspect about the addressees is whether or not or to what degree they (dis)agree, or to
what degree their (possible) activities harmonise with the government’s objectives. The
speakers therefore need to find ways of conveying their own perspective which is – naturally
– affirmative of government policies while taking into account possible (and possibly
sceptical) addressees’ perspectives on the same matters. This can be seen as a form of
Engagement as it has been conceptualised in Appraisal Theory (Martin/White 2005) and
which encompasses “resources of intersubjective positioning” and their “dialogistic effects”
(95), i.e.
The ways in which these resources act to ‘write the reader into the text’ by presenting the
speaker/writer as, for example, taking it for granted that the addressee shares with them a
particular viewpoint, or as anticipating that a given proposition will be problematic (or
unproblematic) for the putative reader, or as assuming that the reader may need to be won over
to a particular viewpoint, and so on. (ibid.)
The textual means discussed within Engagement help to trace the dialogic element in
monological speech, and it also allows for an important distinction, namely that between
textual means that expand or contract the dialogistic diversity within the text. This refers to
the treatment of ‘other voices’ or perspectives in the text, i.e. the force with which they are
rebuked, or the extent to which they are allowed in. Interestingly, the majority of phenomena
of addressee orientation in the political speeches analysed serve to contract the dialogistic

8. 8
diversity in the text, especially the omnipresence of ‘Disclaim (counter)’ (Martin/White 2005:
97f.), with which contrary positions are rejected (see 3.2 below).
However, Appraisal Theory is much focussed on the textual phenomena that constitute a
speaker’s inter-subjective positioning with regard to Attitude, Engagement and Graduation
and less so with speakers’ conceptualisations of the context – including the addressees – or
with their strategic intentions in contexts. With regard to the latter, the work of Marín-Arrese
(e.g. 2009, 2011) has shown how expressions of political speakers’ stance “involves
strategies used by speakers/writers to manage their interests and thus serves the strategic
functions of legitimisation and coercion.” (2011: 194) She thereby argues that expressions of
stance not merely and genuinely reflect speakers’ stance but, especially where
intersubjectively shared assessments (‘we all know…’) are invoked, this can also be
understood as clues to what the speakers would like others to believe.
In rhetorical terms, these stance markers reflect the speaker’s concern with the acceptance of
the information as valid on the part of the hearer, and are an indication of the way in which they
use legitimisation strategies in order to manage their interests. (ibid.: 210).
As Chilton (2004) notes, strategies of legitimisation are essential in political discourse, there
is "evident need for political speakers to imbue their utterances with evidence, authority and
truth (…)." (23), which they also do when dealing with – seemingly, or assumed – others’
perspectives. All three aspects are of interest here;
 that speakers conceptualise possible addressees as part of their context models and
they frame the addressees in terms of nearness/distance according to their egocentric
deixis
 the textual clues indicating such framing of which some have been described as forms
of Engagement (Martin/White 2005) or stance taking (Marín Arrese; e.g. 2009, 2011)
 and the conclusions these allow as to how speakers (strategically) deal with presumed
(dis)agreement.
3. What’s on Their Minds?
3.1 Presuming nearness/agreement
Considering what might be on the minds of possible addressees, speakers

9. 9
 suggest agreement via presupposing shared knowledge and evidentiality
 anticipate and try to mitigate disagreement with the use of yes-but patterns or
 situate the addressees’ mindsets as distant from their own preferred perspective,
whereby they suggest that this results from a lack of proper consideration.
The following examples illustrate how speakers, via presupposing shared knowledge and
agreement, impose their own perspectives on the addressees by extending their own
evaluations into the minds of ideal addressees (as in (1): demagogues, defamation,
propaganda) and suggesting that the efforts of the government are obvious and on everyone’s
mind (as in (2): clear, known, no need to explain).
(1) You know about the resistance in spite of which the policy of peace has made and
continues to make progress. I trust you are able to judge which changes of consciousness this
policy will trigger. But you will also be aware that demagogues of the well-known kind have
started to set continuous defamation and propaganda against this necessary policy. (Brandt,
163/1970: 1731f.)
(2) You know that the area of professional training is a source of deep concern for us in this
year and presumably in the next two years because of demographic developments. I do not
have to explain the difficulties to you or make clear the efforts that have been undertaken by
me and by others in order to secure the necessary opportunities for the school leavers in this
year and in the following years. (Kohl, 46/1983: 430)
Van Dijk (2005) calls such "presupposed beliefs that are in fact ideological assumptions and
not knowledge" (88) presumptions:
By not explicitly asserting such beliefs, but just pretending that such beliefs are generally
accepted, they may manipulate many readers into accepting such biased, ideologically based
beliefs as certified knowledge of the community. (ibid.)
Example (3) is a rather striking example of how Helmut Kohl (in office 1982-1998) presumes
something that the addressees would probably not have subscribed to.
(3) Many have also realised that their skiving off work has damaging effects on business.
(Kohl, 21/1998: 243)
Kohl presumes an insight on part of possible addressees that refers to the negativity of their
own conduct (to skive off work). The speaker presumes that possible addressees think about
their own alleged faking to be ill in a negative way, i.e. they know it is not right. The speaker
therefore does not have to establish and defend the allegation, but presumes it is a conclusion

10. 10
at which the addressees have already arrived by themselves, which also implies accepting the
presupposition that it is about faked rather than real illness.
A more implicit form of presupposing shared knowledge and agreement is suggesting
evidentiality; this can be done with a variety of means, including modal words (4) and in a
figurative way (5; a word-for-word translation of the German original would be ‘it lies on the
hand’):
(4) One thing is for sure; if we were not to sign the agreements, we would not improve the
prospects for reunification in any way. (Adenauer, 87/1952: 876)
(5) This means, every third mark is being spent for social security. It goes without saying that
this share cannot be raised any further. (Kohl, 52/1994: 494)
In German, there is also a more sublime way of expressing evidentiality with the modal
particles ja and eben. Helbig (1994) describes in detail the semantics of German modal
particles; the relevant meaning of ja for example is outlined as follows (my translation, MS):
Signals the proposition as familiar to the speaker and the hearer [...] or even as evident resp.
generally valid, refers to shared prior knowledge, supposes consensus and/or appeals for
agreement. Speaker suggests proposition as familiar, but wants to reassure if present to others
[...]. (165)
The following example from a speech by Gerhard Schröder (1998-2005) asserts the
government’s efforts with regard to the construction industry and public investment in
building projects; it contains three ja modal particles – translated ‘of course’ and ‘certainly’ –
suggesting the addressees’ familiarity with these efforts and appealing for agreement about
their desired effects:
(6) One of course has to say that in addition to this money there is a lot that is privately
invested. It is certainly not the case that these 400 million each year is the only money that is
available for these investments, but with this we of course also mobilise private money in your
sector. (Schröder, 70-4/2000: 6)
Stivers (2011) analyses the use of ‘of course’ in spoken conversation in detail and maintains
that it can also be read not only as a means of evidentiality, but also as a reaction to a
presumed challenge of the proposition going along with ‘of course’. With a view on (6), it
would mean that with the use of ‘of course’, Schröder might be reacting to allegations that
the government did not do enough to mobilise private investment, which could be seen as a
more implicit version of the yes-but pattern discussed below.

11. 11
3.2 Dealing with distance/disagreement
In cases where the speakers position possible addressees at a greater distance to themselves,
anticipation of disagreement seems to be involved. One way of dealing with this is to
acknowledge the others’ point of view in a first step, but to hold one’s own perspective
against it in a second step with a yes-but pattern (cf. Lauerbach 1993). This pattern is pre-
eminent in all 114 speeches in the corpus, and 33 different formal variations of this pattern
have been identified which occurred various times across all speeches by all speakers (cf.
Schröter 2006, 179-198). This indicates that the anticipation of (possible) disagreement
looms particularly large in political speeches.
(7) Let me say clearly in this context that the tasks that lay before us are in no way the
consequence of alleged failures of the past, but they show themselves as a natural consequence
of exactly the rapid economic growth that we had. (Erhard, 145/1965: 1170)
(8) There can be no doubt that the rates of price increases are too high. There is nothing to be
explained away here. But no one – be it a professor or not – should pretend that he had a patent
remedy or that this was an isolated German problem. (Brandt, 140/1972: 1696)
In (7) the speaker anticipates that possible addressees might consider the ‘current problems’
as a consequence of non-optimal government action, but Ludwig Erhard (in office 1963-
1966) presents them as a consequence of something very positive, i.e. the ‘economic miracle’
– the ‘father’ of which he was and still is considered to be. Thus, he counters possible
scepticism on part of the addressees with the favourable notion of the past growth overseen
by himself. The concession in (8) is that there might be addressees who consider price
increases as problematic, and the speaker holds against it the complex nature of the problem,
mitigating possible criticism of the government’s response by stating how difficult and
multifaceted the matter is. In (9) Kohl anticipates that critical addressees might put economic
growth down to growing inflation, which he denies by asserting price stability. In (10),
Gerhard Schröder (in office 1998-2005) in contrast to his initial claim about not qualifying
criticism, tries to mitigate it, again by referring to the complexity of the issues to be
considered:
(9) The German economy is now in its fourth year of a stable and ongoing upward trend.
Unlike before, this growth does not go along with growing inflation, but, on the contrary, with
complete price stability. (Kohl, 57/1986: 485)

12. 12
(10) I don’t want to qualify your criticism, but I would like to explain to you that this aspect,
too, had to be considered by us at that time. (Schröder, 70-4/2000: 2)
The examples demonstrate that speakers are highly aware that the topics they are dealing with
are controversial and that people have different views about them. Whereas the suggestion of
evidentiality and shared knowledge is a neglect of such controversy (Marín Arrese 2011,
220), the yes-but pattern is some sort of an acknowledgement, whereby the speaker aims at
mitigating dissent and, rather obviously, favours her/his personal perspective. In terms of the
Engagement concept (Martin/White 2005: 92ff.), this has been described in terms of
disclaiming, and in terms of the dialogistic scope emphasised within Engagement, the first
move seemingly expands it, but the second serves to contract it. Keim (1999) describes such
cases as a pattern with two foci whereby the second move serves to ensure the dominance of
the speaker’s perspective even though perspectives of the possible addressees are taken into
account.
Another feature in the speeches that can be seen as a sign of the speaker’s anticipation of
disagreement and that also serves to contract by delegitimizing others’ views is what could be
called cognitive one-ways. The speakers aim to prevent addressees from forming or
maintaining undesired items in their minds by suggesting how to think about matters. Thus,
in the following examples, people who think properly, who are informed enough or who
think clearly without illusion will automatically arrive at the conclusions suggested by the
speakers which feature their own perspectives on the matter:
(11) You even hear that […] there could be different stages up to a true reunification. One
could, for example, think of a confederation. Everyone who understands a bit of these matters
will instantly grasp the nonsense of this concept, for you cannot reduce completely different
things to a common denominator. (Erhard, 64/1966: 503)
(12) We made a lot of progress in both areas. This could only be denied by someone who
harbours illusions about the extent of what can be achieved quickly in the fight against
terrorist crimes. (Schmidt, 40/1977: 362)
(13) Thereby it is often overlooked in public that apart from the two step income tax relief of
about 20 billion marks also the corporate tax has been significantly lowered. (Kohl, 57/1986:
485)
Whereas (11)-(13) have an underlying positive premise – appropriate consideration = proper
conclusion –, there are also cases that are more negative, i.e. when the addressees are situated
in greater distance to the speaker on the grounds of the insinuation that possible addressees

13. 13
have not thought or considered things properly and have to do some more thinking or need to
acknowledge more information in order to arrive at the speaker’s desired perspective. "Elite
speakers may presuppose that their audience does not share in general knowledge, and thus in
fact treat them as being ignorant." (van Dijk 2005, 89). This is what happens in the following
examples. In (14), Konrad Adenauer (1949-1963) suggests that critics have not read a
declaration, in (15), Willy Brandt (1969-1974) suggests that citizens fail to consider what
they can contribute to society, and in (16) chancellor Helmut Schmidt (1974-1982) bemoans
a lack of democratic maturity of the Germans who need to understand and learn a few more
things about democratic conflict and controversy:
(14) [...] that our friends are suspected of neglecting the question of German unification. This is
not true! Those who make these claims have not read the declaration that president
Eisenhower and I launched [...] two and a half weeks ago and in which exactly the question of
German reunification was asserted as a common issue of the highest priority for both
governments. (Adenauer, 110/1957: 1009)
(15) All outward successes will only last if the state is conceived of as a common issue of all
citizens. It has become customary to always demand something from the state without
considering what the individual citizen could do. (Brandt, 131/1973: 1291)
(16) We still find the widespread erroneous imagination that politics should duly take care
that everything is running smoothly. […] Even after 33 years of experience with democracy,
some people have still not understood that conflict […] is dealt with openly in a democratic
society. […] We must learn to appreciate conflicts as part of societal and political change.
(Schmidt, 59/1982: 515)
Overall, the examples discussed in 3 show that political speakers seem to anticipate quite a
high degree of disagreement. To them, possible addressees are a target of persuasion. This
can be done either by presuming the evidentiality and shared acceptance of possibly
controversial propositions, or by allowing different views, ‘other voices’ into their speeches.
If the latter happens, either the scepticals are dragged nearer to the speaker in the yes-but
pattern, or they remain at the distance of disagreement because of their failures or cognition
and would be ‘allowed’ closer to the speaker only when they considered issues more
properly, which would ‘naturally’ lead them to agreeing with the speaker. This way, the
speakers not only anticipate, deal with or rebuke presumed disagreeing other voices in their
own monologues, but even go as far as to delegitimize them.
4. What are They Doing?
4.1 Presuming nearness/agreement

14. 14
Thanking and praising the addressees for their actions can be part of a very general
affirmation of democratic society or pertaining to certain recent or historical events affecting
Germany; e.g. nationwide solidarity after the flooding of a region or the so-called peaceful
revolution of 1989. The place for such complimenting is mostly in commemorative speeches,
the traditional chancellor’s New Year addresses to the German public, or the inaugural
speeches chancellors deliver after general elections. Example (17) is from an inaugural
speech where Willy Brandt praises the voters for abstaining from radicalism – twenty years
after the founding of the Federal Republic and in the face of emerging neonazism, a rising
nationalist party as well as an emerging radicalisation of the left. Example (18) is from a
commemorative speech where Gerhard Schröder praises the spirit of the peaceful protesters
in the GDR as well as the solidarity of the West Germans:
(17) The solidity of our basic liberal order was reconfirmed on 28 September. I thank the
voters for this unambiguous refusal of extremism that we will have to continue to fight against.
(Brandt, 132/1969: 1121)
(18) I think that 3 October should most of all be a day of thanks to the Germans: to the
Germans in the former GDR for the bravery and civil courage with which they have made
the wall collapse as well as a dictatorial system, but also to the Germans in the former West
for their solidarity and helpfulness for the then still very, very new federal states. (Schröder,
62/1999: 1)
Reference to the addressees as people who might do certain things is typical for a certain type
of speech, i.e. speeches which the chancellor has been invited to give at assemblies, meetings
or conferences of organisations such as unions or lobbying organisations such as the German
Farmers’ Association or the German Association of Employers; or businesses like
Volkswagen or Bayer Chemie. In many cases, there is a special occasion involved, i.e.
celebration of an anniversary of an organisation or business, or the opening of a product fair
or new plant, exhibition etc. When the speaker compliments the addressees, the latter are
often situated in their role within the overall society, and their positive contribution to ‘the
whole’ is emphasised. Thus, in (19) Konrad Adenauer points out the sociological and
economic significance of the trade. The reference to ‘massification’ has to be seen as part of
the anti-communist rhetoric of the fifties and early sixties; Adenauer addresses trades people
most of all as owners of small businesses and this is seen as an important tradition as opposed
to big state owned industrial plants with a unionised workforce:

15. 15
(19) A healthy middle class is a protecting roof against this threat of massification, against
the mental levelling of our people. [...] But I do not only see the significance of trade, which is
such an essential and important part of this necessary middle class, in this sociological effect.
Your president Mr. Wild has referred to it – and I can only underline it – that trade is very
important for the whole economy. (Adenauer, 113/1961: 1093)
In (20), Willy Brandt associates the unions not only with their role within the economy, but
also praises them as an important partner in defending democracy in Germany, thereby
bestowing a crucial significance to the unions above their actual sphere of action:
(20) I do not only want to repeatedly reaffirm the crucial role of the unions in our economy
and for our democratic state. I come to you today with the plea to help me recognising
endangerment of our democratic order clearly enough and ward it off decidedly enough.
(Brandt, 140/1971: 140)
The speaker might also get more specific and assign certain ways of acting to the addressees.
These are then emphasised as desirable not only for the addressees’ specific sphere of action,
but for society in general. The addressees’ actions are presented as a model for other
members or parts of society. In (21) Helmut Kohl speaks at a convention of the German
Association of Showmen. Kohl ascribes to the people in the showman business hard work,
flexibility, cosmopolitan attitude, mobility and innovation. This has to be seen as part of the
German "Standortdiskurs" which was the main form the discourse about globalisation took in
Germany in the nineties – Kohl advertised these characteristics as a means to keep Germany
attractive for businesses even though production costs were higher there than elsewhere and
businesses threatened to move their plants and offices abroad:
(21) Ladies and gentlemen, as showmen you are typical medium sized business people.
Showmen work hard – it is common that the whole family is involved with the business. For
you, flexibility and mobility characterise your professional as well as your family everyday life.
As showmen you do not stay in one place […] Taking entrepreneurial risks is normal for you. I
wish we had some more of your courage and your inclination for innovation in all parts of
our society. […] What I particularly like about your profession is the cosmopolitan attitude.
[…] Especially in these times this is […] very valuable. (Kohl, 21/1998: 241f.)
In (22) Kohl praises a paper recycling initiative by German publishers. This is presented as a
model of how organisations can implement environmental policies by themselves – as
opposed to exclusively legal regulation which would have to be implemented by the
government:

16. 16
(22) I am pleased that the declaration of obligation for paper recycling shows success. This
really is a good example of how one can use freedom from regulation for acting on one’s own
responsibility in the protection of the environment. There is another way than just laws and
prohibitions. (Kohl, 83/1995: 807)
4.2 Dealing with distance/disagreement
The chancellors also use their speeches to try and downgrade the addressees’ expectations of
what the government can do for them. The politicians anticipate that the addressees might
have expectations that the government does not see fit to be fulfilled. Hence, to mitigate
disappointment the chancellors emphasise the need for a balance – which may be established
with a more moderate approach by the organisations the speakers are addressing and a degree
of concession by the government:
(23) We have to come to very hard, clear and brave decisions together. This is the task and for
this, ladies and gentlemen I beg for your support, for the support of the German town and city
councils. This means that you should not lose trust as soon as urgent and justified wishes
cannot be fulfilled. You may retain this trust in the government. (Kiesinger, 68/1967: 582)
(24) I wish all of you that you act with persistence and measurement. I wish you and all of
us that we realise that we will not achieve anything in the field of environmental protection
with a policy of all or nothing […]. (Schmidt, 142/1979: 1311).
There are also examples in the speeches where the chancellors actually tell the addressees
what they should (not) be doing, warning them not to become involved in undesired
activities. (25) is a quote from a speech that Helmut Kohl gave at the Thyssen steel
company’s centenary. Thyssen had been involved in arms business and delivered tanks to
Saudi Arabia in 1991. Though the export in itself was not illegal, the way the deal was
brought about was (cf. Schröter 2006: 147f.) and the quote below seems to be a warning
allusion to this controversial deal:
(25) It is surely part of our responsibility for a peaceful development in the world that we do
everything to undermine illegal arms exports. This is a common task for all who hold
responsibility in our country. Everyone needs to be aware of their own responsibility – not
least for our country’s esteem. I always turned against a general condemnation of the German
economy. But everyone who holds responsibility needs to do their own share to outlaw
those who are involved in illegal arms trade. (Kohl, 67/1991: 535)
When the SPD/Green coalition came to power in 1998, the new government publicly set
targets for increasing the numbers of places for vocational training. In (26), Gerhard Schröder
conveys to the Metal Workers’ Union how he is telling businesses to engage in vocational

