Pragmalinguistic Dimensions of Incitement in Political Discourse: Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies During the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
محورهای موضوعی :Samir 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: Pragmalinguistics, Incitement, Political Discourse, Russia-Ukraine War, Speech Acts, Illocutionary Acts, Perlocutionary Acts,
چکیده مقاله :
This research explored the intricacies of incitement as a speech act in political discourse, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, the study combined qualitative analyses—focusing on rhetorical structures and pragmatic strategies—with quantitative evaluations of speech act frequencies. The corpus included speeches from prominent political figures delivered between February 2022 and March 2024, selected for their relevance to incitement. The analysis revealed that incitement often straddles the boundary between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, showcasing how politicians use indirect language to maintain plausible deniability while still mobilizing action. This ambiguity complicates traditional classifications within speech act theory. Furthermore, the study highlights various persuasive strategies employed in political rhetoric, such as emotional appeals and historical analogies.The implications of this research are significant for understanding how language functions as a tool of political power, particularly in conflict situations. It provides insights into ethical considerations surrounding incitement in political communication, suggesting that awareness of linguistic strategies can help prevent escalation of tensions and promote more responsible discourse among leaders.
This research explored the intricacies of incitement as a speech act in political discourse, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, the study combined qualitative analyses—focusing on rhetorical structures and pragmatic strategies—with quantitative evaluations of speech act frequencies. The corpus included speeches from prominent political figures delivered between February 2022 and March 2024, selected for their relevance to incitement. The analysis revealed that incitement often straddles the boundary between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, showcasing how politicians use indirect language to maintain plausible deniability while still mobilizing action. This ambiguity complicates traditional classifications within speech act theory. Furthermore, the study highlights various persuasive strategies employed in political rhetoric, such as emotional appeals and historical analogies.The implications of this research are significant for understanding how language functions as a tool of political power, particularly in conflict situations. It provides insights into ethical considerations surrounding incitement in political communication, suggesting that awareness of linguistic strategies can help prevent escalation of tensions and promote more responsible discourse among leaders.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Cap, P. (2013). "Pragmatics and Political Discourse." In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (1997). "Discourse and Politics." In Discourse as Social Interaction.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Language and Characterization: People in Plays and Other Texts. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. Longman.
Gölz, M. (2022). "Narratives of Conflict: Language Use in Political Discourse." Journal of Language and Politics.
Grice, H.P. (1975). "Logic and Conversation." In Syntax and Semantics.
Holmes, J. (2013). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Routledge.
Hutto, C.J., & Gilbert, E.E. (2014). "Sentiment Analysis Using Twitter Data." In Computational Linguistics.
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T.A. (1997). "Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction." In Discourse as Social Interaction.
Wodak, R. (2015). "Language Politics." In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics.
UN (2011). "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press.
