Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
Vol. 4:2 (2016) ► pp.274–296

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Stages and new conceptual tools for legitimizing military intervention

The Turkish foreign policy discourse on Syria

 | Independent Researcher
Published online: 20 December 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.4.2.06kuc
This paper delves into the problem of aggression in Turkish foreign-policy discourse on Syria which tries to legitimize a military operation. In order to understand how the policymaking preferences of a military operation are legitimized and promoted in governmental discourse, 166 governmental texts, from 2011 to 2013, are investigated in terms of the implementation of strategies proposed by several scholars (van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999; Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 2009; van Leeuwen 2007, 2008; Reyes 2011). The results show that the increasing willingness of the Turkish government to take military action in Syria is systematically operationalized in several stages within each type of legitimation strategy (van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999) to overcome international reluctance and provide support for a prospective conflict. At the end of the paper, the results are evaluated in light of recent political developments for a comprehensive understanding of the meaning and limits of the strategies implemented.
References (27)
Abu Mostapha, Hisham. 2011. The Manichean Demonization of the Other in Political Discourse: A Linguistic-Rhetorical Exploration. Düsseldorf: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altunışık, Meliha B., and Lenore G. Martin. 2011. “Making Sense of Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the AKP.” Turkish Studies 12 (4): 569–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chastain, Mary. 2014. ISIS Fighter Claims Turkey Funds the Jihadist Group. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dal, Emel P. 2012. “The Transformation of Turkey’s Relations with the Middle East: Illusion or Awakening?” Turkish Studies 13 (2): 245–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davenport, Kelsey, and Daniel Horner. 2013. US Says Chemical Weapons Used in Syria. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davutoğlu, Ahmet. 2001. Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Jeopolitik Konumu. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ego, Dikran. 2014. Turkey Supports Al Qaeda in Syria. Complicit in the Kidnapping of Syrian Orthdodox Bishops. Retrieved from: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
El-Hussari, Ibrahim A. 2010. “President Bush’s Address to the Nation on U.S. Policy in Iraq: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach.” In Perspectives in Politics and Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska and Piotr Cap, 99–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, Christopher. 2012. “Turkey’s Syria Problem.” Public Policy Research 19 (2): 137–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polat, Necati. 2013. “Resistance to Regime Change in the Middle East.” Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 16 (5): 634–654. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).” In Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd revised edition, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reyes, Antonio. 2011. “Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse and Society 22 (6): 781–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robins, Philip. 2013. “Turkey’s ‘Double Gravity’ Predicament: The Foreign Policy of a Newly Activist Power.” International Affairs 89 (2): 381–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taşpınar, Ömer. 2012. “Turkey’s Strategic Vision and Syria,” The Washington Quarterly, 35 (3): 127–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Teun. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Teun, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse Historical Analysis.” Discourse and Society 1 (1): 83–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 1995. “Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Bloomaert, 204–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity, vol. 21. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue