'CLOSING THE GAP' Negotiating Alignment with Australia's First Peoples. A Comparative Discourse Analysis of the 2017 speeches presented by Australian Political Leaders.

During the coronavirus pandemic in spring 2020, political discourse was dominated by the language of war as the world’s political leaders saturated their speech with the terminology of war. This article examines some properties of the speech delivered by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in the parliament on March 22, 2020. The general framework of the study is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which investigates how language is used in ideological and social contexts and how it relates to power. The material of the research requires to apply a more specialised tool, namely Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) that examines the relation between language and political agendas and ideology. The study considers the political and ideological contexts of the speech through the entire political process and decision making at the national level as well as the sociopolitical and cognitive aspects of the speech in the parliamentary setting. In particular, attention is paid to the war rhetoric that induces the public to conceptualise the virus as an enemy and thus to present the crisis as a threat to the nation. The article explores language means employed by the speaker to actuali s e rhetorical strategies aimed at justifying his government’s measures taken to manage the crisis. To do this, the research looks into historical, cultural and psychological contexts of the speech as well as its political implicatures. Keywords: political speech; war rhetoric; political discourse; critical discourse analysis; mental models

Introduction The Politics of Language from Multiple Perspectives:Latinidad and Indigenidad Serafín M. Coronel-Molina, Issue Editor (bio) The field of politics of language intersects with language policy and planning, language of politics, language politics, language revitalization, linguistic rights, language laws, and language regimes.1 This means that politics of language cannot be completely separated from the above-mentioned fields, since they are interconnected in various ways. In addition, it is fundamental to delve into the notion of politics of language not only from disciplinary and multidisciplinary angles, but also from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary perspectives. The politics of language takes place in a mosaic of contexts constituted by real and virtual communities of speakers, and in diverse communicative events and discursive practices. It can be grounded in any number of disciplines and fields—including sociology, political theory, political science, history, linguistics, sociolinguistics, identity politics, gender politics, sociology of language, literature, critical discourse analysis, the semiotics, pragmatics and semantics of political discourses, political economy, linguistic anthropology, philosophy, raciolinguistics, translingualism, folklore, communication and media studies (print and digital), language education, literacy studies—as well as in a wide range of creative works and semi-otic resources, such as in iconicity and imagery. Methodologically speaking, the politics of language is studied qualitatively and quantitatively, though the dominant research paradigm is the qualitative approach. Political speeches and political discourses—with both a capital D and a small d (Gee, 2012)—intersect with discourses that are linguistic, cultural, gender, power, identity, ideological, scientific, or economic in nature. Orality, translinguality, interdiscursivity, transdiscursivity, intertextuality, and transtextuality are considered cornerstones for understanding and defining the politics of language from [End Page 6] micro and macro dimensions, and from multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary perspectives. Languages in the United States and Latin America The United States is a multilingual, pluricultural, and multiethnic country where, without a doubt, English is the dominant and the only de facto official language. To a certain extent, Spanish is another commonly spoken language. According to the United States Census Bureau (2016), the United States’ Hispanic population numbers 56.6 million, or 17.6% of the total population, thus constituting the country’s “largest ethnic or racial minority.” It is estimated that by 2050 there will be 138 million Spanish speakers in the United States, “making it the biggest Spanish-speaking nation on Earth, with Spanish the mother tongue of almost a third of its citizens.” It is obvious, then, that the presence of Spanish in the United States is solid, since persons of Hispanic origin make up the largest minority group. In addition to Spanish, Indigenous languages and their many linguistic hybrid forms are present and robust in the United States and in Latin America: Recent U.S. Census data place the number of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians at approximately 6.4 million, or 2.1 percent of the total population (Hixson, Hepler, & Kim, 2012; Norris, Vines, & Hoeffel, 2012). The U.S. Census also reports 169 Native American languages spoken by 370,000 people (Siebens & Julian, 2011). … Although smaller in overall numbers, Native Americans reside in every U.S. state and territory, representing more than 560 federally recognized tribes, 619 reservations and Alaska Native villages, and 62 Native Hawaiian homelands. In the USA, the Indigenous language situation is characterized by diverse sociolinguistic ecologies and growing threats to that diversity reflected in twin movements to make English the nation’s official language and to circumscribe the teaching of Indigenous and other minoritized languages in school. Population estimates for Latin America place the number of Indigenous peoples at 40 to 50 million or 10 percent of the population (King, 2008; Lopez & Sichra, 2008). … The intermingling of Native Americans, enslaved Africans, and Europeans produced other varieties such as Carib Pidgin-Arawak in the Caribbean and Garifuna in Central America. Latin America encompasses 20 nation-states, nine dependencies, and a population of 568 million spread out across South, Central, and parts of North America (Garcia et al., 2010, pp. 353–354). With the exception of Uruguay and some Caribbean polities whose original peoples were decimated by colonization, significant numbers of Indigenous peoples reside in every Latin American country (King, 2008; Lopez & Sichra, 2008). (Coronel-Molina...