17. 17
training for young people, warning of the detrimental effects for businesses if they fail to do
so.
(26) Those who try to make savings in cutting vocational training will be sawing off the
branch of the tree they are sitting on, also in terms of the business’ economy. [...] Those who
do not take part in vocational training programmes therefore not only make mistakes with
regard to business economy. No, they also give a wrong signal to the national economy and
risk damaging society with all the consequences that I have named. (Schröder, 79/1998: 960)
5. Conclusion
In this article, addressee orientation was considered an inherent phenomenon of monological
political speech. Political speakers develop context models, integrating aspects relating to
possible addressees which are relevant to them. Thereby they aim at persuading the
addressees, i.e. they need them to accept and adopt their perspectives and evaluations as
much as possible. For political speakers, the most salient aspect about the addressees seems
to be the extent to which they (dis)agree with her/him, and there are various textual clues and
patterns that pertain to the salience of this aspect.
Even though the speeches in the corpus cover a time span of 50 years, there are no detectable
changes of patterns of addressee orientation over the years, despite idiosyncratic differences
between speakers and some change of political vocabulary and key words. The paradigms of
addressee orientation, supposed agreement or disagreement in attitudes and actions, are very
stable within the – generally rather unoriginal – genre of political speech. This suggests a
remarkable stability of the factors that are taken into account in context models and in the
speakers’ framing of the addressees in terms of proximity.
The examples also show how addressee orientation is linked to the overall speakers’ aims and
strategies as the speeches are part of the government’s ongoing campaign for support.
Therefore, the speakers try to convey or even impose their own perspective on the addressees.
The chancellors presume consensus by implicating shared knowledge and evidentiality, for
instance with regard to how seriously the government takes concerns, how complex and not
easy to solve matters are, and how successful the policies so far have been. This needs to be
seen as an attempt at persuasion by making the addressees accept such presumptions. Where
anticipated dissent is allowed into the speeches, speakers try to mitigate it by involving
possible addressees’ perspectives and by putting their own perspective in a dominant
position, contracting the dialogical scope of their speeches or even insinuating that there is

18. 18
only one proper conclusion at which one can arrive by acknowledging facts and proper
thinking. Chancellors also try to encourage certain kinds of addressees’ activities which they
deem useful and desirable, whereas they attempt to control the addressees with regard to less
desired activity by trying to lower their expectations, to curtail their demands or even by
warning them not to act in a certain way.
For further research, it might be interesting to compare the degree to which such patterns of
addressee orientation occur with other genres, e.g. informal discussions between more equal
participants. It may also be interesting to quantify such occurrences and look at variation
across speeches held on different occasions or to compare them with patterns of addressee
orientation in political speeches in other languages.
6. Appendix
(1) Sie wissen, gegen welche Widerstände diese Friedenspolitik vorangetragen wurde und wird. Sie
werden ermessen können, welche Bewußtseinsveränderungen diese Politik zur Folge hat. Aber Sie
werden auch wissen, daß Demagogen bekannter Machart unablässig Verleumdung und Hetze gegen
diese notwendige Politik zu setzen begonnen haben. (Brandt, 163/1970: 1731f.)
(2) Sie wissen, daß uns der Bereich der beruflichen Bildung in diesem und voraussichtlich noch in den
nächsten beiden Jahren wegen der demographischen Entwicklung besondere Sorgen macht. Ich
brauche Ihnen nicht die Schwierigkeiten zu schildern oder die Anstrengungen zu verdeutlichen, die
ich und andere unternommen haben, um den Schulabgängern dieses und der nächsten Jahre die
notwendige Zahl an Ausbildungsplätzen zu sichern. (Kohl, 46/1983: 430)
(3) Viele haben außerdem erkannt, daß ihr Krankfeiern das Unternehmen gefährdet. (Kohl, 21/1998:
243)
(4) Das eine ist sicher, wenn wir die Verträge nicht unterzeichnen, verbessern wir die Aussicht auf
Wiedervereinigung in keiner Weise. (Adenauer, 87/1952: 876)
(5) Das heißt, jede dritte Mark wird für Sozialleistungen ausgegeben. Daß dieser Anteil nicht mehr
steigerbar ist, liegt auf der Hand. (Kohl, 52/1994: 494)
(6) Man muss ja sagen, dass zu diesem Geld eine Menge hinzukommt, was privat investiert wird. Es
ist ja nicht so, dass diese 400 Millionen jährlich alleine das wären, was für diese Investitionen zur
Verfügung steht, sondern wir mobilisieren damit ja auch privates Geld in Ihrem Sektor. (Schröder, 70-
4/2000: 6)
(7) Lassen Sie mich in diesem Zusammenhang deutlich sagen, daß die vor uns liegenden Aufgaben
keineswegs die Folge angeblicher Versäumnisse in der Vergangenheit sind, sondern sich als die
natürlichen Konsequenzen gerade des bisherigen raschen wirtschaftlichen Aufschwungs stellen.
(Erhard, 145/1965: 1170)
(8) Es kann kein Zweifel daran sein, daß die Preissteigerungsraten zu hoch sind. Hier gibt es nichts
wegzuerklären. Aber niemand – ob er Professor ist oder nicht – sollte so tun, als hätte er ein
Patentrezept. Oder als handele es sich um ein isoliert deutsches Problem. (Brandt, 140/1972: 1696)
(9) Die deutsche Wirtschaft befindet sich heute im vierten Jahr einer stabilen und stetigen
Aufwärtsentwicklung. Und dieses Wachstum geht nicht einher – wie früher üblich – mit einer
zunehmenden Inflationsrate, sondern im Gegenteil mit inzwischen völliger Preisstabilität. (Kohl,
57/1986: 485)
(10) Ich will deswegen nicht Ihre Kritik relativieren, aber ich möchte Ihnen erklären, dass dieser
Aspekt von uns seinerzeit auch zu berücksichtigen gewesen ist. (Schröder, 70-4/2000: 2)
(11) Da hört man dann sogar [...], bis zu einer echten Wiedervereinigung könnte es verschiedene Sta-
tionen geben. Man könnte z.B. an eine Konföderation denken. Jeder, der von den Dingen etwas

