Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Inspired by Aristotle and modern political theory, Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) introduce a model into Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) on the basis of deliberation and conductive argumentation (reasoning). This study makes an attempt to appraise the efficacy and adequacy of this model through examining Trump’s UN speech on Iran in 2017 in the light of other mainstream analytic tools and frameworks of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The findings suggest that the model is a step toward including the cognitive interface in PDA, and that the premises adduced in Trump’s speech could serve the purpose of delegitimizing Iranian government and ‘Iranoregimephobia’, hence calling for confronting Iran. It is concluded that if integrated with other approaches, the model could serve to possibly counter-balance the subjectivity and skepticism associated with CDA-oriented studies, thus possibly proving itself as a practical, effective, and informative tool for the critical study of political discourse.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Audi, Robert
    2006Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decision. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203015681
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015681 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mona
    2006Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203099919
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099919 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berlin, Isaiah
    1990The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas. London: John Murray.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 1998 “My intellectual Path.” New York Review of Books45(8), May14: 53–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bickenbach, Jerome E., and Jacqueline M. Davies
    1997Good Reasons for Better Arguments. Ontario: Broadview Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1982Ce que parler veut dire. Paris, Fayard.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1991Language and Symbolic Power, ed. byJohn B. Thompson, translated byGino Raymond and Adamson Matthew. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burchill, Scott
    2005The National Interest in International Relations Theory. London & New York: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230005778
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005778 [Google Scholar]
  9. Buttny, Richard and Princess L. Williams
    2000 “Demanding respect: The uses of reported speech in discursive constructions of interracial contact.” Discourse & Society11(1): 109–33. 10.1177/0957926500011001005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926500011001005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafetz, Glenn, Michael Spirtas, and Benjamin Frankel
    1999The Origins of National Interests. London: Frank Cass.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chilton, Paul
    1988Orwellian Language and the Media. London: Pluto.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2004Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2007 “Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct.” InDiscourse Studies, vol.1, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 349–377. London: Sage Publication.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017 “The People’ in Populist Discourse: Using Neuro-cognitive Linguistics to Understand Political Meanings.” Journal of Language and Politics16(2): 582–594. 10.1075/jlp.17031.chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17031.chi [Google Scholar]
  15. Chilton, Paul, and Christine Schäffner
    1997 “Discourse and politics.” InDiscourse as Social Interaction, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, 206–30. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner
    2002 “Introduction: Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse.” InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. byPaul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–44. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.03chi [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, Noam
    1988Language and Politics. Montreal and New York: Black Rose Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dryzek, John S.
    2000Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunmire, Patricia L.
    2012 “Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language.” Language and Linguistics Compass6(11): 73–5751. 10.1002/lnc3.365
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.365 [Google Scholar]
  20. Enli, Gunn
    2017 “Twitter as Arena for the Authentic Outsider: Exploring the Social Media Campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” European Journal of Communication32 (1): 50–61. 10.1177/0267323116682802
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fairclough, Norman
    1989Language and power. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak
    1997 “Critical discourse analysis.” InDiscourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. byTeun A. van Dijk, vol.2, 258–284. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough
    2012Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fairclough, Norman, and Isabela Fairclough
    2018 “A Procedural Approach to Ethical Critique in CDA.” Critical Discourse Studies15(2):1–17. 10.1080/17405904.2018.1427121
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1427121 [Google Scholar]
  25. Foucault, Michel
    1970The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1971L’ordre du discours. Paris, Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1972The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. byAlen M. Sheridan Smith. London: Tavistock Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1979Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, translated byAlen M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Govier, Trudy
    2001A Practical Study of Argument, 5th edition, Belmont. CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Habermas, Jurgan
    1971Erkenninis und Interesse. Frankfurt/main. Shuhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1996Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1979Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1984Theory of Communicative Action, vols 1 and 2, translated byThomas McCarthy. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Haqiqat, Sadeq
    1997Supranational Responsibilities and Islamic Government Foreign Policies. Tehran: Strategic Research Center.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hodges, Adam and Chad Nilep
    2007Discourse, War, and Terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.24 [Google Scholar]
  36. Howard, Kahane
    1971Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, 11th edition, ed. byNancy M. Cavender 2010 Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Izadi, Dariush
    2013 “Review of Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough’s Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students.” Discourse & Society24 (2): 249–252. 10.1177/0957926513476603a
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513476603a [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackson, Robert
    2000The Global Covenant. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kienpointner, Manfred
    2013 “Review of Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough’s Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students.” Journal of Language and Politics12 (2): 295–304. 10.1075/jlp.12.2.07kie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.2.07kie [Google Scholar]
  40. Kreis, Ramona
    2017 “The ‘Tweet Politics’ of President Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics16(4): 607–616. 10.1075/jlp.17032.kre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17032.kre [Google Scholar]
  41. Krzyzanowski, Michal
    2010The Discursive Construction of European Identities: A Multi-Level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Larijani, Mohammad Javad
    1998Lessons in Foreign Policy. Tehran: Meshkat.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Millgram, Elijah
    2005Ethics Done Right: Practical Reasoning as a Foundation for Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610615
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610615 [Google Scholar]
  44. Montgomery, Martin
    2017 “Post-truth Politics? Authenticity, Populism and the Electoral Discourses of Donald Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics16(4): 619–639. 10.1075/jlp.17023.mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17023.mon [Google Scholar]
  45. Norris, Christopher
    1992Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals, and the Gulf War. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ott, Brian L.
    2017 “The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement.” Critical Studies in Media Communication34 (1): 59–68. 10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686 [Google Scholar]
  47. Põiklik, Pille
    2016 “People’s right to keep and bear arms Arguments on the meaning of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in District of Columbia v. Heller.” Journal of Language and Politics15 (2): 173–192. 10.1075/jlp.15.2.03poi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15.2.03poi [Google Scholar]
  48. Rawls, John
    1971A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 1993Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2001Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2009 “The discourse historical approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–94. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Rorty, Richard
    1989Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804397
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804397 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2001 “The ambiguity of ‘Rationality.’” InPluralism and the pragmatic turn, ed. byWilliam Rehg and James Bohman. 4–152. Cambridge, Massachusetts London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Russell, Holms A. B.
    1994 “Review of Norris, Christopher’s Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals, and the Gulf War.” Modernism/modernity1: 153–155. 10.1353/mod.1994.0025
    https://doi.org/10.1353/mod.1994.0025 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schäffner, Christina
    1997Political Texts as Sensitive Texts. InTranslating sensitive texts, ed. byKarl Simms, 131–138. Amesterdam: Rodpi.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2007 Politics and translation. InA Companion to Translation Studies, ed. byPiotr Kuhiwczak and Karin Littau, 137–141. Clevedon: Multilingual matters. 10.21832/9781853599583‑011
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599583-011 [Google Scholar]
  58. Silberstein, Sandra
    2002War of Words: Language, Politics, and 9 ⁄ 11. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203341421
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203341421 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stögner, Karin, and Karin Bischof
    2017 “International high finance against the nation? Antisemitism and nationalism in Austrian print media debates on the economic crisis.” Journal of Language and Politics17 (3): 428–446. 10.1075/jlp.16040.sto
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.16040.sto [Google Scholar]
  60. Tibi, Bassam
    2008Political Islam, World Politics and Europe: Democratic Peace and Euro-Islam Versus Global Jihad. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203934845
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203934845 [Google Scholar]
  61. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1980Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 1988 “Social Cognition, Social Power and Social Discourse.” Text8: 129–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 1989 “Mediating racism: The role of the media in the reproduction of racism.” InLanguage, Power and Ideology: Studies in political Discourse, ed. byRuth Wodak, 199–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ct.7.15dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ct.7.15dij [Google Scholar]
  64. 1990 “Social cognition and discourse.” InHandbook of Language and Social Psychology, ed. byHoward Giles and Peter W. Robinson, 163–183. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 1993Elite Discourse and Racism. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781483326184
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483326184 [Google Scholar]
  66. 1997a “Political Discourse and Racism. Describing Others in Western Parliaments.” InThe Language and Politics of Exclusion Others in Discourse, ed. byStephen H. Riggins, 31–64. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 1997b “What is political discourse analysis?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics11: 11–52. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997c “Cognitive Context Models and Discourse.” InLanguage Structure, Discourse and the Access to Consciousness, ed. byMaxim Stamenow, 189–226. Amsterdam, Benjamins. 10.1075/aicr.12.09dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.12.09dij [Google Scholar]
  69. 1998 “Opinions and ideologies in the press.” InMedia Discourse, ed. byAllan Bell and Peter Garrett, 21–63. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2002 “Political Discourse and Political Cognition.” InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. byPaul Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 203–237. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij [Google Scholar]
  71. 2004From Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis: A Brief Academic Autobiography. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 2005 “Politics, Ideology, and Discourse.” InElsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. byRuth Wodak, 728–740. New York: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (ed.) 2007Discourse Studies. London: Sage Publication. 10.4135/9781446261415
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446261415 [Google Scholar]
  74. van Dijk, T. A.
    2008Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  75. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2009Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511575273
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273 [Google Scholar]
  76. 2011 “Discourse, knowledge, power and politics: Toward Critical Epistemic Discourse Analysis.” InCritical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. byChristopher Hart, 27–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.03van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.03van [Google Scholar]
  77. 2013 “Introduction: The Field of Epistemic Discourse Analysis.” Discourse Studies15 (5): 497–499. 10.1177/1461445613501448
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501448 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2014Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  79. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma- Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. van Leeuwen, Theo
    2005 “Three Models of Interdisciplinarity.” InNew Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed. byRuth Wodak and Paul Chilton, 3–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.13.04lee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.04lee [Google Scholar]
  81. 2008Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Walton, Douglas
    1990Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2006Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 2007aMedia Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619311
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619311 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2007b “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese157: 197–240. 10.1007/s11229‑007‑9157‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9157-x [Google Scholar]
  86. Wendt, Alexander
    1999Social Theory of International Politics. New York: Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511612183
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183 [Google Scholar]
  87. Wodak, Ruth
    (ed.) 1989Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in political Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ct.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ct.7 [Google Scholar]
  88. 2001 “The Discourse-historical Approach.” InMethods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byRuth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–95. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 2008 “Us’ and ‘Them’: Inclusion and Exclusion-Discrimination via Discourse.” InIdentity, Belonging and Migration, ed. byG. Delanty, R. Wodak, and P. Jones, 54–77. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. 10.5949/liverpool/9781846311185.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.5949/liverpool/9781846311185.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  90. 2015a “Critical Discourse Analysis: Discourse-Historical Approach.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, First ed., ed. byKaren Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116 [Google Scholar]
  91. 2015bThe Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781446270073
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446270073 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wodak, Ruth, Nowak, P., Pelikan, J., Gruber, H., de Cillia, R., & Mitten, R.
    1990 “Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter! Diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus.” Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
  93. Wodak, Ruth and Krzyzanowski, Michal
    (eds.) 2008Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑04798‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-04798-4 [Google Scholar]
  94. Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart
    2009The discursive construction of national identity, 2nd ed.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer
    2001Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publication. 10.4135/9780857028020
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020 [Google Scholar]
  96. Wodak, Ruth, and Teun A. van Dijk
    (eds.) 2000Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Kkgenfiirt: Drava Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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