Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects

Abidi Hajer

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

| Peer-Reviewed

Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects

Abidi Hajer

Published in Advances in Sciences and Humanities (Volume 7, Issue 2)

Received: 25 April 2021 Accepted: 31 May 2021 Published: 16 June 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Since politicians make use of language in their quest to garner support and credibility, among other things, many coercive strategies are utilized by recourse to some manipulative avenues. These same coercive strategies happen in the matrix of a peculiar socio-cultural environment independently from ideologies and common or shared goals. The latter claims make this paper’s focus manifold. Kamala Harris, the vice US President, opted for a number of stabilizing, as it seems, linguistic choices of diction, and thus messages to yield an automatic effect at a time of crisis. This research, in view of this, applies of qualitative method to analyze Harris’s victory speech while implementing van Dijk’s framework adopted from politics, ideology and discourse. In order to attain persuasive ends, some ideological macro-strategies have been widely invested in the speech like emphasizing Our Good things, de-emphasizing Their Bad things and so forth. Shaping public opinion has, thus, been coercively perceived via some ideological discourse categories like lexicalization, consensus and counterfactuals. Results show that coercive discourse has a stabilizing effect and is significantly linked to ideologies and political quibbles dissident from her predecessors. Results also show that coercion is endemic in political discourse and is overtly swinging in various directions to meet many ends.

Published in	Advances in Sciences and Humanities (Volume 7, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
Page(s)	38-43
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Ideologies, Coercive, Discourse, Stabilizing, Strategies

References

[1]	Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2]	Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
[3]	Chilton, P. (2005b). Manipulation, memes and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf. In L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 15–44.
[4]	Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5]	Dant, T. (2013). Knowledge, ideology & discourse: A sociological perspective. Routledge.
[6]	Eagleton, T. (2014). Ideology. Routledge.
[7]	Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge.
[8]	Fowler, R. (1996). On critical linguistics. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds), Texts and practices. London: Routledge. pp. 3–14
[9]	Fetzer, A. & G. Lauerbach (Eds.). (2007). Political discourse in the media. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[10]	Hartman, R. (2002). The knowledge of good: Critique of axiological reason. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
[11]	Huntington, S. (2004). Who are we: The challenges to America’s national identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
[12]	Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. Springer.
[13]	Martin, J. R. & R. Wodak (Eds.). (2003). Re/reading the past. Critical and functional perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McGray, D. (2003). The minister of net defense. Wired 11. http://www.wired. com/wired/archive/11.05/schmidt.html.
[14]	O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and language cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
[15]	Ochs E (1979) Planned and unplanned discourse. In: Givón T (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 51–80.
[16]	Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22 (6), 781-807.
[17]	Sperber, D. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Retrieved 20 June, 2008, http://sperber.club.fr/index.htm.
[18]	Weiss, G. and R. Wodak (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 1–35.
[19]	Van Dijk, T, A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schäffner and A. I. Wenden (eds), Language and peace. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. pp. 17–36.
[20]	Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction (Vol. 2). Sage.
[21]	Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). The representation of social actors. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis, 1, 32-70.
[22]	Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 32 (1-2), 185-193.
[23]	Van Dijk, T. A (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton (eds), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 352–71.
[24]	van Dijk, T, A. (2002). Ideology: Political discourse and cognition. In P. Chilton and C. Schäffner (eds), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 203–38.
[25]	Van Dijk, T, A. (2004) Politics, Ideology and Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/
[26]	Van Dijk, T. A. (2013). Ideology and discourse. The Oxford handbook of political ideologies, 175-196.
[27]	Van Leeuwen, T. & R. Wodak. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: a discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 10, 83
[28]	Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Abidi Hajer. (2021). Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects. Advances in Sciences and Humanities, 7(2), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Abidi Hajer. Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects. Adv. Sci. Humanit. 2021, 7(2), 38-43. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Abidi Hajer. Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects. Adv Sci Humanit. 2021;7(2):38-43. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15,
  author = {Abidi Hajer},
  title = {Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects},
  journal = {Advances in Sciences and Humanities},
  volume = {7},
  number = {2},
  pages = {38-43},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ash.20210702.15},
  abstract = {Since politicians make use of language in their quest to garner support and credibility, among other things, many coercive strategies are utilized by recourse to some manipulative avenues. These same coercive strategies happen in the matrix of a peculiar socio-cultural environment independently from ideologies and common or shared goals. The latter claims make this paper’s focus manifold. Kamala Harris, the vice US President, opted for a number of stabilizing, as it seems, linguistic choices of diction, and thus messages to yield an automatic effect at a time of crisis. This research, in view of this, applies of qualitative method to analyze Harris’s victory speech while implementing van Dijk’s framework adopted from politics, ideology and discourse. In order to attain persuasive ends, some ideological macro-strategies have been widely invested in the speech like emphasizing Our Good things, de-emphasizing Their Bad things and so forth. Shaping public opinion has, thus, been coercively perceived via some ideological discourse categories like lexicalization, consensus and counterfactuals. Results show that coercive discourse has a stabilizing effect and is significantly linked to ideologies and political quibbles dissident from her predecessors. Results also show that coercion is endemic in political discourse and is overtly swinging in various directions to meet many ends.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects
AU  - Abidi Hajer
Y1  - 2021/06/16
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
T2  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JF  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JO  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
SP  - 38
EP  - 43
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-0984
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
AB  - Since politicians make use of language in their quest to garner support and credibility, among other things, many coercive strategies are utilized by recourse to some manipulative avenues. These same coercive strategies happen in the matrix of a peculiar socio-cultural environment independently from ideologies and common or shared goals. The latter claims make this paper’s focus manifold. Kamala Harris, the vice US President, opted for a number of stabilizing, as it seems, linguistic choices of diction, and thus messages to yield an automatic effect at a time of crisis. This research, in view of this, applies of qualitative method to analyze Harris’s victory speech while implementing van Dijk’s framework adopted from politics, ideology and discourse. In order to attain persuasive ends, some ideological macro-strategies have been widely invested in the speech like emphasizing Our Good things, de-emphasizing Their Bad things and so forth. Shaping public opinion has, thus, been coercively perceived via some ideological discourse categories like lexicalization, consensus and counterfactuals. Results show that coercive discourse has a stabilizing effect and is significantly linked to ideologies and political quibbles dissident from her predecessors. Results also show that coercion is endemic in political discourse and is overtly swinging in various directions to meet many ends.
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Abidi Hajer

Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences of Sfax, Universtity of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Abidi Hajer. (2021). Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects. Advances in Sciences and Humanities, 7(2), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Abidi Hajer. Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects. Adv. Sci. Humanit. 2021, 7(2), 38-43. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Abidi Hajer. Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects. Adv Sci Humanit. 2021;7(2):38-43. doi: 10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15,
  author = {Abidi Hajer},
  title = {Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects},
  journal = {Advances in Sciences and Humanities},
  volume = {7},
  number = {2},
  pages = {38-43},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ash.20210702.15},
  abstract = {Since politicians make use of language in their quest to garner support and credibility, among other things, many coercive strategies are utilized by recourse to some manipulative avenues. These same coercive strategies happen in the matrix of a peculiar socio-cultural environment independently from ideologies and common or shared goals. The latter claims make this paper’s focus manifold. Kamala Harris, the vice US President, opted for a number of stabilizing, as it seems, linguistic choices of diction, and thus messages to yield an automatic effect at a time of crisis. This research, in view of this, applies of qualitative method to analyze Harris’s victory speech while implementing van Dijk’s framework adopted from politics, ideology and discourse. In order to attain persuasive ends, some ideological macro-strategies have been widely invested in the speech like emphasizing Our Good things, de-emphasizing Their Bad things and so forth. Shaping public opinion has, thus, been coercively perceived via some ideological discourse categories like lexicalization, consensus and counterfactuals. Results show that coercive discourse has a stabilizing effect and is significantly linked to ideologies and political quibbles dissident from her predecessors. Results also show that coercion is endemic in political discourse and is overtly swinging in various directions to meet many ends.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Harris’s Coercive Discourse Is Stabilizing: Discourse Strategies and Effects
AU  - Abidi Hajer
Y1  - 2021/06/16
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
T2  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JF  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
JO  - Advances in Sciences and Humanities
SP  - 38
EP  - 43
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2472-0984
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ash.20210702.15
AB  - Since politicians make use of language in their quest to garner support and credibility, among other things, many coercive strategies are utilized by recourse to some manipulative avenues. These same coercive strategies happen in the matrix of a peculiar socio-cultural environment independently from ideologies and common or shared goals. The latter claims make this paper’s focus manifold. Kamala Harris, the vice US President, opted for a number of stabilizing, as it seems, linguistic choices of diction, and thus messages to yield an automatic effect at a time of crisis. This research, in view of this, applies of qualitative method to analyze Harris’s victory speech while implementing van Dijk’s framework adopted from politics, ideology and discourse. In order to attain persuasive ends, some ideological macro-strategies have been widely invested in the speech like emphasizing Our Good things, de-emphasizing Their Bad things and so forth. Shaping public opinion has, thus, been coercively perceived via some ideological discourse categories like lexicalization, consensus and counterfactuals. Results show that coercive discourse has a stabilizing effect and is significantly linked to ideologies and political quibbles dissident from her predecessors. Results also show that coercion is endemic in political discourse and is overtly swinging in various directions to meet many ends.
VL  - 7
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download