1schaffner_christina_editor_analysing_political_speeches

Page 15

the young state of Israel and the old history of the Jewish people, that there is continuity between them. (Note that invoking inferences presupposes an interpretative normality.) In (4), this continuity is reinforced. The deictic here is not locationally restricted to the Knesset's room, but refers to Israel. Queen Beatrix varies her formulation in order to refer to Israel in (5) as these biblical lands. 25 At the same time, she speaks about Israel from her own point of view. Travelling,although the present participle does not mention explicitly its actor, suggests the perspective of being a visitor, although this perspective is not put into focus. In (6), Queen Beatrix uses three names from the Israeli map (clearly chosen for their alliteration) in order to symbolise once more the bridge between long and rich past and today.At the same time, the Queen chooses the formulation for everyone,thus including maybe even more people than those represented in Figure 1.

Thus, the Queen has emphasised the historical dimension of Israel, at the same time suggesting that the state of Israel, and the Jewish people in general, are the same. Furthermore, she has moved seamlessly from the presence in the Knesset itself (the horizontal box in Figure 1) to what the Knesset represents. Her own point of view, and what she herself represents, are not yet put into focus.

In Table 3 I present an analysis of the whole address. This table shows the formulations as used by the Queen, and relates them to what they represent. Hence, only those formulations are selected from the address which are to be related to either the Queen, the Knesset, and what they stand forthe Netherlands, Israel, or the Jews in general. The formulations are divided into two categories, according to whether or not they contain deictic elements, notably personal pronouns (see Wortham, 1996).

The following symbols are used: + indicates that the formulation as used by the Queen makes implicit or explicit reference to the category of that column; ® indicates that the formulation does not make reference to that category as such, but takes it as a referential point of departure; for example, reference to the European Union is made 'through' the Netherlands; ? indicates that the categorising is uncertain, although plausible.

On the basis of Table 3, we may note the following points of interest, and reach the following conclusions:

(1) It is quite clear that being representative is at the heart of Queen Beatrix' address. Only in Paragraph 13, are the majority of references in columns Be and Kn:the ratified present parties. In the other 12 paragraphs, there are many references to these two columns, but either alternating with references to the columns II and Nl,or referring to those at the same time. At times it is remarkable how easily, and almost imperceptibly, the formulations oscillate between the various (possible) referents. Consider the cases in which the Queen uses first person plural pronouns (we or our).The first instance is in Paragraph 1: 'takes us back to a distant past'. Here, the pronoun refers to the ratified present parties, including them both. The next use, in Paragraph 3, excludes the Knesset, but includes the vertical box from Figure 1, representing the

Netherlands. A similar instance is the closing of the address. Here, the Queen twice uses the first person plural in two different senses: 'We [my husband and I] believe . . . relationship between our [gloss:

(table continued on next page)

(table continued on next page)

Page 18

(table continued on next page)

Page 19

(table continued on next page)