1887
Volume 33, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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’s (2005) proposed framework and further explorations by Cap (2020) 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22014.bas
2023-03-23
2024-04-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achugar, Mariana
    2009 “Constructing the Past and Constructing Themselves: The Uruguayan Military’s Memory of the Dictatorship.” Critical Discourse Studies6 (4): 283–295. 10.1080/17405900903181051
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903181051 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. www.jstor.org/stable/25659945. 10.1017/S0272503700061565
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272503700061565 [Google Scholar]
  4. Basarati, Ali
    2022 “Preempting the Past: How the Future Space Unfolds in Political Discourse of Iran.” Discourse & Society33 (2): 129–153. 10.1177/09579265221088142
    https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221088142 [Google Scholar]
  5. Basarati, Ali, and Hadaegh Rezaei
    2019 “Discursive Manufacturing of Iranophobia and Global Preemptive Collaboration in Trump’s Discourse.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines11 (1): 57–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cap, Piotr
    2006Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2008 “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (1): 17–41. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 “Axiological Aspects of Proximization.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 392–407. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.232 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2014 “Expanding CDS Methodology by Cognitive-Pragmatic Tools: Proximization Theory and Public Space Discourses.” InContemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byChristopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 189–210. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2017The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59731‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59731-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 “Spatial Cognition.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byJohn Flowerdew, and John Richardson, 92–105. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2020 “Alternative Futures in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society32 (3): 328–345. 10.1177/0957926520977218
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520977218 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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 & Communication14 (4): 341–361. 10.1177/1750481320910519
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481320910519 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845703
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845703 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cosmides, Leda
    1989 “The Logic of Social Exchange: Has Natural Selection Shaped How Humans Reason? Studies with the Wason Selection Task.” Cognition31 (3): 187–276. 10.1016/0010‑0277(89)90023‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1 [Google Scholar]
  18. de Goede, Marike, and Samuel Randalls
    2009 “Precaution, Preemption: Arts and Technologies of the Actionable Future.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27 (5): 859–878. 10.1068/d2608
    https://doi.org/10.1068/d2608 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunmire, Patricia L.
    2005 “Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society16 (4): 481–513. 10.1177/0957926505053052
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505053052 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007 “Emerging Threats and Coming Dangers”. InDiscourse, War and Terrorism, ed. byAdam Hodges, and Chad Nilep, 19–43. Amesterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.24.05dun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.24.05dun [Google Scholar]
  21. 2010 “Knowing and Controlling the Future: A Review of Futurology.” Prose Studies32 (3): 240–263. 10.1080/01440357.2010.528921
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01440357.2010.528921 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011Projecting the Future through Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.41 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 “American Ways of Organizing the World: Designing the Global Future through US National Security Policy.” InContemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byChristopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 321–345. London/New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Edelman, Murray J.
    1964The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1971Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1988Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Elmer, Greg, and Andy Opel
    2006 “Surviving the Inevitable Future: Preemption in an Age of Faulty Intelligence.” Cultural Studies20 (4–5): 477–492. 10.1080/09502380600708929
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380600708929 [Google Scholar]
  28. Festinger, Leon
    1957A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503620766
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766 [Google Scholar]
  29. Graham, Phil
    2001 “Space: Irrealis Objects in Technology Policy and Their Role in a New Political Economy.” Discourse & Society12 (6): 761–788. 10.1177/0957926501012006003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012006003 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2002 “Predication and Propagation: A Method for Analyzing Evaluative Meanings in Technology Policy.” Text & Talk22 (2): 227–268. 10.1515/text.2002.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.009 [Google Scholar]
  31. Halbwachs, Maurice
    1992On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226774497.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226774497.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Heine, Bernd
    1995 “Agent-oriented vs. Epistemic Modality.” InModality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. byJohn Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 32–17. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.03hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.03hei [Google Scholar]
  33. Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress
    1988Social Semiotics, Ithaca: Cornell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Inayatullah, Sohail
    1990 “Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Future: Predictive, Cultural and Critical Epistemologies.” Futures22 (2): 115–141. 10.1016/0016‑3287(90)90077‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(90)90077-U [Google Scholar]
  35. Jaworski, Adam, and Richard Fitzgerald
    2008 “This Poll Has Not Happened Yet: Temporal Play in Election Predictions.” Discourse & Communication2 (1): 5–27. 10.1177/1750481307085574
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307085574 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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 Studies19 (2): 144–160. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1842774
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1842774 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lemke, Jay L.
    1995Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, Ke, and Xiaonan Gong
    2022 “Proximization: A Critical Cognitive Analysis of Health Security Discourse.” Text & Talk42 (5): 713–734. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0093
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0093 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mando, Justin, and Garrett Stack
    2019 “Convincing the Public to Kill: Asian Carp and the Proximization of Invasive Species Threat.” Environmental Communication13 (6): 820–833. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1492949
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1492949 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson
    1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization.” Text81: 243–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin, Thomas
    2014 “Governing an Unknowable Future: The Politics of Britain’s Prevent Policy.” Critical Studies on Terrorism7 (1): 62–78. 10.1080/17539153.2014.881200
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2014.881200 [Google Scholar]
  42. Masini, Eleonora Barbieri
    2002 “A Vision of Futures Studies.” Futures34 (3–4): 249–259. 10.1016/S0016‑3287(01)00042‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(01)00042-8 [Google Scholar]
  43. Muntigl, Peter
    2002 “Politicization and Depoliticization: Employment Policy.” InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. byPaul Chilton, and Christina Shchaffner, 45–80. Amesterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.05mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.05mun [Google Scholar]
  44. Ozyumenko, I. Vladimir, and T. V. Larina
    2021 “Threat and Fear: Pragmatic Purposes of Emotionalisation in Media Discourse.” Russian Journal of Linguistics25 (3): 746–766. 10.22363/2687‑0088‑2021‑25‑3‑746‑766
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-3-746-766 [Google Scholar]
  45. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sancho, G. Carmen
    2018 “The Emotional Prosody of US Fatal Air-Accident Dockets Online: Risking Risk Communication?” Russian Journal of Linguistics22 (1): 126–143. 10.22363/2312‑9182‑2018‑22‑1‑126‑143
    https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-1-126-143 [Google Scholar]
  47. Sperber, D.
    2000 “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective.” InMetarepresentation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. byDan Sperber, 117–138. New York: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Weiss, Daniel
    2017 “Threat Scenarios in the Ukraine Conflict.” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Communication6 (2): 16–24.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.22014.bas
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