JoLIE 3/2010

Back to issue page

 

 

 

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATES BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS OVER THE CONTINUATION OF WAR IN IRAQ

 

 

Nasser Rashidi

Shiraz University, Iran

 

Marzieh Souzandehfar

Shiraz University, Iran

 

 

 

Abstract

 

This paper is intended to show how a single reality, that is the continuation of war in Iraq by the American troops, is presented and viewed by the two major American political parties’ (Republican and Democratic) candidates of the US presidential primaries of 2008.

In this study, van Dijk’s (2004) framework adopted from Politics, ideology and discourse is used to detect discursive structures within the transcripts of the candidates’ speeches and discover the ideologies underlying them. The macro strategies of 'positive self-representation' and 'negative other- representation' (which are intimately tied up with 'Polarization' of in group vs. out group ideologies or US-THEM) plus the other 25 more subtle strategies have turned out to be very accurate criteria for the evaluation of attitudes, and opinions. The findings of this study can be conducive to expanding readers’ critical thinking abilities in comprehension and production of language.

 

Key words: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA); Political discourse.

 

 

References

 

Adetunji, A. (2006). Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo’s speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics. 5(2), 177-191.

 

Amal-saleh, E. (2004). The Representation of social actors in the TEFL textbooks in Iran. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

 

Cap, P. (2008). Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 17–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002

 

Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563-581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506066345  

 

Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse. Theory and practice. Routledge: London.

 

Chilton, P. (2005a). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 19-51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

Chilton, P. (2005b). Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 78-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.06chi

 

Chilton, P., & IIyn, M. (1993). Metaphor in political discourse: The case of the ‘Common European House’. Discourse & Society, 4(1), 7-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004001002

 

Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

 

Drulak, P. (2006). Motion, container and equilibrium: Metaphors in the discourse about European integration. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 499-531. DOI: 10.1177/1354066106069322

 

Dunmire, P.L. (2005). Preempting the future: Rhetoric and ideology of the future in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 16(4), 481-513.

 

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

 

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

 

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. New York: Longman.

 

Fairclough, N. (2000). Language and power (2nd Ed.). New York: Longman.

 

Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in transdisciplinary research. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: Investigating a ‘preventive war’ persuasion strategy. Discourse & Society, 18(5), 603-625.

 

Fowler, R. (1991). Critical linguistics. In K. Halmkjaer, (Ed.), The linguistic encyclopedia (pp. 89-93). London/New York: Routledge.

 

Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 3–14). London: Routledge.

 

Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language & control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 

Ghane, M. H. (2001). The interaction of language and thought between male and female among Persian and English speakers. Unpublished MA thesis, Shiraz Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran.

 

Graham, P., Keenan, T., & Dowd, A. (2004). A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror. Discourse & Society, 15(2-3): 199-221.

 

Khosravi-Nik, M. (2000). The Relationship between ideological structures and discursive structures of the editorials and commentaries in a selected sample of Iranian daily newspapers. MA Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

 

Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in socio-cultural practice. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press.

 

Kress, G., & Hodge, B. (1979/1993). Language as ideology. London: Routledge.

 

Krzyzanowski, M. (2005). ‘European identity wanted!’: On discursive and communicative dimensions of the European Convention. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 137-163). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphor and war, again. Retrieved Febuary, 20th, 2008 from http://www.alternet.org/story/15414.  

 

Namjoo, P. (2003). The way discursive and ideological structures are related in two sets of speeches on terrorism. Unpublished MA Thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

 

Oberhuber, F. (2005). Deliberation or ‘mainstreaming’? Empirically researching the European Convention. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 137-163). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

O’Halloran, K.A. (2005). Mystification and social agent absences: A critical discourse analysis using evolutionary psychology. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1945–1964.

 

Rojecky, A. (2008). Rhetorical alchemy: American exceptionalism and the war on terror. Political Communication, 25(1), 67-88.

 

Scollon, R. (2001). Action and text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In R. Wodak, & M. Mayer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 139-186). London: Sage Publications.

 

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2002). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. London: Routledge.

 

Scollon, R. (2005). Lighting the stove: Why habitus isn’t enough for Critical Discourse Analysis. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 101-117). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

Teittenen, M. (2000). Power and persuasion in the Finnish presidential rhetoric in the early 1990’s. Retrieved Febuary, 20th, 2008 from http: //www/ natcom./ org/conferences/Finland/Mari Teittinen

 

van Dijk , T.A. (1985). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

 

van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: An interdisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Retrieved January, 20th, 2008 from http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun.html

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.): Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2002). Ideology: political discourse and cognition. In P. Chilton, & Ch. Schaffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk (pp. 33–57). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2004). Politics, ideology and discourse. Retrieved Febuary, 20th, 2008 from http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun.html

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production: A CDA perspective. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 71-100). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2006a). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115 – 140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2006b). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250

 

van Dijk, T.A. (2007). Critical Discourse Analysis. Chapter One. Retrieved February, 20th, 2008 from http://www.hartcda.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapterone.pdf

 

van Leeuwen, T.J. (1996). The representation of social actors. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.

 

van Leeuwen, T.J. (2005). Three models of interdisciplinarity. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 3-18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

Walsch, C. (1998). Gender and mediatized political discourse: A case study of press coverage of Margaret Beckett’s campaign for the Labour leadership in 1994. Language and Literature, 7(3), 199-214.

 

Wodak, R. (1996). The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard, & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 107-128). London: Routledge.

 

Wodak, R. (2000). Recontextualisation and the transformation of meaning: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in EU-meetings about employment policies. In S. Sarangi, & M. Coulthard, (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 185-206). Harlow: Pearson Education.

 

Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

 

Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 179-190.

 

Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203-225.

 

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: University Press.

 

Wodak, R., & Weiss, G. (2005). Analyzing European Union discourses: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity (pp. 121-135). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

 

Yarmohammadi, L. (2000). Discourse and the Translator (1), Iranian Journal of Translation, 9(32), 3-10.

 

Yamohammadi, L. (2001). The proportion of the use of qualitative methods to the quantitative methods in Discourse Analysis. Nameh Farhang, 39, 48-54.

 

Yarmohammadi, L. & Rashidi, N. (2003). Pajuheshi dar mizan-e serahat ya pushidagi- ye payam dar gozide sar maghalaha-ye ruznameha-ye iran: rabeteh-e bein-e sakhtarha-ye goftemanmadar va sakhtarha-ye zirbanai fekri ejtemai. (The study of explicitness and implicitness of the message in the editorial section of the newspapers in Iran: the relationship between the underlying ideological and discursive structures). Nameh Farhang, 47(3).

 

 

How to cite this article: Rashidi, N., & Souzandehfar, M. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of the debates between Republicans and Democrats over the continuation of war in Iraq. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education – JoLIE, 3, 55-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2010.3.4

 

 

For details on subscription, go to: http://jolie.uab.ro/index.php?pagina=-&id=19&l=en