Cover not available

Article published In: : approches contrastives
[Pragmatics 33:4] 2023
► pp. 505–531

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

The pragmatics of alternative futures in political discourses

Legitimising the politics of preemption in Trump’s discourse on Iran

ORCiD logo with link | University of IsfahanIsfahan
 | University of IsfahanIsfahan
 | University of IsfahanIsfahan
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 23 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22014.bas
Abstract
We shall concentrate on how the construction and modality system of alternative futures in political discourses are influenced by the construal of past-to-present threats and preemptive politics. Using Dunmire, Patricia L. 2005. “Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (4): 481–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar proposed framework and further explorations by . 2020. “Alternative Futures in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 32 (3): 328–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar on the subject, we approach twenty of Trump’s speeches on Iran, from 2017–2020. Our analyses indicated that the construction of alternative futures is modified by the evaluations of Iran’s past-to-present status and the politics of preemption. This relationship modifies the speaker’s epistemic judgment on the certainty of the privileged future, the cause-effect relation, and the sceptic views on the successful implementation of preemptive measures, resulting in the articulation of the privileged future through probabilistic and dynamic modalities. Moreover, the privileged future is conceptualised as necessary through deontic modality. By contrast, the realisation of the oppositional future is articulated through unmediated modality pinpointing the status that will materialise in light of inaction and negligence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Review of literature
    • 2.1The politics and ideology of future pre-configuration
    • 2.2Alternative future and the politics of preemption
  • 3.Analytical frameworks
    • 3.1Analytical toolkits for alternative futures in political discourses
      • 3.1.1Logico-rhetorical tools
      • 3.1.2Lexico-grammatical and pragmatic properties
    • 3.2Proximisation theory
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1The now and past of Iran
    • 5.2The preemptive policies
    • 5.3The privileged future
    • 5.4The oppositional future
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • References
References (48)
References
Achugar, Mariana. 2009. “Constructing the Past and Constructing Themselves: The Uruguayan Military’s Memory of the Dictatorship.” Critical Discourse Studies 6 (4): 283–295. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony, and Charles Hill. 2004. “The Bush Administration Preemption Doctrine and the United Nations.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 981: 326–31. [URL].
Basarati, Ali. 2022. “Preempting the Past: How the Future Space Unfolds in Political Discourse of Iran.” Discourse & Society 33 (2): 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basarati, Ali, and Hadaegh Rezaei. 2019. “Discursive Manufacturing of Iranophobia and Global Preemptive Collaboration in Trump’s Discourse.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 11 (1): 57–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2006. Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars PressGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (1): 17–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Axiological Aspects of Proximization.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 392–407. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Expanding CDS Methodology by Cognitive-Pragmatic Tools: Proximization Theory and Public Space Discourses.” In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 189–210. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. “Spatial Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by John Flowerdew, and John Richardson, 92–105. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “Alternative Futures in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 32 (3): 328–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Linjuon, Danyang Zhang, Yingfei He, and Guoliang Zhang. 2020. “Transcultural Political Communication from the Perspective of Proximization Theory: A Comparative Analysis on the Corpuses of the Sino–US Trade War.” Discourse & Communication 14 (4): 341–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cosmides, Leda. 1989. “The Logic of Social Exchange: Has Natural Selection Shaped How Humans Reason? Studies with the Wason Selection Task.” Cognition 31 (3): 187–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Goede, Marike, and Samuel Randalls. 2009. “Precaution, Preemption: Arts and Technologies of the Actionable Future.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 (5): 859–878. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunmire, Patricia L. 2005. “Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (4): 481–513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. “Emerging Threats and Coming Dangers”. In Discourse, War and Terrorism, ed. by Adam Hodges, and Chad Nilep, 19–43. Amesterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. “Knowing and Controlling the Future: A Review of Futurology.” Prose Studies 32 (3): 240–263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. “American Ways of Organizing the World: Designing the Global Future through US National Security Policy.” In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 321–345. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray J. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1971. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elmer, Greg, and Andy Opel. 2006. “Surviving the Inevitable Future: Preemption in an Age of Faulty Intelligence.” Cultural Studies 20 (4–5): 477–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, Phil. 2001. “Space: Irrealis Objects in Technology Policy and Their Role in a New Political Economy.” Discourse & Society 12 (6): 761–788. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Predication and Propagation: A Method for Analyzing Evaluative Meanings in Technology Policy.” Text & Talk 22 (2): 227–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halbwachs, Maurice. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1995. “Agent-oriented vs. Epistemic Modality.” In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 32–17. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress. 1988. Social Semiotics, Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inayatullah, Sohail. 1990. “Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Future: Predictive, Cultural and Critical Epistemologies.” Futures 22 (2): 115–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Richard Fitzgerald. 2008. “This Poll Has Not Happened Yet: Temporal Play in Election Predictions.” Discourse & Communication 2 (1): 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kopytowska, Monika. 2022. “Proximization, Prosumption and Salience in Digital Discourse: On the Interface of Social Media Communicative Dynamics and the Spread of Populist Ideologies.” Critical Discourse Studies 19 (2): 144–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay L. 1995. Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Ke, and Xiaonan Gong. 2022. “Proximization: A Critical Cognitive Analysis of Health Security Discourse.” Text & Talk 42 (5): 713–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mando, Justin, and Garrett Stack. 2019. “Convincing the Public to Kill: Asian Carp and the Proximization of Invasive Species Threat.” Environmental Communication 13 (6): 820–833. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization.” Text 81: 243–281.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Thomas. 2014. “Governing an Unknowable Future: The Politics of Britain’s Prevent Policy.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 7 (1): 62–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masini, Eleonora Barbieri. 2002. “A Vision of Futures Studies.” Futures 34 (3–4): 249–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter. 2002. “Politicization and Depoliticization: Employment Policy.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton, and Christina Shchaffner, 45–80. Amesterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozyumenko, I. Vladimir, and T. V. Larina. 2021. “Threat and Fear: Pragmatic Purposes of Emotionalisation in Media Discourse.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 25 (3): 746–766. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sancho, G. Carmen. 2018. “The Emotional Prosody of US Fatal Air-Accident Dockets Online: Risking Risk Communication?” Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 126–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. 2000. “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective.” In Metarepresentation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Dan Sperber, 117–138. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiss, Daniel. 2017. “Threat Scenarios in the Ukraine Conflict.” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Communication 6 (2): 16–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue