1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.4.2.06kuc
2016-12-16
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abu Mostapha, Hisham
    2011The Manichean Demonization of the Other in Political Discourse: A Linguistic-Rhetorical Exploration. Düsseldorf: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Altunışık, Meliha B. , and Lenore G. Martin
    2011 “Making Sense of Turkish Foreign Policy in the Middle East under the AKP.” Turkish Studies12 (4): 569–587. doi: 10.1080/14683849.2011.622513
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2011.622513 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cap, Piotr
    2013Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.232 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chastain, Mary
    2014ISIS Fighter Claims Turkey Funds the Jihadist Group. Retrieved from: www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/07/30/isis-fighter-claims-turkey-funds-the-jihadist-group/.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dal, Emel P
    2012 “The Transformation of Turkey’s Relations with the Middle East: Illusion or Awakening?” Turkish Studies13 (2): 245–267. doi: 10.1080/14683849.2012.685257
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2012.685257 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davenport, Kelsey , and Daniel Horner
    2013US Says Chemical Weapons Used in Syria. Retrieved from: www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_0708/US-Says-Chemical-Weapons-Used-inSyria.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davutoğlu, Ahmet
    2001Stratejik Derinlik: Türkiye’nin Jeopolitik Konumu. İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ego, Dikran
    2014Turkey Supports Al Qaeda in Syria. Complicit in the Kidnapping of Syrian Orthdodox Bishops. Retrieved from: www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-supports-al-qaeda-in-syria-complicit-in-the-kidnapping-of-syrian-orthdodox-bishopss/5367369.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. El-Hussari, Ibrahim A
    2010 “President Bush’s Address to the Nation on U.S. Policy in Iraq: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach.” InPerspectives in Politics and Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska and Piotr Cap , 99–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.36.10hus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.10hus [Google Scholar]
  10. Fairclough, Norman
    1995Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fairclough, Norman , and Ruth Wodak
    1997 “Critical Discourse Analysis.” InDiscourse as Social Interaction, ed. by Teun van Dijk , 258–284. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Habermas, J
    (1984) Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Küçükali, Can
    2014 “Discursive Strategies of Instrumentalizing History in Mainstream Turkish Political Discourse: The Case of the Negative Other Presentation of the CHP.” Journal of Language and Politics13 (1): 98–119. doi: 10.1075/jlp.13.1.05kuc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.1.05kuc [Google Scholar]
  14. Phillips, Christopher
    2012 “Turkey’s Syria Problem.” Public Policy Research19 (2): 137–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1744‑540X.2012.00698.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-540X.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Polat, Necati
    2013 “Resistance to Regime Change in the Middle East.” Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies16 (5): 634–654. doi: 10.1080/1369801X.2013.852373
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2013.852373 [Google Scholar]
  16. Reisigl, Martin , and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2009 “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).” InMethods for Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd revised edition, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer , 87–121. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Reyes, Antonio
    2011 “Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse and Society22 (6): 781–806. doi: 10.1177/0957926511419927
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927 [Google Scholar]
  19. Robins, Philip
    2013 “Turkey’s ‘Double Gravity’ Predicament: The Foreign Policy of a Newly Activist Power.” International Affairs89 (2): 381–397. doi: 10.1111/1468‑2346.12023
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12023 [Google Scholar]
  20. Taşpınar, Ömer
    2012 “Turkey’s Strategic Vision and Syria,” The Washington Quarterly, 35 (3): 127–140. doi: 10.1080/0163660X.2012.706519
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2012.706519 [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Leeuwen, Teun
    2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication1 (1): 91–112. doi: 10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Leeuwen, Teun , and Ruth Wodak
    1999 “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse Historical Analysis.” Discourse and Society1 (1): 83–118. doi: 10.1177/1461445699001001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001001005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Wodak, Ruth
    1995 “Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.” InHandbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren , Jan-Ola Östman , and Jan Bloomaert , 204–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hoph.8.04wod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.04wod [Google Scholar]
  25. 2009The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wodak, Ruth , Rudolf de Cillia , Martin Reisigl , and Karin Liebhart
    2009The Discursive Construction of National Identity, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wodak, Ruth , and Michael Meyer
    2001Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9780857028020
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.4.2.06kuc
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Critical Discourse Analyses , legitimation. , political discourse , Syria and Turkey
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error