A Cross-Cultural Scrutiny of Rhetorical, Pragmatic, and Semantic Strategies in Political Discourse: Comparative Manipulation Strategies in English and Arabic Contexts
الموضوعات :Qasim Hawas Hadi Hawas Hadi 1 , Atefesadat Mirsaeedi 2 , Ghanim Jwaid Idan 3 , Sahar Najarzadegan 4
1 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Karbala, Karbala Iraq
4 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
الکلمات المفتاحية: Pragmatic strategies, Rhetorical devices, Semantic analysis, Political discourse, Manipulation, Comparative analysis,
ملخص المقالة :
This study provides a comparative analysis of the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians to manipulate their audiences. By examining political speeches from both linguistic contexts, the research reveals distinct cultural patterns in manipulation. English-speaking politicians often employ direct, fact-based appeals (logos), while Arabic-speaking politicians rely more on emotional and collective identity appeals (pathos). These strategies reflect the cultural and linguistic norms of each group. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric.
Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric.
Fetzer, A. (2018). Pragmatics as political discourse: Explorations of politics and politeness. John Benjamins Publishing.
Gurevich, M. (2022). Frame semantics in political discourse: A cross-linguistic perspective. Pragmatics and Society, 13(4), 579-600. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21011.gur
Jasim, H., & Mustafa, M. (2020). Emotional appeals in Arabic political rhetoric: A cultural approach. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 27(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/xxx.xxxxx
Pan, X. (2024). Digital media and the evolution of rhetorical strategies in political communication. Journal of Media Studies, 31(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Shah, R. (2020). Rhetoric and persuasion in Western and Middle Eastern political speeches: A comparative analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(3), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20034.sha
Van Dijk, T. A. (2020). Discourse and manipulation: A critical discourse analysis of political language. Discourse & Society, 31(5), 542-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520917207
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research ISSN: 2322-3898-http://jfl.iaun.ac.ir/journal/about © 2024- Published by Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch |
|
|
Please cite this paper as follows: Hawas Hadi, Q., Mirsaeedi, A. S., Jwaid Idan, G., & Najarzadegan, S. (2024). A Cross-Cultural Scrutiny of Rhetorical, Pragmatic, and Semantic Strategies in Political Discourse: Comparative Manipulation Strategies in English and Arabic Contexts. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 12 (48), 117-129. http://doi.org/10.30495/JFL.2023.703378 |
|
A Cross-Cultural Scrutiny of Rhetorical, Pragmatic, and Semantic Strategies in Political Discourse: Comparative Manipulation Strategies in English and Arabic Contexts
Qasim Hawas Hadi1, AtefeSadat Mirsaeedi2*, Ghanim Jwaid Idan3, Sahar Najarzadegan4
1Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Karbala, Karbala Iraq
4Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Isfahan, Iran
|
This study presents a cross-cultural comparative analysis of rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians to manipulate their audiences. Through a mixed-methods approach, the research explores how language functions as a tool of manipulation across distinct cultural contexts, focusing on 40 political speeches—20 from English-speaking and 20 from Arabic-speaking politicians—selected for their impact on shaping public opinion during significant political events. The study employs a combination of qualitative discourse analysis and quantitative statistical methods to compare the manipulation strategies in both linguistic groups. Qualitative analysis examines rhetorical strategies, pragmatic devices (speech acts, politeness strategies, conversational implicature), and semantic tactics (metaphors, allusions, frame semantics). Each speech was systematically transcribed and coded for these features by two independent coders, achieving a high inter-coder reliability. Quantitative analysis further validates these findings by statistically comparing the frequency of rhetorical and pragmatic strategies across the two groups, using chi-square tests to confirm significant differences. The results show that English-speaking politicians tend to use more direct, fact-based appeals (logos) and assertive strategies such as directives