Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 5:1 (2014) ► pp.128–146
Whose face to be saved? Mubarak’s or Egypt’s? A pragma-semantic analysis
Published online: 5 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.1.06sal
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.1.06sal
The 25th of January, 2011 witnessed a wave of political unrest all over Egypt, with repercussions that have re-shaped the future of contemporary Egypt. For the first time in the modern history of Egypt since the 1952 Nasserite revolution, grass-root protestors went to streets chanting slogans against the military regime headed by the (since then ex-) President of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak. This placed the then regime, as well as its mainstay, the National Democratic Party (NDP), in a political crisis on both local and international scales. It is this critical moment that led Mubarak to give his unprecedented speech on February 1st, 2011. The speech has brought about epoch-making political changes in the history of contemporary Egypt. Under public pressure, two seminal declarations were made in this speech: (1) Mubarak’s intention not to nominate himself for a new presidential term; (2) a call on the Houses of Parliament to amend articles 76 and 77 of the constitution concerning the conditions on running for presidency and the period for the presidential term in Egypt.
The present paper seeks to answer the following overarching question: what are the discursive strategies used for saving the political face of Mubarak in his speech on February 1st, 2011? I follow a text-analytic framework based on the socio-semantic theory of social actors and the pragmatic models of speech acts and face-threatening acts. The analysis reveals Mubarak’s attempt to save his positive political face as a legitimate President who regarded himself as the official ruler invested with absolute power over Egypt.
References (24)
Bloor, Meriel and Bloor, Thomas. 2007.
The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction
. London: Hodder Arnold.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1978.
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corcoran, Paul E. 1979.
Political Language and Rhetoric
. St. Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press.
Edelman, Murray. 1977.
Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policies That Fail
. New York & London: Academic Press.
Laux, Lothar and Schütz, Astrid. 1996.
‘Wir, die wir gut sind’. Die Selbstdarstellung von Politikern zwischen Glorifizierung und Glaubwürdigkeit
. Munich: dtv.
Pocock, J.[John] G. A. 1984. Verbalizing a political act: Toward a politics of speech. In:
Language and Politics
, M. James Shapiro (ed.), 25–43. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Schmitt, Carl. 1976.
The Concept of the Political
. (Trans. G. Schwab). New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press.
Thompson, Geoff and Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In:
Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse
, Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds), 1–27. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. The representation of social actors. In:
Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis
, Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (eds), 32–70. London: Routledge.
2008.
Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis
. New York: Oxford University Press.
2009. Discourse as the recontexualization of social practice: A guide. In:
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis
(2nd ed.), Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer (eds), 144–161. London: Sage.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.