1887
Volume 23, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The “Arab Spring,” as the revolutions in some Arab countries were called by the international media, was triggered by the “Jasmine Revolt” in Tunisia, which provoked a domino effect to some Arab leaders, starting from Tunisia and spreading to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc. Using the insights of cognitive-pragmatics, the current article shows how the last three speeches of Husni Mubarak, the demised president of Egypt (DPE), framed the revolution in Egypt and filled person deixis. In particular, the article argues that, from the antepenultimate to the ultimate speech, the DPE, unlike his Tunisian counterpart, made little change to the initial framing of the revolution in Egypt as a strategy to maintain the sociopolitical situation as it was. As transpires from the lexical items environing person deixis, the DPE filled it with cognitive content which prevented him from coming any closer to a pragmatic rapprochement to the Egyptian people.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.4.03maa
2013-01-01
2019-11-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abu-Abbas, Khaled H. , Samir O. Jarbou , Thaer T. Al-Kadi , Muhammad A. Badarneh , and Fathi H. Migdadi
    (2010) Fictive kinship names in Jordanian Arabic. Ononomasiology Online11: 1-10.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adetunji, Akinbiyi
    (2006) Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo's speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics5.2: 177-191.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bassiouney, Reem
    (2012) Politicizing identity: Code choice and stance-taking during the Egyptian revolution. Discourse & Society 23.2: 107-126. doi: 10.1177/0957926511431514
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431514 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bateson, Gregory
    (2006) A theory of play and fantasy. In K. Salen , and E. Zimmerman (eds.), The game design reader: The rules of play anthology. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, pp. 314-328.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benvéniste, Emile
    (1966) La nature des pronoms (The nature of pronouns). Paris: Collection Gallimard, pp. 251-257.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fillmore, Charles. J
    (1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistic Society1: 123-131.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Galasinski, Darius
    (2000) The language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage Publications, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goffman, Erving
    (1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hanks, William F
    (1992) The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti , and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-76.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005) Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology 46.2: 191-212. doi: 10.1086/427120
    https://doi.org/10.1086/427120 [Google Scholar]
  11. Harwood, Nigel
    (2005) ‘We do not seem to have a theory... the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26.3: 343-375. doi: 10.1093/applin/ami012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hyland, Ken
    (2002) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1091–1112. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Íñigo-Mora, Isabel
    (2004) On the use of the personal pronoun we. Journal of Language and Politics 3.1: 27–52. doi: 10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.05ini [Google Scholar]
  14. Kuo, Sai-Hua
    (2002) From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22.1: 29–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2003) Involvement vs. detachment: Gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies 5.4: 479-494. doi: 10.1177/14614456030054002
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14614456030054002 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, George
    (2004) Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, George , and Mark Johnson
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Levinson, Stephen. C
    (1983) Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2006) Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies 8.1: 85-93. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059557
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059557 [Google Scholar]
  20. Maalej, Zouheir
    (2007) Doing critical discourse analysis with the contemporary theory of metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In C. Hart , and D. Lukeš (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse studies: Application and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 132-158.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2010) Addressing non-acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic: A cognitive-pragmatic account. Intercultural Pragmatics7.1: 147-173. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2010.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2012) The “Jasmine Revolt” has made the Tunisian revolution: A critical discourse analysis of the last three political speeches of the ousted Tunisian president. Discourse & Society 23.6: 679-700. doi: 10.1177/0957926512452973
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512452973 [Google Scholar]
  23. Marmaridou, Sophia. S.A
    (2000) Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.72
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.72 [Google Scholar]
  24. Nuyts, Jan
    (2001) Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  25. O'Connor, Brendan , Maisa Taha , and Megan Sheehan
    (2008) Castro's shifters: Locating variation in political discourse. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics14.2: 121-129.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pennycook, Alistair
    (1994) The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal 48.2: 13-18. doi: 10.1093/elt/48.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  27. Petersoo, Dr Pille
    (2007) What does ‘we’ mean? National deixis in the media. Journal of Language and Politics 6.3: 419-436. doi: 10.1075/jlp.6.3.08pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.6.3.08pet [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Dijk, Teun A
    (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17.3: 359-383. doi: 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  29. Verschueren, Jef
    (1999) Understanding pragmatics. London and New York: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Vertommen, Bram
    (2013) The strategic value of pronominal choice: Exclusive and inclusive “we” in political panel debates. Pragmatics 23.2: 361-383.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Wilson, John
    (1990) Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.4.03maa
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Cognitive filling , Communality , Framing , Manipulation and person deixis
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