19. 19
versteht, begreift sofort den groben Unfug einer solchen Vorstellung, denn ungleichnamiges ist eben
nicht auf einen Nenner zu bringen. (Erhard, 64/1966: 503)
(12) Wir haben auf beiden Gebieten vieles vorangebracht. Leugnen könnte das nur jemand, der sich
oder anderen über das Ausmaß des schnell Erreichbaren bei der Bekämpfung terroristischer
Verbrechen Illusionen macht. (Schmidt, 40/1977: 362)
(13) Dabei wird in der Öffentlichkeit oft übersehen, daß neben der zweistufigen Entlastung der
Einkommensbezieher um rund 20 Milliarden DM auch die Unternehmenssteuern nennenswert
verringert worden sind. (Kohl, 57/1986: 485)
(14) [...] daß man unsere Freunde verdächtigt, sie seien bereit, die Frage der Wiedervereinigung
Deutschlands hintan zu stellen.. Das ist nicht wahr! Wer das behauptet, der hat nicht die Erklärung
gelesen, die vor zweieinhalb Wochen [...] von Staatspräsident Eisenhower und mir erlassen worden ist
und in der gerade die Frage der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands als eine gemeinsame Frage von
höchster Bedeutung für beide Regierungen erklärt worden ist. (Adenauer, 110/1957: 1009)
(15) Aber alle Erfolge nach außen sind nur dann von Dauer, wenn der Staat als gemeinsame Sache
aller Bürger verstanden wird. Es ist üblich geworden, immer nur vom Staat zu fordern, ohne zu
überlegen, was der einzelne Bürger leisten kann. (Brandt, 131/1973: 1291)
(16) Noch immer gibt es bei uns die weitverbreitete irrtümliche Vorstellung, daß die Politik gefälligst
dafür zu sorgen habe, daß alles reibungslos läuft. [...] Auch nach 33 Jahren Erfahrung mit Demokratie
hat mancher bei uns nicht verstanden, daß der Konflikt [...] in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft
offen ausgetragen wird. [...] Wir müssen lernen, Konflikte als Teil des gesellschaftlichen und auch des
politischen Wandels zu begreifen. (Schmidt, 59/1982: 515)
(17) Die Beständigkeit unserer freiheitlichen Grundordnung ist am 28. September erneut bestätigt
worden. Ich danke den Wählern für die eindeutige Ablehnung des Extremismus, den es weiterhin zu
bekämpfen gilt. (Brandt, 132/1969: 1121)
(18) Ich denke, der 3. Oktober sollte vor allen Dingen ein Tag des Dankes an die Deutschen sein: an
die Deutschen in der ehemaligen DDR für den Mut, für die Zivilcourage, mit der sie die Mauer und
ein diktatorisches System zum Einsturz gebracht habe, aber auch an die Deutschen im ehemaligen
Westen für die Solidarität und die Hilfsbereitschaft für die damals noch sehr, sehr neuen Länder.
(Schröder, 62/1999: 1)
(19) Eine gesunde Mittelschicht ist ein Schutzdach gegen diese drohende Vermassung, gegen die
geistige Nivellierung unseres Volkes. [...] Aber ich erblicke nicht nur in dieser soziologischen
Wirkung des Handwerks, das ein so wesentlicher und bedeutender Teil dieser notwendigen
Mittelschicht ist, die Bedeutung des Handwerks. Herr Präsident Wild hat darauf hingewiesen – und
ich kann das nur noch unterstreichen –, daß das Handwerk eine sehr große Bedeutung für die gesamte
Wirtschaft hat. (Adenauer, 113/1961: 1093)
(20) Ich will auch nicht nur erneut bekunden, welche bedeutende Rolle die deutschen Gewerkschaften
in unserem Wirtschaftsgeschehen und für unseren demokratischen Staat spielen. Ich komme heute
auch zu Ihnen mit der herzlichen Bitte, mir dabei zu helfen, daß wir Gefahren für unsere
demokratische Ordnung klar genug erkennen und sie entschieden genug abwenden. (Brandt,
140/1971: 140)
(21) Meine Damen und Herren, als Schausteller sind Sie im besten Sinne des Wortes Mittelständler.
Schausteller arbeiten hart – meist ist die ganze Familie in den Betrieb eingebunden. Bei Ihnen
gehören Flexibilität und Mobilität ebenso zum beruflichen wie familiären Alltag. Als Schausteller
verharren Sie nicht an einem Ort [...]. Unternehmerische Wagnisse einzugehen, ist für Sie gleichsam
selbstverständlich. Ich wünsche mir in allen Bereichen unserer Gesellschaft etwas mehr von Ihrem
Mut und Ihrer Bereitschaft zu Innovationen. [...] Mir gefällt an Ihrem Beruf auch besonders gut das
hohe Maß an Weltoffenheit. [...] Dies ist insbesondere in der heutigen Zeit [...] sehr wertvoll. (Kohl,
21/1998: 241f.)
(22) Es freut mich, daß die Selbstverpflichtungserklärung der Deutschen Verleger zur Verwertung
von Altpapier Erfolge zeigt. Dies ist doch ein gutes Beispiel dafür, wie man Freiräume für
eigenverantwortliches Handeln beim Umweltschutz nutzen kann. Es geht auch anders als durch
Gesetze und Verbote. (Kohl, 83/1995: 807)
(23) Wir müssen ganz harte, ganz klare und ganz mutige Entscheidungen zusammen treffen. Das ist
die Aufgabe, und dazu bitte ich auch Sie, meine Damen und Herren, dazu bitte ich auch die deutschen
Städte um Unterstützung. Das heißt, daß Sie nicht gleich, wenn dringende und berechtigte Wünsche

