"Us" vs "Them" in Political Discourse: The Instrumental Function of the "Evil Other" in American Presidential Rhetoric | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2019. № 59. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/59/5

"Us" vs "Them" in Political Discourse: The Instrumental Function of the "Evil Other" in American Presidential Rhetoric

The article investigates the textualization of the categories "Us" and "Them" in American presidential rhetoric in two interrelated ways: as an inventory of lexicogrammatical resources specific to this genre and their contextualized use as a tool for legitimizing political decisions. For this purpose, several speeches by Donald Trump and George W. Bush have been analyzed. Methodologically, the study draws on the discourse analytical toolkit which involves exploring evaluative labels for category members, as well as metaphors, leitmotifs (or topoi), and syllogisms. These various language resources are not treated separately but rather as making up two distinct discourse strategies. The analysis shows that one pervasive discourse strategy in the sample is the strategy of out-casting the "evil other". The primary means of out-casting and populating this category is negative evaluative lexis, which is extensively used for naming and identifying the members of the "evil" out-group. Another persistent exponent of this strategy is a set of leitmotifs, which are used to attribute certain qualities and features to out-group members and characterize their actions. The most salient leitmotifs in the rhetoric of both presidents are threat and killing the innocent, which are very frequent in any references to terrorists, who are the core members of the out-group. It is worth noting that the usage of these linguistic resources is very consistent within this genre of presidential rhetoric irrespective of who the rhetor is and the specific historical context. The further analysis of the sample shows that out-casting is inextricably linked to another pervasive discourse strategy: legitimation of going to or continuing the war in a given country. For Trump, it is primarily the military campaign in Afghanistan, while for Bush the target country was primarily Iraq. In both cases, the legitimation of the contradictory move seems to hinge largely on whether the country in question can be convincingly placed into the "Them" category. Linguistically, the most popular way to do so is through the leitmotif of "safe haven", which is used to indicate that a certain country houses, supports, and is, indeed, a safe haven for terrorists. Interestingly, the category seems to be structured as a fuzzy set, with the inclusion into the out-group being, as it were, a matter of degree. Thus, in Trump's speech Pakistan is construed as a member of the out-group only to some extent, which translates into less strict measures directed against it. At the core of legitimation strategy is argumentation that relies on syllogisms. The assumed major premises of syllogisms used by both presidents are very similar, which makes them a type of leitmotifs. These leitmotifs are arguably also part of the genre's inventory of rhetorical resources albeit the ones that are never expressed in the surface structure and have no language associated with them.

Download file
Counter downloads: 221

Keywords

дискурс-анализ, прагматическая интерпретация, персуазивность, политический дискурс, риторика, президентская риторика, «свои -чужие», discourse analysis, pragmatic interpretation, persuasion, political discourse, rhetoric, presidential rhetoric, "Us" vs "Them"

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Molodychenko Evgeni N.Higher School of Economicse.molodychenko@gmail.com
Всего: 1