and declaratives, aligning with Western norms that prioritize clarity and logical reasoning. In contrast, Arabic-speaking politicians rely more heavily on emotional appeals (pathos), collective identity, and figurative language (metaphors, allusions), reflecting cultural values that emphasize solidarity and shared historical or religious experiences. The study also investigates how political manipulation has evolved with the rise of digital media. The findings suggest that digital platforms have amplified certain rhetorical techniques, allowing for rapid dissemination and more direct interaction with audiences, which has in turn shaped how manipulation strategies are crafted and deployed in both linguistic contexts. The study's findings have practical implications for political strategists, media professionals, and educators, particularly in terms of fostering media literacy and developing culturally aware communication strategies. Keywords: Arabic; English; Comparative analysis; Manipulation; Political discourse; Pragmatic strategies; Rhetorical devices; Semantic analysis |
بررسی موشکافانه بین فرهنگی راهبردهای بلاغی، عملی و معنایی در گفتمان سیاسی: راهبردهای دستکاری تطبیقی در زمینه های انگلیسی و عربی این مطالعه یک تحلیل تطبیقی میان فرهنگی از راهبردهای بلاغی، عملگرایانه و معنایی مورد استفاده سیاستمداران انگلیسی زبان و عرب زبان برای دستکاری مخاطبان خود ارائه میکند. از طریق یک رویکرد ترکیبی، این تحقیق چگونگی عملکرد زبان به عنوان ابزاری برای دستکاری در زمینههای فرهنگی متمایز را بررسی میکند، با تمرکز بر 40 سخنرانی سیاسی - 20 سخنرانی از انگلیسیزبان و 20 از سیاستمداران عربزبان - که برای تأثیر آنها در شکلدهی افکار عمومی انتخاب شدهاند. در جریان رویدادهای مهم سیاسی این مطالعه از ترکیبی از تحلیل گفتمان کیفی و روشهای آماری کمی برای مقایسه راهبردهای دستکاری در هر دو گروه زبانی استفاده میکند. تحلیل کیفی راهبردهای بلاغی، ابزارهای عملگرایانه (اقدامات گفتاری، راهبردهای ادب، مفهوم محاوره ای) و تاکتیک های معنایی (استعاره ها، کنایه ها، معناشناسی چارچوب) را بررسی می کند. هر گفتار به طور سیستماتیک برای این ویژگیها توسط دو کدگذار مستقل رونویسی و کدگذاری شد و به یک قابلیت اطمینان بین کدگذار بالا دست یافت. تجزیه و تحلیل کمی با مقایسه آماری فراوانی راهبردهای بلاغی و عملگرایانه در بین دو گروه، با استفاده از آزمونهای مجذور کای برای تأیید تفاوتهای معنیدار، این یافتهها را تأیید میکند. نتایج نشان میدهد که سیاستمداران انگلیسیزبان تمایل دارند از درخواستهای مستقیم و مبتنی بر واقعیت (آرمها) و استراتژیهای قاطعانهتر مانند دستورالعملها و اعلامیهها استفاده کنند، که با هنجارهای غربی که وضوح و استدلال منطقی را در اولویت قرار میدهند، همسو میشوند. در مقابل، سیاستمداران عرب زبان بیشتر بر جذابیتهای عاطفی (پاتوس)، هویت جمعی، و زبان مجازی (استعارهها، کنایهها) تکیه میکنند که منعکسکننده ارزشهای فرهنگی است که بر همبستگی و تجربیات تاریخی یا مذهبی مشترک تأکید دارد. این مطالعه همچنین بررسی می کند که چگونه دستکاری سیاسی با ظهور رسانه های دیجیتال تکامل یافته است. یافتهها نشان میدهد که پلتفرمهای دیجیتال تکنیکهای بلاغی خاصی را تقویت کردهاند، و امکان انتشار سریع و تعامل مستقیمتر با مخاطبان را فراهم میکنند، که به نوبه خود نحوه ایجاد و بکارگیری استراتژیهای دستکاری در هر دو زمینه زبانی را شکل داده است. یافتههای این مطالعه پیامدهای عملی برای استراتژیستهای سیاسی، متخصصان رسانه و مربیان دارد، بهویژه از نظر پرورش سواد رسانهای و توسعه راهبردهای ارتباطی آگاهانه فرهنگی. واژگان کلیدی: راهبردهای عملی، ابزارهای بلاغی، تحلیل معنایی، گفتمان سیاسی، دستکاری، عربی، انگلیسی، تحلیل تطبیقی |
Introduction
Since the beginning of time, political discourse has been an indispensable instrument for developing ideas, influencing public perception, and directing collective action efforts. Over the course of the past several years, there has been a growing amount of research conducted across a variety of languages and cultures regarding the significance of rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic tactics in political communication. Researchers have advanced their understanding of how politicians utilize language in order to produce effective public messages between the years 2017 and 2024. Not only does this manipulation take place through the use of traditional rhetorical methods like ethos, logos, and pathos, but it also takes place through more covert means like conversational implicature and strategic framing. Furthermore, the significance of these methods has been further accentuated by the advent of the digital era, which has resulted in the dissemination of political rhetoric through social media, which has increased both the speed and scope of its impact. Instantaneous feedback is made possible by these platforms, which also contribute to the development of situations in which language, identity, and cultural contexts are fluid and constantly changing (Pan, 2024).
These techniques are notably different from one another in political environments that are dominated by Arabic speakers and English speakers due to cultural and linguistic considerations. When it comes to communicating their messages, politicians who speak English typically place an emphasis on clarity, facts, and logical reasoning. On the other hand, politicians who speak Arabic frequently employ indirect language, allusions, and collective identity in order to resonate with their audiences (Shah, 2020). The purpose of this study is to examine the ways in which these methods are utilized to manipulate audiences in a variety of cultural settings and to compare and contrast them.
Literature Review
Recent research highlights the intersection between pragmatics, rhetoric, and semantics in political discourse. Scholars have increasingly focused on the role of manipulation in shaping public opinion, especially in the post-digital era, where language is not only used as a tool but also as a weapon to influence political outcomes (Pan, 2024). Pragmatics has been particularly important in understanding how context shapes meaning, while rhetoric continues to focus on the effectiveness of persuasion through appeals to logic, credibility, and emotion (Shah, 2020).
Theoretical Background
In modern political discourse, pragmatic strategies such as conversational implicature and indirect speech acts are widely employed. These methods, coupled with rhetorical devices like metaphor, euphemism, and dysphemism, create a complex web of meaning that can obscure the true intentions of the speaker (Pan, 2024). Semantics, specifically frame semantics, plays a crucial role in shaping how the audience interprets these messages. Political actors often construct meanings that are favorable to their agendas, creating frames that manipulate perceptions (Gurevich, 2022).
Empirical Background
Several studies have examined the rhetorical differences between Western and Arab political discourses. English-speaking politicians, particularly in the US and UK, are noted for their use of logical appeals (logos) and fact-based persuasion. In contrast, Arab politicians often focus on emotional appeals (pathos) and identity-based strategies, appealing to collective experiences and shared histories (Shah, 2020). These empirical findings suggest that culture and language significantly shape the rhetorical choices of politicians.
Gap in the Literature
Although much research has been conducted on political discourse, there remains a lack of comparative studies focusing on the differences between English and Arabic manipulation strategies. This study seeks to bridge this gap by examining the pragmatic, rhetorical, and semantic devices employed in both contexts.
The Problem
The study of political discourse has largely been language-specific, with limited cross-cultural comparisons of manipulative strategies. The rise of populism, media influence, and digital communication from 2017 to 2024 has further blurred the lines between public and private discourse, increasing the complexity of political language (Shah, 2020). Politicians in both English and Arabic-speaking contexts increasingly use nuanced linguistic strategies to influence audiences. However, there is still insufficient research into how these strategies differ in frequency, style, and effectiveness across languages and cultures. This study aims to address this issue by comparing manipulative tactics employed by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians, examining how cultural context shapes the deployment of these strategies.
Novelty of the Study
This study presents several novel contributions to the field of political discourse analysis, 1) Cross-Cultural Pragmatic and Rhetorical Analysis: One of the key innovations of this study is its cross-cultural focus on comparing English and Arabic political discourses. While many studies have analyzed political communication within a single linguistic or cultural context, fewer have performed detailed comparisons across cultures. This study bridges that gap by examining the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies employed by politicians in two distinct linguistic environments, highlighting how these strategies reflect broader cultural norms. The comparison reveals not only the differences in manipulation tactics but also offers understanding of how political messaging is shaped by linguistic traditions, 2) In previous research, scholars have examined manipulation in English and Arabic discourses separately, but the cross-cultural element in this study makes it distinct. The study leverages both qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a more holistic understanding of political discourse across different cultural environments. This allows for a richer interpretation of how language and culture influence persuasion techniques, building on previous work that often focuses on individual aspects such as rhetoric (Pan, 2024; Shah, 2020), 3) The Impact of Digital Media: Another novel aspect is the study’s focus on the evolving role of digital media in shaping political discourse. While much research has been done on traditional political rhetoric, this study incorporates the influence of social media, highlighting how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. This aspect is particularly relevant as political discourse increasingly moves online, making this study's findings timely and applicable to contemporary communication practices. Pan (2024) discusses how digital media has altered the speed and style of political rhetoric, favoring more direct and sensational messaging, which this study echoes in its analysis of English-speaking political figures, 4) Interdisciplinary Model: The study’s methodological novelty lies in its eclectic model that combines rhetorical analysis, pragmatic theory, and semantic analysis. By integrating these approaches, the study offers a complete framework for understanding political manipulation. This model goes beyond traditional rhetorical studies, which often focus solely on ethos, pathos, and logos, by also analyzing conversational implicature, frame semantics, and indirect speech acts. Gurevich (2022) and Shah (2020) emphasize the importance of these pragmatic strategies in shaping audience interpretation, but few studies have applied them as systematically across multiple languages as this research does, and 5) Quantitative Focus on Strategy Frequency: Finally, the study introduces a quantitative dimension that is relatively underexplored in political discourse analysis. By counting and statistically analyzing the frequency of rhetorical and pragmatic devices across English and Arabic speeches, the research provides empirical evidence of the differences between the two cultures. The use of chi-square testing to confirm significant differences adds a layer of rigor to the comparative analysis, making the findings more robust than those based purely on qualitative observations
In a nutshell, this study stands out for its cross-cultural comparison, integration of digital media impacts, interdisciplinary framework, and quantitative analysis. Its findings have important implications for political communication strategies, media literacy, and cross-cultural understanding in an increasingly interconnected world.
Objectives of the Study
--To analyze and compare the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic manipulative strategies used by English and Arabic-speaking politicians.
--To explore the cultural influences on these manipulative strategies.
--To quantify the frequency of these strategies and examine significant differences.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1. How do Arabic-speaking and English-speaking politicians employ pragmatic and rhetorical strategies to manipulate their audiences?
RQ2. How does semantic analysis reveal the ways in which meaning is conveyed and potentially manipulated in English and Arabic political discourse?
RQ3. Are there significant differences in the frequency of manipulative strategies across these two linguistic groups?
H1. English-speaking politicians employ more direct pragmatic and rhetorical strategies compared to Arabic-speaking politicians.
H2. Semantic analysis reveal a greater reliance on identity-based manipulation in Arabic political discourse.
H3. There is statistically significant differences in the manipulation strategies used by English and Arabic-speaking politicians.
Methodology
This study employs a mixed-methods approach to examine the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic manipulation strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians. The methodology combines both qualitative and quantitative techniques to offer a complete analysis of political discourse across these two linguistic groups. Below are the details of the research design, corpus, data collection, and analysis procedures.
Research Design
This study is designed as a comparative, mixed-methods investigation, combining qualitative discourse analysis with quantitative statistical analysis to compare political speeches in English and Arabic. The mixed-methods design is well-suited to capture the complexity of political discourse, allowing for both in-depth analysis of specific rhetorical strategies and broader statistical validation of cross-cultural differences.
Qualitative Analysis: This part of the study involves a close reading and coding of the political speeches to identify the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic devices used by the politicians. By utilizing theoretical frameworks from rhetoric (ethos, pathos, logos), pragmatics (politeness strategies, conversational implicature), and semantics (metaphors, allusions, frame semantics), the qualitative analysis provides detailed understanding of how manipulation is enacted in each cultural context.
Quantitative Analysis: The study also quantifies the occurrences of specific rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies across the two linguistic groups. Statistical tests, such as chi-square tests, are applied to determine whether the observed differences are statistically significant. This quantitative component complements the qualitative findings, adding an empirical dimension to the analysis.
Corpus of the Study
The corpus for this study consists of 40 political speeches, with 20 speeches delivered by English-speaking politicians and 20 by Arabic-speaking politicians. The speeches were selected based on their prominence in shaping public opinion and their reflection of major political events. The selection criteria aimed to ensure that the speeches were delivered by influential politicians in both linguistic contexts, representative of recent political discourse, and available in transcribed, publicly accessible formats to ensure accuracy in coding and analysis.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection involved several steps, ensuring that the speeches were properly transcribed, coded, and prepared for analysis. The steps are as follows:
Speech Transcription: All 40 speeches were transcribed into written text for coding purposes. For speeches that were already available as written transcripts, the text was reviewed for accuracy. For speeches in audio or video format, professional transcription services were used to ensure fidelity to the original spoken content. This was particularly important for the Arabic speeches to ensure the transcription accurately reflected colloquial and rhetorical nuances.
Coding Process
The transcribed speeches were systematically coded for rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies. The coding process was guided by the following categories:
Rhetorical strategies: Appeals to ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) were identified based on the framework of classical rhetoric.
Pragmatic strategies: Speech acts, including directives (commands, requests) and declaratives (statements of fact), as well as politeness strategies (positive and negative politeness), were coded using the framework of pragmatics. Pragmatic phenomena such as conversational implicature were also noted.
Semantic strategies: Figurative language such as metaphors, allusions, synecdoche, and irony were identified, along with the use of frame semantics to construct meaning and guide audience interpretation. Each speech was independently coded by two trained researchers to ensure reliability. Any discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion and consensus, and a high level of inter-coder reliability was achieved (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.87).
Data Analysis Procedures
The analysis was conducted in two phases: qualitative and quantitative.