20. 20
nicht sofort erfüllt werden können, Vertrauen verlieren. Sie dürfen dieses Vertrauen auf diese
Regierung behalten. (Kiesinger, 68/1967: 582)
(24) Ich wünsche Ihnen, daß Sie mit Ausdauer und Augenmaß handeln. Ich wünsche Ihnen und uns
allen, daß wir alle erkennen, daß mit einer Politik des Alles oder Nichts in Wirklichkeit auch auf dem
Felde des Naturschutzes nichts vorankommt [...]. (Schmidt, 142/1979: 1311).
(25) Zu unserer Verantwortung für eine friedliche Entwicklung in der Welt gehört ganz sicher, daß
wir alles tun, um illegale Rüstungsexporte zu unterbinden. Dies ist eine gemeinsame Aufgabe aller
Verantwortlichen in unserem Lande. Jeder muß sich seiner eigenen Verantwortung – nicht zuletzt der
für das Ansehen unseres Landes – bewußt sein. Ich habe mich immer gegen eine pauschale
Verurteilung der deutschen Wirtschaft gewendet. Aber alle Verantwortlichen müssen überall das
Ihrige tun, um jene zu ächten, die in illegale Rüstungsgeschäfte verwickelt sind. (Kohl, 67/1991: 535)
(26) Wer bei der Ausbildung spart, sägt sich – eben auch betriebswirtschaftlich – den Ast ab, auf dem
er sitzt. [...] Wer sich an der Ausbildung nicht beteiligt, macht deshalb nicht nur be-
triebswirtschaftliche Fehler. Nein, er orientiert auch die Volkswirtschaft falsch und riskiert
gesellschaftliche Brüche mit allen Folgen, die ich genannt habe. (Schröder, 79/1998: 960)
Primary Sources
Listed in chronological order. No. = number of the bulletin of the government’s press and
information office responsible for publishing government members’ speeches. Date = date on
which the speech was given. Name of chancellor and speech occasion indicated in right
column.
No Date Chancellor, occasion
87 10.07.1952 Konrad Adenauer, debate in the Bundestag
110 19.06.1957 Konrad Adenauer, convention of the German Association of Homecomers,
Frankfurt am Main
113 23.06.1961 Konrad Adenauer, Central Association of the German Trade, Cologne
145 31.08.1965 Ludwig Erhard, opening of the German Radio and Television Exhibition,
Stuttgart
64 14.05.1966 Ludwig Erhard, opening of International Trade Exibition, Munich
68 28.06.1967 Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Association of German Town and City Councils, Bremen
132 29.10.1969 Willy Brandt, inaugural Statement in the Bundestag
163 25.11.1970 Willy Brandt, convention of Authors, Stuttgart
140 29.09.1971 Willy Brandt, convention of the Metal Workers’ Union, Wiesbaden
131 16.10.1973 Willy Brandt, hosting of Charity Workers, Hamburg
40 22.04.1977 Helmut Schmidt, government statement in the Bundestag
142 23.11.1979 Helmut Schmidt, German Association for the Protection of Nature, Erlangen
59 16.06.1982 Helmut Schmidt, police union event, Frankfurt
46 13.05.1983 Helmut Kohl, convention of university vice chancellors, Darmstadt
57 27.05.1986 Helmut Kohl, convention of the German Savings Bank, Hamburg
67 04.06.1991 Helmut Kohl, 100th anniversary Thyssen steel company, Duisburg
52 01.06.1994 Helmut Kohl, opening of new plant of Bayer Chemie, Bitterfeld
83 23.10.1995 Helmut Kohl, convention of the German Association of Newspaper Publishers,
Leipzig
21 27.03.1998 Helmut Kohl, convention of German Association of Showmen, Nürnberg
79 10.12.1998 Gerhard Schröder, convention of Metal Workers’ Union, Mannheim
62 06.10.1999 Gerhard Schröder, ceremony German unity day, Wiesbaden