References

Dijk T. A. van. Discourse and manipulation // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2006. Vol. 17, № 3. P. 359-383.
Ferrari F. Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a "preventive war" persuasion strategy // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2007. Vol. 18, № 5. P. 603-625.
Dijk T. A. van. How Globo media manipulated the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff // Discourse & Communication. SAGE Publications, 2017. Vol. 11, № 2. P. 199-229.
Hart C. Argumentation meets adapted cognition: manipulation in media discourse on immigration // Journal of pragmatics. 2013. Vol. 59. P. 200-209
Martin Rojo L., Dijk T. A. van. "There was a problem, and it was solved!": Legitimating the expulsion of 'illegal' migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse // Discourse & Society. 1997. Vol. 8, № 4. P. 523-566.
Oddo J. War legitimation discourse: representing "us" and "them" in four US presidential addresses // Discourse & Society. 2011. Vol. 22, № 3. P. 287-314.
Bogain A. Security in the name of human rights: the discursive legitimation strategies of the war on terror in France // Critical Studies on Terrorism. Routledge, 2017. P. 1-25.
Mirhosseini S.-A. Discursive double-legitimation of (avoiding) another war in Obama's 2013 address on Syria // Journal of language and politics. 2017. Vol. 16, № 5. P. 706-730.
Fonseca P., Ferreira M. J. Through 'seas never before sailed': Portuguese government discursive legitimation strategies in a context of financial crisis // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2015. Vol. 26, № 6. P. 682-711.
Chang G.C., Mehan H.B. Why we must attack Iraq: Bush's reasoning practices and argumentation system // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2008. Vol. 19, № 4. P. 453-482.
Leudar I., Marsland V., Nekvapil J. On membership сategorization: 'us', 'them'and'doing violence' in political discourse // Discourse & Society. 2004. Vol. 15, № 2. P. 243-266.
Sowinska A., Dubrovskaya T. Discursive construction and transformation of "us" and "them" categories in the newspaper coverage on the US anti-ballistic missile system: Polish versus Russian view // Discourse & Communication. 2012. Vol. 6, № 4. P. 449468.
Иссерс О.С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. 5-е изд. М. : Изд-во ЛКИ, 2008. 288 с.
Никифорова М.В., Чудинов А.П. Варианты и средства репрезентации концептуальной оппозиции «свои - чужие» в дискурсе мэра Екатеринбурга Евгения Ройзмана // Политическая лингвистика. 2016. № 4 (58). С. 154-162.
Hart C. Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: a cognitive linguistic approach to CDA // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2011. Vol. 22, № 3. P. 269-286.
Del-Teso-Craviotto M. Racism and xenophobia in immigrants' discourse: the case of Argentines in Spain // Discourse & Society. 2009. Vol. 20, № 5. P. 571-592.
Pietikalnen S. Indigenous identity in Print: Representations of the Sami in News Discourse // Discourse & Society. 2003. Vol. 14, № 5. P. 581-609.
Lazar A., Lazar M.M. The discourse of the New World Order: 'out-casting'the double face of threat // Discourse & Society. 2004. Vol. 15, № 2-3. P. 223-242.
Hatoss A. Where are you from?: Identity construction and experiences of "othering" in the narratives of Sudanese refugee-background Australians // Discourse & Society. 2012. Vol. 23, № 1. P. 47-68.
Молодыченко Е.Н. Идентичность и дискурс: от социальной теории к практике лингвистического анализа // Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Гуманитарные и общественные науки. 2017. Т. 8, № 3. С. 122-133.
Reicher S., Hopkins N. Self-category constructions in political rhetoric: an analysis of Thatcher's and Kinnock's speeches concerning the British miners' strike (1984-5) // European journal of social psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1996. Vol. 26, № 3. P. 353-371.
Wodak R. The discourse of politics in action: politics as usual. Springer, 2009. 252 p.
Scollon R., Scollon S.W. Nexus analysis: discourse and the emerging Internet. London ; New York : Routledge, 2004. 198 p.
Чернявская В.Е. Дискурсивный анализ и корпусные методы: необходимое доказательное звено?: Объяснительные возможности качественного и количественного подходов // Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2018. № 2. С. 31-37.
Fowler R. et al. Language and control. London ; Boston ; Henley : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. 224 p.
Hodge R., Kress G. Language as ideology. London ; Boston ; Henley : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. 163 p.
Fairclough N. Language and power. London ; New York : Longman, 1989. 259 p.
Wodak R. The discourse-historical approach // Methods of critical discourse analysis / ed. by R. Wodak, M. Meyer. London : Sage Publications Ltd, 2001. P. 63-94.
De Cillia R., Reisigl M., Wodak R. The discursive construction of national identities // Discourse & Society. 1999. Vol. 10, № 2. P. 149-173.
Chilton P.A. Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. London ; New York : Routledge, 2004. 226 p.
Schegloff E.A. Whose Text? Whose Context? // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 1997. Vol. 8, № 2. P. 165-187.
Blommaert J. Discourse: a critical introduction. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2005. 299 p.
Verschueren J. Predicaments of Criticism // Critique of Anthropology. SAGE Publications. 2001. Vol. 21, № 1. P. 59-81.
Zaga I. Topoi in critical discourse analysis // Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. 2010. Vol. 6, № 1. P. 3-37.
Bhatia V.K. Critical genre analysis: theoretical preliminaries // HERMES-Journal of language and communication in business. 2015. Vol. 27, № 54. P. 9-20.
Widdowson H.G. Text, context, pretext: critical issues in discourse analysis (language in society). Wiley Online Library, 2004. 185 p.
Чернявская В.Е. Операционализация контекста в дискурсивном анализе // Вестник Пермского университета. Российская и зарубежная филология. 2017. Т. 9, № 4. С. 83-93.
Spitzmuller J., WarnkeI. H. Discourse as a 'linguistic object': methodical and methodological delimitations // Critical discourse studies. Routledge, 2011. Vol. 8, № 2. P. 75-94.
KhosraviNik M. Macro and micro legitimation in discourse on Iran's nuclear programme: the case of Iranian national newspaper Kayhan // Discourse & Society. 2015. Vol. 26, № 1. P. 52-73.
Hansson S. Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: a framework for analysis // Discourse & Society. 2015. Vol. 26, № 3.
Trump D. Full transcript and video: Trump's speech on Afghanistan // The New York Times. 2017. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/world/asia/trump-speech-afghanistan.html (accessed: 10.11.2017).
Чернявская В.Е., Молодыченко Е.Н. Речевое воздействие в политическом, рекламном и интернет-дискурсе. М. : ЛЕНАНД, 2017. 176 с.
Чудинов А.П. Российская политическая метафорика в начале XXI века // Политическая лингвистика. 2008. № 24. С. 86-93.
Будаев Э.В. и др. Методика диахронического анализа политической метафорики // Политическая лингвистика. 2016. № 6. С. 18-31.
Halliday M.A.K., Matthiessen C.M.I.M. An introduction to functional grammar. London : Hodder Education, 2004. 689 p.
Dunmire P.L. Preempting the future: rhetoric and ideology of the future in political discourse // Discourse & Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2005. Vol. 16, № 4. P. 481513.
Cockcroft R., Cockcroft S. Persuading people: an introduction to rhetoric. 2nd ed. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 272 p.
Bush G.W. Address one year after operation Iraqi freedom. March 19, 2004. URL: http://presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/03.19.04.html (accessed: 22.11.2017).
Bush G.W. George W. Bush, War Message. March 19, 2003. URL: http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/03.19.03.html (accessed: 22.11.2017).
Bush G.W. George W. Bush, Address to the Nation. September 20, 2001. URL: http://presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/09.20.01.html (accessed: 22.11.2017).
Bush G.W. George W. Bush, Address to the U.N. September 12, 2002. URL: http://presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/09.12.02.html (accessed: 22.11.2017).
Bush G.W. The Iraqi Threat. October 7, 2002. URL: http://presidentialrhetoric.com/ speeches/ 10.7.02.html (accessed 24.11.2017).
Peck T. US hid intelligence from Britain about Saddam Hussein's WMDs before Iraq War, Gordon Brown claims // The Independent. 2017. URL: http://www.indepen-dent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gordon-brown-iraq-us-wmds-intelligence-blair-saddam-hussein-war-george-bush-rumsfeld-book-a8037686.html (accessed: 22.11.2017).
Williams B.G. At least Trump got one thing right. There were no WMDs in Iraq // HuffPost. 2017. URL: https://www.huffmgtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/at-least-trump-got-one-thing-right_b_9612422.html (accessed: 22.11.2017).
Bush G.W. Message to Saddam. March 17, 2003. URL: http://www.presidential-rhetoric.com/speeches/03.17.03.html (accessed: 08.12.2017).
Чернявская В. Е. Методологические возможности дискурсивного анализа в корпусной лингвистике // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2017. № 50. С. 135-148.

"Us" vs "Them" in Political Discourse: The Instrumental Function of the "Evil Other" in American Presidential Rhetoric | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2019. № 59. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/59/5

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 1723