Qualitative Analysis: The qualitative analysis involved a detailed examination of the coded speeches to explore how rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies were used to manipulate meaning in each cultural context. The analysis focused on identifying patterns in the use of these strategies and how they aligned with the cultural communication norms of English-speaking and Arabic-speaking societies. For example, instances of ethos were examined to understand how political figures in each context constructed credibility, while metaphors and allusions were analyzed to see how figurative language reinforced collective identity and emotional resonance.
Quantitative Analysis: For the quantitative analysis, the frequencies of the coded strategies were tallied, and descriptive statistics were generated to compare their use across the two linguistic groups. Statistical tests were then applied to determine whether the observed differences were statistically significant.
Statistical Tests
Chi-Square Test: The chi-square test was used to compare the frequency of rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies between English and Arabic speeches. This test assesses whether there are significant differences in how manipulation strategies are employed across the two groups.
Linear-by-Linear Association Test: This test was used to examine the linear relationship between the two variables—language group (English vs. Arabic) and the use of specific manipulation strategies.
The chi-square test was chosen for its ability to assess categorical data, making it suitable for comparing the frequency of coded strategies between the two linguistic groups. The significance level was set at p < 0.05, and all statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
Results
The analysis of the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic manipulation strategies employed by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians entailed the results that are divided here into three major sections, corresponding to the study’s research questions.
RQ1. How do Arabic-speaking and English-speaking politicians employ pragmatic and rhetorical strategies to manipulate their audiences?
Table 1 presents the frequency of key rhetorical and pragmatic strategies, including directives, declaratives, politeness strategies, and the appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos, in the English and Arabic political speeches analyzed.
Table 1
Frequency of Pragmatic and Rhetorical Strategies in English and Arabic Speeches
Linguistic Device | Occurrences (English) | Occurrences (Arabic) |
|---|---|---|
Directives | 35 | 20 |
Declaratives | 26 | 15 |
Positive Politeness | 46 | 30 |
Negative Politeness | 30 | 25 |
Ethos (Credibility) | 41 | 41 |
Pathos (Emotion) | 43 | 41 |
Logos (Logic) | 36 | 28 |
According to the above results, Directives (e.g., commands or requests) were used more frequently by English-speaking politicians (35 occurrences) compared to Arabic-speaking politicians (20 occurrences). This suggests that English-speaking politicians tend to adopt a more direct, assertive style when addressing their audience. Declaratives, statements that assert information, were also more common in English speeches (26 occurrences) than in Arabic speeches (15 occurrences), reinforcing the preference for straightforward communication in English political rhetoric. Positive Politeness, strategies used to establish a sense of camaraderie or solidarity, also occurred more frequently in English speeches (46 occurrences) than in Arabic speeches (30 occurrences). This indicates that English-speaking politicians are more inclined to build rapport through inclusivity and shared identity. Negative Politeness, strategies used to show deference or minimize imposition, appeared slightly more frequently in English speeches (30 occurrences) than in Arabic speeches (25 occurrences). Both linguistic groups employed these strategies, though with subtle variations in frequency.
These results indicate that English-speaking politicians tend to employ more direct and logical appeals, aligning with Western communication norms that prioritize clarity and transparency. In contrast, Arabic-speaking politicians use fewer directives and declaratives but maintain a strong emphasis on emotional (pathos) and credibility-based (ethos) appeals, reflecting a communication style more focused on collective identity and emotional resonance.
RQ2: How does semantic analysis reveal the ways in which meaning is conveyed and potentially manipulated in English and Arabic political discourse?
Table 2 below illustrates the frequency of various semantic strategies, including metaphors, irony, allusions, synecdoche, and frame semantics, employed by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians.
Table 2
Frequency of Semantic Manipulation Strategies in English and Arabic Speeches
Semantic Strategy | Occurrences (English) | Occurrences (Arabic) |
|---|---|---|
Metaphors | 25 | 30 |
Irony | 10 | 12 |
Allusions | 22 | 28 |
Synecdoche | 15 | 18 |
Frame Semantics | 16 | 20 |
| ||
Metaphors were more frequently used in Arabic speeches (30 occurrences) than in English speeches (25 occurrences), highlighting the Arabic tradition of using figurative language to evoke shared cultural meanings. Metaphors in Arabic discourse often draw on historical or religious imagery, enhancing emotional and identity-based appeals. Irony, a subtle rhetorical device used to convey meaning indirectly, was relatively infrequent in both language contexts but slightly more common in Arabic speeches (12 occurrences) compared to English speeches (10 occurrences). Allusions, indirect references to culturally significant events, figures, or texts, were also more prevalent in Arabic speeches (28 occurrences) than in English speeches (22 occurrences). This suggests a stronger reliance on shared cultural knowledge in Arabic political discourse. Synecdoche (using a part to represent a whole) appeared more in Arabic speeches (18 occurrences) compared to English speeches (15 occurrences), reflecting a preference for symbolic representation in Arabic rhetoric. Frame Semantics, the use of linguistic frames to structure meaning and guide interpretation, was more frequent in Arabic speeches (20 occurrences) compared to English speeches (16 occurrences). This reflects the more indirect and interpretive nature of Arabic political communication, where language is often used to construct shared narratives and invoke collective memory.
