Successful slogans in Italian political discourse – This paper aims to describe the notion of ‘sloganisation’, with special regard to the fortune and circulation of certain slogans in Italian public discourse. An analysis of their forms, contexts of occurrence (political propaganda, advertising, football supporters) and means of diffusion (street talk, electoral manifestos, traditional and new media) shows an increasing desemantisation of this kind of message. Slogans are routinely used by political parties and are widely quoted, regardless of their ideological content, merely in order to create identification or to increase the polemical attitude of their leader.
The article offers a discourse-analytic examination of original (English) and interpreted (Polish) versions of several extracts from plenary speeches by three Members of the European Parliament (Janusz Korwin-Mikke, Nigel Farage and Guy Verhofstadt). Controversial statements that have met with adverse reactions of the audience and/or the media are selected for analysis. The author endeavours to assess the degree to which pragmatic equivalence has been achieved by Polish interpreters. Another pertinent question is whether the identifi ed shifts are due to some systemic differences between the pragmatics of the source and target languages or to other factors, such as the constraints typical for simultaneous interpreting or specific, local problems.
In halachic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah and Tosefta, the sages-interlocutors use the a fortiori (qal-vaxomer) arguments. Following the previous description of a fortiori arguments that appear in the halachic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah (Shemesh-Raiskin 2019, pp. 132–164), this article presents a corresponding description of those arguments in the Tosefta. Chapter 2 presents the inventory of arguments in both compilations. In the various sections of Chapter 3 the discourse features of the arguments are described: elements that precede the a fortiori arguments (3.1), additions to the a fortiori arguments (3.2), responses to the arguments (3.3), and additions that appear after the arguments (3.4). In general, it was found that these elements are used more in the Tosefta than in the Mishnah. Chapter 4 presents the syntactic patterns of the a fortiori arguments in the halachic give-and-take conversations in the Mishnah and Tosefta. From the patterns which were found by Azar (1991) in his article about the a fortiori arguments in the Mishnah, the most frequent pattern in the arguments in both compilations isאינו דין + ש-מ 2 ([= (and) what if + S1 + is it not logical + that-S2]), whereas the pattern מה) אם + מ 1 (חיובי) + מ 2 (שלילי: לא + יפעל) ) ([= (what) if + S1 (positive) + S2 (negative: no + Yif‘al)]) די is frequent only in the Mishnah. Another structure that appears in both compilations, is used to reject arguments, and is the most frequent of all the structures – ? לא, אם אמרת/אמרתם ב+צ"ש 1 + ש-מ 1 + תאמר/תאמרו ב+צ"ש 2 + ש-מ 2 ([= No, if you (sing./pl.) have said in+NP1 + that-S1 + will you (sing./pl.) say in+NP2 + that-S2]).
In this article Maurycy Mochnacki’s martyrological and messianic declarations in the Preface to the Uprising of the Polish Nation in 1830–1831 are examined in the context of the martyrological discourse in the literature of the Great Emigration. Such an affirmation may appear puzzling given Mochnacki’s rejection of martyrological interpretations of Poland’s history or messianic readings of his political philosophy, let alone his reputation of being radically opposed to Adam Mickiewicz’s idea of the sacrifi cial victimhood of the Polish nation. In this study the ideological and rhetorical aspects of their statements are compared and analysed. There can be little doubt that in the Preface Mochnacki’s phrasing is steeped in patriotic pathos which seems to be at odds with the tone of his other writings. This article claims that it was a tactical move on his part: he chose the familiar martyrological loci merely as a means to enlist the readers’ support for his own pragmatic programme of restoring Poland’s independence. A general conclusion to be drawn from this apparent inconsistency is that already at that stage (The Uprising was published in Paris in 1834) the logosphere of the Great Emigration had become so dominated by the martyrological discourse that Mochnacki could not afford to ignore it.