Introduction. The article compares the methods of researching political discourse with special attention to linguistic methods, in particular, to discourse analysis and cognitive and rhetorical approaches. These methods are widely used to study political speeches, statements, texts. Increasingly, political discourse is seen as a social phenomenon, not only at the discursive but also on the cognitive and rhetorical levels. The object of this study is methods of analysis of political discourse allowing to study the position of a politician in the discursive sphere and to identify the character of his audience. The subject of the analysis are examples from Joe Biden's political speeches, seen as an instrument of influence, persuasion in the process of speaking to the electorate. The relevance of the work is determined by the need to develop arguments to choose a particular approach to political discourse, especially cognitive and rhetorical, as well as discourse analysis, which allow to reveal veiled meanings of political statements and consider the methods of persuasion of the electorate.Methodology and data sources. The subject of the analysis are examples of Joe Biden’s political speeches, seen as an instrument of influence, persuasion in the process of speaking to the electorate. To compare approaches the study of political discourse, descriptive and comparative methods are used, the effectiveness of different approaches and methods is illustrated by specific examples of linguistic interpretation of discursive features of publications and speeches, revealing the ambitions of the politician most fully. A method of quantitative counting is also used.Results and discussion. The use of descriptive and comparative methods makes it possible to compare different approaches to the study of political texts and speeches, to discuss the relationship of heterogeneous methods, to identify the most effective methods of studying discourse. The result of the article was the conclusions about the effectiveness of different approaches to the study of the language of politicians at discursive, cognitive and rhetorical levels. Comparison of methods of research of political discourse distinguishes discourse-analysis among other methods of analysis. The use of discourse analysis to study political discourse reveals the functions of discourse, for example, manipulative, selective and combined functions related to political goals. The use of critical discourse analysis allows you to identify these functions most fully.Conclusion. The study of political discourse can be carried out at different levels, but the discursive level compared to cognitive and rhetorical levels is the most effective from a linguistic point of view. Discourse analysis allows to explore political discourse at more qualitative different level than rhetorical and other linguistic methods of research. Discourse analysis is presented as a method of researching hidden meanings in politics in this article.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an effective method of the discourse analysis. It is aimed at analyzing the special relationship between power and the traditional ideology in implied discourse. Traditional discourse analysis always analyzes the structure and composition of discourse in terms of linguistic features, CDA makes language analysis more creative. It deeply explores the inherent potential of language and systematically interprets the deep meaning of discourse. This paper will take the specific corpus, namely Trump's TV speech, as the language material, Halliday's systematic functional grammar as the theoretical basis, and physicality, modality and personal pronoun as the framework. This paper studies how speakers in political speech use language to shorten the distance between people and win people's affirmation and support from the aspects of transitivity analysis, modality analysis and personal pronoun.