21. 21
70-4 27.10.2000 Gerhard Schröder, event by German Association of the Building Trade
References
Bakthin, Mikhail. 1981. The Diaologic Imagination. Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bell, Allan. 1984. "Language Style as Audience Design." In: Language in Society 13, 145-
204.
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London, New York:
Routledge.
Clark, Herbert H., and Thomas B. Carlson. 1982. "Hearers and Speech Acts." In: Language
58(2), 332-373.
Clark, Herbert.1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D’Angelo, Paul. 2002. "News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program. A response
to Entman." In: Journal of Communication 52 (4): 870-888.
Ensink, Titus, and Christoph Sauer. 2003. "Social-functional and cognitive approaches to
discourse interpretation. The role of frame and perspective." In: Titus Ensink, Christoph
Sauer (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:
John Benjamins, 1-21.
Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. In:
Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51-58.
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. "Frames and the semantics of understanding. In: Quaderni die
Semantica 6 (2), 222-254.
Fillmore, Charles. 2006. "Frame Semantics." In: Keith Brown (ed.): Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics vol. 4, 613-620.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the organization of Experience.
NewYork: Harper and Row.
Goodwin, Charles. 1986. "Audience diversity, participation and interpretation." In: Text 6(3),
283-316.
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge (Mass.) & London: Harvard
University Press.
Harding, Robert. 2006. "Historical representations of aboriginal people in the Canadian news
media." In: Discourse and Society 17, 205-235.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Helbig, Gerhard. 1994. Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. 3rd
edition, Leipzig etc.: Langenscheidt.
Jaworski, Adam, and Dariusz Galasiński. 2000. "Vocative address forms and ideological
legitimization in political debates." In: Discourse Studies 2, 35-53.
Keim, Inken. 1999. "Herstellen von Dominanz im Gespräch durch Dominantsetzen von
Perspektiven." In: Jürgen Fohrmann, Ingrid Kasten, Eva Neuland (eds). Autorität der/in
Sprache, Literatur und Neuen Medien. Vorträge des Bonner Germanistentages 1997.
Band 1, Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 110-135.
Kendall, Shari. 2004. "Framing Authority: Gender, Face, and Mitigation at a Radio
Network." In: Discourse and Society 15, 55-79.
Kühn, Peter. 1992. "Adressaten und Adressatenkarussell in der öffentlichen
Auseinandersetzung." In: Joachim Dyck, Walter Jens, Gert Ueding (eds). Rhetorik. Vol.
11: Rhetorik und Politik. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 51-66.

22. 22
Lauerbach, Gerda E. 1993. "Interaction and Cognition. Speech Act Schemata with But and
their Interrelation with Discourse Type." In: Richard A. Geiger, Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn
(eds). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 679-708.
Llewellyn, Nick. 2006. "Arguing against absent arguables: organizing audience participation
in political discourse." In: Discourse Studies 8(5), 603-625.
Marín Arrese, Juana I. 2009. "Effective vs. Epistemic Stance, and
Subjectivity/Intersubjectivity in Political Discourse. A Case Study." In: Anastasios
Tsangalidis, Roberta Facchinetti (eds.): Studies on English Modality. In Honour of
Frank Palmer. Bern, Oxford: Peter Lang, 23-52.
Marín Arrese, Juana I. 2011. "Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political
discourse. Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility." In: Christopher
Hart (ed.): Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 193-223.
Martin, Jim R., Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mead, George H. 1959. Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviourist.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petter-Zimmer, Yvonne. 1990. Politische Fernsehdiskussionen und ihre Adressaten. Tübin-
gen: Narr.
Prego-Vazquez, Gabriela. 2007. "Frame conflict and social inequality in the workplace:
professional and local discourse struggles in employee/customer interactions." In:
Discourse and Society 18, 295-335.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. "A Simplest Systematics for
the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation." In: Jim Schenkein (ed.). Studies in
the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York etc.: Academic Press, 7-55.
Sànchez-García, Jesús, and Olga Blanco-Carrión. 2007. "Frames and Critical Discourse
Analysis in Violence-Related Emotive Event Analysis." In: Christopher Hart, Dominik
Lukeš (eds). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and
Theory, 232-254.
Schindler, Kirsten. 2004. Adressatenorientierung beim Schreiben. Eine linguistische Unter-
suchung am Beispiel des Verfassens vom Spielanleitungen, Bewerbungsbriefen und
Absagebriefen. Frankfurt am Main etc: Peter Lang.
Schröter, Melani. 2006. Adressatenorientierung in der öffentlichen politischen Rede. Eine
qualitativ-pragmatische Korpusanalyse. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang.
Stivers, Tanya. 2011. "Morality and question design: ‘of course’ as contesting a
presupposition of askability." In: Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, Jakob Steensing
(eds.): The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 82-106.
Tannen, Deborah (ed). 1993. Framing in Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tverski, Amos/Kahnemann, Daniel (1981): "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology
of Choice." In: Science 211, 453-458.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2005. "Contextual knowledge management in discourse production A
CDA perspective." In: Ruth Wodak, Paul Chilton (eds). A New Agenda in (Critical)
Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 71-100.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2008. Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2009. "Critical discourse studies: a sociocognitive approach." In: Ruth
Wodak, Michael Meyer (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage,
62-86.

23. 23
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Chillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive
Construction of National Identity. 2nd
edition, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
1
These figures add up to 109 only. The remaining 5 speeches were situated between the mentioned spheres of
speech, such as e.g. a speech by Gerhard Schröder opening an exhibition in the German Haus der Geschichte
(Historical Museum) or a speech Kohl opening the German Book Fair and dealing with topics that are typical
for commemorative speeches. In both cases, the occasion is similar to that of other opening ceremonies, but the
content is similar to that of speeches held on commemorative occasions.
2
Regardless of whether the speaker has actually written the speech, because a) the speakers are identified with
what they say, b) they are (held) responsible for what they say, and c) those who actually do the writing have to
do this in accordance with the speakers’ intentions, aims and general style of self presentation.