In brief, Arabic-speaking politicians rely more heavily on figurative language (e.g., metaphors, allusions, and synecdoche) and indirect communication strategies (e.g., frame semantics), which align with cultural norms that emphasize shared identity and collective experience. In contrast, English-speaking politicians use a more direct approach, employing fewer figurative devices but maintaining some level of frame semantics to subtly manipulate audience perceptions.
RQ3: Are there significant differences in the frequency of manipulative strategies across these two linguistic groups?
A chi-square test was also performed to determine whether the observed differences in the use of rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic manipulation strategies between English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians are statistically significant.
Table 3
Chi-Square Test for Differences in Manipulation Strategies
Test | Value | Degrees of Freedom (df) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
Pearson Chi-Square | 105.38 | 27 | 0.00 |
Linear-by-Linear Association | 35.21 | 1 | 0.01 |
Discussion
The findings from the comparative analysis of rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic manipulation strategies between English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians offer significant understanding of how political discourse is shaped by linguistic and cultural norms. These findings support the study's hypotheses and highlight key differences and similarities in how political actors manipulate their audiences in both linguistic contexts.
Pragmatic and Rhetorical Strategies (RQ1)
The results reveal clear differences in how politicians from English-speaking and Arabic-speaking contexts employ rhetorical and pragmatic strategies. English-speaking politicians use more directives and declaratives, indicating a more assertive, straightforward approach to communication. This aligns with Western norms of transparency, where directness and clarity are highly valued (Shah, 2020). The emphasis on logos (logic) in English speeches further underscores this preference for rational, fact-based persuasion. Western political rhetoric, particularly in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, often focuses on clear, logical argumentation to build credibility and trust with the audience, as noted by Pan (2024)
In contrast, Arabic-speaking politicians use fewer directives and declaratives but rely more heavily on positive politeness strategies to create a sense of solidarity with their audience. This reflects the collectivist nature of many Arab societies, where building rapport through shared identity and values is crucial. The frequent use of ethos and pathos (credibility and emotional appeals) by Arabic-speaking politicians supports previous research that highlights the importance of emotional and identity-based appeals in Arab political discourse (Fetzer, 2018; Jasim & Mustafa, 2020)
These findings suggest that Arabic-speaking politicians are more focused on evoking emotional responses and fostering a collective sense of identity, often drawing on religious or historical references to strengthen these bonds. Interestingly, both groups used ethos and pathos with similar frequency, indicating that credibility and emotional appeal are universal aspects of political rhetoric. However, the logos-based approach was more dominant in English discourse, reinforcing the cultural emphasis on rational argumentation. This dichotomy suggests that while both linguistic groups prioritize building trust and emotional connection, they do so through different rhetorical mechanisms.
Semantic Manipulation (RQ2)
The semantic strategies employed by both linguistic groups also reflect broader cultural differences. Arabic-speaking politicians made more frequent use of metaphors, allusions, and synecdoche, revealing a greater reliance on figurative language. This is consistent with the findings of Van Dijk (2020) and Shah (2020), who argue that Arabic political discourse often employs indirect communication strategies to engage the audience through shared cultural knowledge
Metaphors in Arabic discourse frequently draw on religious or historical imagery, reinforcing collective identity and evoking emotional resonance.
In contrast, English-speaking politicians used fewer figurative devices and relied more on frame semantics, although this was less frequent than in Arabic discourse. The use of frames in both linguistic groups highlights how political actors shape audience perceptions by constructing certain narratives or perspectives, though Arabic politicians did so with greater frequency. This suggests that Arabic discourse is more interpretive, requiring the audience to decode the deeper meanings behind the figurative language and presuppositions. In English-speaking contexts, the emphasis is on presenting facts and logical arguments more directly, reflecting a cultural preference for transparency and explicitness.
These findings confirm the hypothesis that Arabic political discourse relies more heavily on indirect, identity-based manipulation through figurative language, while English political discourse tends to focus on clarity and logical framing.
