Language of fear: A critical discourse study of presidential speeches
List of Authors
  • Ali Badeen Mohammed Al-Rikaby , Hayder S. Naser

Keyword
  • language of fear; presidential speeches; Iran nuclear weapons; Trump; Rouhani

Abstract
  • This paper examines the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons (INWs); specifically, how the issue is contextualized in political speeches by two world leaders. The presidents, of the United States of America (Donald Trump) and Iran (Hassan Rouhani), present us with contrastive rhetoric and in this paper, we compared their descriptions of INWs. In this critical discourse analysis (CDA) study, we also sought the possible reasons for differences between their descriptions. The selected corpus are Trump’s 2018 speech on Iran’s nuclear weapons program at the United National General Assembly (UNGA) and Rouhani’s 2017 speech on the same issue at the UNGA. These speeches were chosen because of their stance categories and degrees of subjectivity. Jäger’s (2001) CDA model is employed for the purpose of linguistic and contextual analyses. Additionally, Toulmin’s (2003) argumentative models are employed to identify the linguistic tools in both speech texts. The findings reveal contrastive topoi between the descriptions made by the two presidents. Essentially, Trump described INWs as posing a threat to Americans, global peace, and security. Rouhani, meanwhile, reclassified the meaning of INWs, steering it away from the realm of phobia and extending it to include the topoi of self-defense. The key implication here is this: world leaders do propagandize ideologies regardless of the effects of war, and this can be achieved by employing the language of fear for discourse is the crux of political jousting and of power relations.

Reference
  • 1. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
    2. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
    3. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.
    4. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In: Van Dijk, T.A. (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
    5. Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and methods (Second Edition). London: Routledge.
    6. Hassen, R. (2015). Discourse as medium of knowledge: Transmission of knowledge by transmission of discourse. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31), 119-128.
    7. Horváth, J. (2009). Critical discourse analysis of Obama’s political discourse. In: Proceedings of International Conference of Language, Literature and Culture in a Changing Transatlantic World (pp. 45-56), University Library of Prešov University, Slovakia.
    8. Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counterterrorism. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    9. Jackson, R., Murphy, E., & Poynting, S. (2009). Contemporary state terrorism: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
    10. Jäger, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of critical discourse and dispositive analysis. In: Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 32-62). London: Sage.
    11. Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (Second Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
    12. KhosraviNik, M. (2014). Macro and micro legitimation in discourse on Iran’s nuclear programme: The case of Iranian national newspaper Kayhan. Discourse and Society, 26(1), 52-73.
    13. KhosraviNik, M. (2015). Discourse, identity and legitimacy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    14. Nor Fariza Mohd Nor, Anis Nadiah Che Abdul Rahman, Azhar Jaluddin, Imran Ho Abdullah, & Sabrina Tiun (2019). A corpus-driven analysis of representations around the word ‘ekonomi’ in Malaysian Hansard Corpus. GEMA Online: Journal of Language Studies, 19(4), 66-95.
    15. Rajandran, K. (2019). Portraying economic competence in Malaysian federal budget speeches. GEMA Online: Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 17-35.
    16. Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    17. Rudyk, I. (2003). Power relations in President Bush’s State of the Union speech. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 23, 68-76.
    18. Santoso, D.H., Jamaluddin Aziz, Pawito, Utari, P., & Kartono, D.T. (2020). Populism in new media: The online presidential campaign discourse in Indonesia. GEMA Online: Journal of Language Studies, 20(2), 115-133.
    19. Sardabi, N., Biria, R., & Azin, N. (2014). Rouhani’s UN speech: A change in ideology or strategy. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics World, 7(3), 84-97.
    20. Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    21. Van Dijk, T.A. (2004). From text grammar to critical discourse analysis: A brief academic autobiography. Barcelona: Universität Pompeu Fabra.
    22. Van Dijk, T.A. (2019). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. London: Routledge.
    23. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: Sage.
    24. Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    25. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (Second Edition). London: Sage.