Exploring the Pragmatic Features of Incitement in Political Texts: A Focus on the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
محورهای موضوعی : Applied LinguisticsSamir Jamal Ibraheem Saraj Al-Deen 1 , Atefesadat Mirsaeedi 2 , Abbas Lutfi Hussein Baqqal 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, College of Arts, Mustansiriyah University, Iraq
4 - Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
کلید واژه: pragmatics, incitement, directive speech acts, Russia-Ukraine war, political linguistics,
چکیده مقاله :
The phenomenon of incitement in political discourse was examined pragmatically in the Russia-Ukraine crisis context in this study. This study concentrates on directive speech acts to determine how incitement functions as illocutionary or perlocutionary and what methods are used to formulate both direct and indirect provocation. By applying speech act theory and political linguistics, this study explains how provocation is used to motivate action, shapes public opinion, and shapes group behavior. This study confirms that euphemisms, metaphors, and emotional appeals increase incitement in speeches by high-ranking politicians such as U.S. President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The research explores how the sociopolitical and digital environment amplifies political speech. It highlights the rise of indirect incitement over digital communication, where coded language and algorithm-driven dissemination allow political actors to avoid accountability while mobilizing. The research investigated these interactions to shed light on the ethical and social consequences of incitement, as well as its role in the formation of narratives surrounding aggression, solidarity, and identity amid conflict. This study highlights the significance of grasping the linguistic and rhetorical aspects of political discourse, particularly in narratives influenced by conflict, providing valuable insights for linguists, political analysts, educators, and policymakers regarding the pragmatic characteristics and strategies associated with incitement, thereby fostering critical thinking and enhancing political communication.
The phenomenon of incitement in political discourse was examined pragmatically in the Russia-Ukraine crisis context in this study. This study concentrates on directive speech acts to determine how incitement functions as illocutionary or perlocutionary and what methods are used to formulate both direct and indirect provocation. By applying speech act theory and political linguistics, this study explains how provocation is used to motivate action, shapes public opinion, and shapes group behavior. This study confirms that euphemisms, metaphors, and emotional appeals increase incitement in speeches by high-ranking politicians such as U.S. President Joe Biden, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The research explores how the sociopolitical and digital environment amplifies political speech. It highlights the rise of indirect incitement over digital communication, where coded language and algorithm-driven dissemination allow political actors to avoid accountability while mobilizing. The research investigated these interactions to shed light on the ethical and social consequences of incitement, as well as its role in the formation of narratives surrounding aggression, solidarity, and identity amid conflict. This study highlights the significance of grasping the linguistic and rhetorical aspects of political discourse, particularly in narratives influenced by conflict, providing valuable insights for linguists, political analysts, educators, and policymakers regarding the pragmatic characteristics and strategies associated with incitement, thereby fostering critical thinking and enhancing political communication.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., & McEnery, T. (2013). Discourse analysis and media attitudes: The representation of Islam in the British press. Cambridge University Press.
Beers, D. (2021). Political rhetoric in the age of populism: A cross-national study. Springer.
Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the Internet: On sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Buchanan, J. M. (2013). The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and Leviathan. University of Chicago Press.
Cap, P. (2018). The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2021). Metaphors of Brexit: No cherries on the cake?. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. (2017). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Entman, R. M. (2010). Framing media power. In Dünkel, F., & Rossi, J. (Eds.), Media and political communication (pp. 81-102). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Edelman, M. (2018). Constructing the political spectacle. University of Chicago Press.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and globalization. Routledge.
García, A. (2020). Ethical concerns in political rhetoric. Journal of Applied Pragmatics, 12(3), 45-67.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.
Gillespie, T. (2020). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Goddard, A., & Patterson, L. (2013). Language and gender. Routledge.
Habermas, J. (2015). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press.
Hansen, K. A. (2019). Emotional manipulation in political communication. Communication Studies, 70(4), 465-482.
Hart, C. (2020). Cognitive linguistic approaches to text and discourse: From poetics to politics. Edinburgh University Press.
Harris, S., & Holmes, R. (2022). Teaching pragmatics in the classroom: A critical approach. Linguistics and Education, 37, 1-15.
Hutchings, S., & Szostek, J. (2023). Disinformation and propaganda in the Russia-Ukraine war. Post-Soviet Affairs, 39(2), 145-168.
Kaal, B., Maks, I., & van Elfrinkhof, A. (2020). Political metaphor detection and analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(1), 1-25.
Karaganov, S. (2023). Linguistic framing in wartime discourse: The case of Russia-Ukraine conflict. Contemporary Issues in Political Linguistics, 15(4), 201-219.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2023). Corporate discourse and incitement strategies in public relations. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(1), 45-61.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2020). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (2016). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. University of Chicago Press.
Laclau, E. (2021). On populist reason. Verso Books.
McLoughlin, L., & O’Neill, B. (2022). The role of metaphor and hyperbole in political incitement. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(3), 233-256.
Mercer, N. (2019). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
Miskimmon, A., O'Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2014). Strategic narratives: Communication power and the new world order. Routledge.
Moskvina, E. (2022). Pragmatics of incitement in political rhetoric. Discourse and Society, 33(1), 89-105.
Mudde, C. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Musolff, A. (2017). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. Bloomsbury Publishing.
O'Rourke, J. S. (2024). Indirect communication in corporate narratives: Ethical considerations. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(2), 251-272.
Parker, I. (2020). Critical discursive psychology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Power, M., & Taylor, J. (2021). Ethical communication in global conflicts. International Relations Quarterly, 14(3), 39-56.
Prokhorov, Y. (2019). Ambiguity in Russian political speech. Russian Linguistics, 43(2), 157-176.
Pupcenoks, J., Schreck, J., & Tolstrup, J. (2024). Leadership communication strategies during international conflicts. Political Psychology, 45(1), 34-50.
Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
Schaffner, C. (2022). Emotional framing in political speeches: A cross-cultural analysis. Language and Politics, 21(4), 399-417.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Stepanova, E. (2021). Cyber and information warfare in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. International Security, 46(2), 27-54.
Stefanov, P. (2022). National identity and incitement in political rhetoric. East European Politics, 38(1), 123-138.
Suleiman, Y. (2021). Cross-linguistic perspectives on indirect incitement. Linguistics and Society, 35(4), 217-231.
Trosborg, A. (2010). Pragmatics across languages and cultures. Walter de Gruyter.
van der Veen, K. (2015). The impact of coded language in social media rhetoric. Social Media Studies, 9(3), 144-162.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as structure and process. Sage Publications.
van Dijk, T. A. (2013). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Verschueren, J. (2020). Pragmatics and social interaction. John Benjamins Publishing.
Wilson, A. (2022). Constructing narratives of aggression in the Russia-Ukraine war. Journal of Political Discourse Studies, 18(2), 189-212.
Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R. (2020). Politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. Sage.
Wodak, R., & Forchtner, B. (2017). Discourse and argumentation in the public sphere. Discourse Studies, 19(3), 263-278.
Zimdars, M. (2021). The role of algorithms in political discourse. Digital Society Journal, 22(4), 341-358.