Differences in Manipulative Strategies (RQ3)
The chi-square test confirms statistically significant differences in the manipulation strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians. This finding provides empirical support for the third hypothesis (H3) that the two linguistic groups differ in their rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic manipulation techniques. These differences are deeply rooted in cultural communication norms. English-speaking politicians prioritize logical appeals, directness, and clarity, consistent with Western ideals of rational debate and factual accuracy. In contrast, Arabic-speaking politicians emphasize emotional appeals and indirect communication, aligning with cultural values that prioritize collective identity and emotional resonance.
The statistically significant results underline the importance of considering cultural context when analyzing political rhetoric. Politicians do not operate in a vacuum; their language choices are influenced by the cultural expectations of their audience, which shapes both the style and substance of their messages.
Conclusion
This study offers a complete analysis of how political discourse differs between English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians, with a focus on the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies they employ to manipulate their audiences. The results confirm significant cultural and linguistic differences, with English-speaking politicians favoring more direct, fact-based appeals (logos), and Arabic-speaking politicians relying heavily on figurative language and emotional appeals (pathos) to engage their audiences. The study's key contributions include, 1) Highlighting the cultural basis of political manipulation strategies, emphasizing the need for context-sensitive approaches to political communication, 2) Demonstrating that while both English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians use ethos and pathos, they do so in distinct ways, shaped by their respective cultural norms, and 3) Providing empirical evidence through quantitative analysis, specifically through the chi-square test, that confirms statistically significant differences in rhetorical and pragmatic strategies across these linguistic groups.
Implications of the Study
Practical Implications
The findings have several practical implications, For Political Communication Professionals: The insights from this study can inform how political figures, speechwriters, and communication strategists tailor their messaging to fit different cultural contexts. English-speaking politicians engaging with collectivist cultures may need to incorporate more indirect, identity-based appeals, while Arabic-speaking politicians addressing Western audiences may need to adopt clearer, more logical communication styles, 2) For Cross-Cultural Relations: The study underscores the importance of cultural awareness in political dialogue, particularly in international diplomacy. Understanding the distinct communication styles of different linguistic groups can reduce misinterpretations and foster more effective cross-cultural engagement, and 3) For Media Literacy: The study highlights the need for greater public awareness of how political rhetoric manipulates perceptions. Media literacy programs can use these insights to educate citizens on how to critically evaluate political messages, particularly in the digital age, where rhetorical manipulation is pervasive.
Implications for Future Research
The study opens several avenues for future research. Given the rising influence of digital platforms on political communication, further research could explore how these rhetorical and pragmatic strategies evolve in the context of social media. Additionally, examining how different linguistic and cultural groups respond to these strategies on digital platforms could provide understanding of the changing nature of political discourse in the digital age. Researchers may also investigate how emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and algorithmic content distribution, affect the use and reception of manipulative strategies in political communication.
Finally, the implications of this study extend beyond academic discourse, providing practical insights for political communication, cross-cultural relations, media literacy, and education. By understanding the nuanced ways in which language is used to influence audiences, stakeholders across these fields can develop more effective strategies for navigating and analyzing political discourse in an increasingly interconnected world.
Limitations of the Study
Despite its complete analysis of manipulative strategies in English and Arabic political discourse, this study faces several limitations:
Corpus Size and Scope: The corpus of political speeches analyzed is limited in both number and geographical scope. While the study includes speeches from prominent politicians, it may not fully represent the diversity of political communication strategies across different regions and political contexts. Additionally, focusing solely on high-profile figures may overlook how lower-profile politicians or those in less dominant political arenas use language.
Cultural and Political Contexts: Political discourse is deeply influenced by the specific sociopolitical environment in which it occurs. This study primarily focuses on general rhetorical and pragmatic strategies, but it does not delve into the distinct political systems, ideologies, or historical events that may shape the way manipulation is used. For example, politicians in conflict-ridden areas may employ different strategies than those in stable democracies.
Temporal Constraints: The speeches analyzed are taken from a specific time period, and political rhetoric can evolve rapidly in response to changing political landscapes and technological advancements, particularly with the rise of social media. This study’s findings may not fully account for newer trends in political discourse, such as the increasing role of real-time feedback and digital echo chambers.
Focus on Two Languages: While the comparison between English and Arabic political discourse provides valuable insights, the exclusion of other languages limits the study's generalizability. Political discourse in other linguistic and cultural contexts, such as in East Asia or Latin America, may employ different manipulative strategies that were not explored in this study.
