1887
Volume 13, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper describes ways in which political speakers define and legitimize future policies by construing different policy options in terms of ‘privileged’ and ‘oppositional’ futures. Privileged and oppositional futures are conceptual projections of alternative policy visions occurring in quasi-dialogic chunks of speech, revealing specific evidential, mood, and modality patterns. Privileged future involves the speaker’s preferred, or at least acknowledged vision and is articulated through absolute modality and evidential markers which derive from factual evidence, history, and reason. Oppositional future involves an antagonistic and plainly threatening vision, expressed by probabilistic modality and (usually) the interrogative mood. Following the principle of psychological consistency in belief, oppositional future is normally communicated first, allowing for a swift and strong response from the privileged future expressed in the speaker-preferred vision.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21027.cap
2022-12-06
2024-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Axelrod, Robert
    1984The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cap, Piotr
    2002Explorations in Political Discourse. Methodological and Critical Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.232 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2015 “Follow-ups in the US Anti-Terrorist Discourse. Proposal for a Macro-discursive Approach to Monologic Follow-up Sequences”. Discourse & Society261: 543–561. 10.1177/0957926515581155
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515581155 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2017The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59731‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59731-1 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2021The Discourse of Conflict and Crisis. Poland’s Political Rhetoric in the European Perspective. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cap, Piotr, and Urszula Okulska
    (eds) 2013Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cosmides, Leda
    1989 “The Logic of Social Exchange: Has Natural Selection Shaped How Humans Reason? Studies within the Wason Selection Task”. Cognition311: 187–276. 10.1016/0010‑0277(89)90023‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dunmire, Patricia
    2005 “Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse”. Discourse & Society161: 481–513. 10.1177/0957926505053052
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505053052 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2011Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.41 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fairclough, Norman
    2003Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  15. Festinger, Leon
    1957A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503620766
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766 [Google Scholar]
  16. Filardo Llamas, Laura, Christopher Hart, and Bertie Kaal
    (eds) 2016Space, Time and Evaluation in Ideological Discourse. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Flowerdew, John, and John Richardson
    (eds) 2018The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gough, Val, and Mary Talbot
    1996 “‘Guilt over Games Boys Play’: Coherence as a Focus for Examining the Constitution of Heterosexual Subjectivity on a Problem Page”. InTexts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. byCarmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard, 214–230. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Graham, Phil
    2001 “Space: Irrealis Objects in Technology Policy and Their Role in a New Political Economy”. Discourse & Society121: 761–788. 10.1177/0957926501012006003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012006003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Habermas, Jürgen
    1981Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1994Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, Michael A. K., and James R. Martin
    1993Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. Pittsburgh, Penn.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hart, Christopher
    2014Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hart, Christopher, and Piotr Cap
    (eds) 2014Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hodge, Bob, and Gunther Kress
    1988Social Semiotics (2nd ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Jowett, Garth S., and Victoria O’Donnell
    1992Propaganda and Persuasion. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kecskes, Istvan
    2000 “A Cognitive-pragmatic Approach to Situation-bound Utterances”. Journal of Pragmatics321: 605–625. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00063‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00063-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kopytowska, Monika
    2013 “Blogging as the Mediatization of Politics and a New Form of Social Interaction: A Case Study of ‘Proximization Dynamics’ in Polish and British Political Blogs”. InAnalyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. byPiotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 379–422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50.15kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50.15kop [Google Scholar]
  29. Mann, William, and Sandra Thompson
    1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization”. Text81: 243–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
    2017The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Mey, Jacob
    2013 “Sequential Acts”. Paper presented at the13th IPrA Conference, New Delhi.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Musolff, Andreas
    2016Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Oddo, John
    2018The Discourse of Propaganda: Case Studies from the Persian Gulf War and the War on Terror. University Park, Penn.: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Orwell, George
    19491984. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Silberstein, Sandra
    2004War of Words. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203341421
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203341421 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sperber, Dan
    2000 “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective”. InMetarepresentation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. byDan Sperber, 117–138. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stengel, Frank, David B. MacDonald, and Dirk Nabers
    (eds) 2019Populism and World Politics: Exploring Inter- and Transnational Dimensions. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04621‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04621-7 [Google Scholar]
  38. Tsohatzidis, Savas
    (ed.) 1994Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Dijk, Teun
    2008Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Windt, Theodore
    1994Presidential Rhetoric. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall & Hunt.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Xie, Chaoqun, Francisco Yus, and Hartmut Haberland
    (eds) 2020Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.318
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.318 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.21027.cap
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