Suggestions for Further Research
Based on the findings of the current study, the following suggestions are presented for future research:
Expanding the Corpus: Future research should aim to include a larger and more diverse corpus of political speeches, drawing from a broader range of political figures, countries, and contexts. This would provide a more complete understanding of how manipulation strategies vary across different political systems and cultural backgrounds.
Incorporating Multilingual Comparisons: To enhance the generalizability of findings, future studies should consider comparing political discourse across additional languages and cultural settings. Including languages such as Mandarin, Spanish, or French could provide new understanding of how manipulation is culturally mediated and whether similar strategies are used across non-Western political discourses.
Impact of Social Media on Political Manipulation: As political discourse increasingly moves to social media platforms; future research could examine how manipulative strategies adapt to these new communication channels. Researchers could investigate how politicians adjust their rhetoric and pragmatic strategies for digital audiences, where short, impactful messages are often favored. Studies could also explore the role of algorithms and echo chambers in amplifying specific types of manipulative rhetoric.
Analysis of Public Reception and Effectiveness: Future studies could shift focus from the production of manipulative discourse to its reception. By examining how different audiences respond to rhetorical and pragmatic strategies, researchers could assess the effectiveness of various manipulative techniques. This could be done through surveys, focus groups, or experiments to measure public perception and susceptibility to political manipulation.
Longitudinal Studies: A longitudinal approach would allow researchers to track how manipulative strategies in political discourse evolve over time, particularly in response to significant political events such as elections, wars, or social movements. By examining these shifts, researchers can identify trends and changes in rhetorical strategies that reflect broader sociopolitical dynamics.
References
Fetzer, A. (2018). Pragmatics as political discourse: Explorations of politics and politeness. John Benjamins Publishing.
Gurevich, M. (2022). Frame semantics in political discourse: A cross-linguistic perspective. Pragmatics and Society, 13(4), 579-600. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.21011.gur
Jasim, H., & Mustafa, M. (2020). Emotional appeals in Arabic political rhetoric: A cultural approach. Journal of Arabic and Islamic Studies, 27(2), 123-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/xxx.xxxxx
Pan, X. (2024). Digital media and the evolution of rhetorical strategies in political communication. Journal of Media Studies, 31(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Shah, R. (2020). Rhetoric and persuasion in Western and Middle Eastern political speeches: A comparative analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(3), 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20034.sha
Van Dijk, T. A. (2020). Discourse and manipulation: A critical discourse analysis of political language. Discourse & Society, 31(5), 542-561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520917207
Biodata
Qasim Hawas Hadi is a Ph. D student at the English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. Also, I’ve worked as an English instructor in different Colleges of Karbala University. He received his B.A in English Language from Karbala University (2011), and earned his M.A in English Language- Linguistics, / Baghdad University (2017). His main research area of interest is General Linguistics. Qasim Hawas Hadi has been teaching as an English teacher in the secondary schools since 1998, and as an instructor in the English Dept. open Educational College till now.
Email: qasimhawa4151@gmail.com
AtefeSadat Mirsaeedi is an assistant professor of General Linguistics in the English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. She received her B.A. in English Literature from University of Isfahan (2003), and earned her M.A. (2006) and Ph.D. (2011) in General Linguistics from University of Isfahan. Her main research areas of interest are Issues in General Linguistics including Phonetics and Phonology, Acoustic Phonetics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, Ecolinguistics, Forensic Linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics. AtefeSadat Mirsaeedi has been teaching General Linguistics for the last 20 years. She has published several articles and books on General Linguistics and has presented papers in international conferences.
Email: Atefemirsaeedi@gmail.com
Ghanim Jwaid Idan is an assistant professor of Linguistics/ pragmatics in the College of Education for Humanities, Kerbala University. He received his B.A English language from Baghdad university, and earned his M.A and Ph.D in general Linguistics from Baghdad university. His main research areas of interest are issues in general Linguistics such as semantics, pragmatics, critical discourse analysis and phonetics. He has been teaching undergraduate studies as well as postgraduate studies for more than 25 years in different universities.
Email: ghanim.j@uokerbala.edu.iq
Sahar Najarzadegan is an assistant professor at English Department, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran. Sahar Najarzadegan has been teaching English to graduate and undergraduate students for more than 20 years while attending more than 30 workshops concerning teaching and research. Sahar Najarzadegan got her Ph.D. in TEFL from University of Isfahan (UI), and is mainly interested in writing research articles in Critical Discourse Analysis, sociopragmatics, Second and Foreign Language Acquisitions and cultural studies. Email: snajarzadegan@gmail.com
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Najafabad Iran, Iran. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0 license). (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by nc/4.0/).
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 12(48), 2024 
Islamic Azad University of Najafabad