This essay overviews the body of research known as political discourse analysis (PDA). I begin by situating this work within the linguistic and political turns that took place in the latter part of the 20th century within the human and social sciences. I then discuss different conceptions of what comprises the political and the appropriate objects of study for PDA. Adopting an inclusive conception of politics and discourse, I consider the relationship between PDA and critical discourse analysis (CDA). I close with a review of studies of political discourse in terms of their theoretical and analytic frameworks and the socio‐political issues they address.

An overview of political discourse analysis (PDA) research is provided in this essay. We start by placing this work in the context of the linguistic and political shifts that occurred in the last half of the twentieth century in the social and human sciences. We next go over many opinions about what constitutes the political and relevant subjects of study for PDA. We examine the connection between PDA and critical discourse analysis (CDA), adopting an inclusive understanding of politics and discourse. We conclude by reviewing political discourse studies in terms of the theoretical and analytical frameworks they use, as well as the sociopolitical topics they tackle.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the forms that the discourse of politics and policies of education assumes in Spain and the European Union, in correlation to the tendencies in the United States (Pini, 2003) and the recommendations of international agencies. This is a qualitative study that includes a description and documental analysis. The perspective is critical discourse analysis (ACD), complemented with political discourse analysis, critical theory, sociological theory and some postmodern authors. The corpus includes the current main law and official relevant documents related to national education policies which involve education.

This study analyses written and spoken corpora of three South African political party leaders (Jacob Zuma of the African National Congress [ANC], Mmusi Maimane of the Democratic Alliance [DA], and Julius Malema of the Economic Freedom Fighters [EFF]) in different discourse contexts. A mixed-methods approach was used to collect the data, while Critical Discourse Analysis and text analysis constituted the analytical framework. Twelve political-leader speeches (four each), three senior party official interviews, and seventeen focus group interviews with the voting public were explored as data. The findings established that each political leader had his own persuasive strategies and choice of words, usually aligned with his ideological and personal agenda, and that these political leaders were not entirely responsible for their speeches. The study concludes that these political leaders used and chose words strategically in their speeches to persuade and manipulate their audiences.

The present chapter proposes to build bridges between political discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. We intend to bring to light methodological benefits arising from the synergy of (political) discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, pointing to fruitful contribution from French text statistics. Taking the discourses of Nicolas Sarkozy as an example, we show how political discourse analysis can benefit from a reflection on corpora (their constitution, their role in the research process); on linguistic analysis and processing methods (particularly the computer-assisted methods of text statistics); and finally on the interpretative paths at a time of establishment of a numerical hermeneutics.

The war unleashed by Russia in 2022 is widely presented in online versions of English-language newspapers; Ukraine is constantly in the epicentre of the world news. This study highlights political and ideological contexts of the war in Ukraine, the sociopolitical and cognitive aspects of news according to an interdisciplinary approach considering the language as a social practice. The article highlights the polarization in the presentation of the events and the main actors entitled in the discursive strategies, representing the dichotomy In- versus Out-group. The study is aimed at the investigation of the ideological structures and their manifesting linguistic devices in political discourse based on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of discursive strategies for constructing the images of Ukraine and Russia in the British and American press. The integrated Critical Discourse Analysis was applied to the research of the news to study the media discourse and the language, where CDA focuses on social practice, social power and ideology. Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) is used to research the ideology of war images presented in the language of news reports. The relevance of this study determined by the aim is to show the main discursive strategies of polaeization in political media discourse. The research methods of the article combine three vectors of the analysis by Fairclough with explanatory tools (by van Dijk), and the elements of stylistic analysis and Critical Metaphor Analysis. The illustrative material was collected by information search and continuous sample from the open access newspapers and magazines issued in the US and Great Britain (The Daily Mail, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and others). Conclusion. This research argues that polarisation is being demonstrated in the media discourse on the war in Ukraine in 2022. The taxonomy of the identified discursive strategies of polarization deployed in the media political discourse includes labelling, evidentiality, number game, hyperbolism, victimization, personalization and analogy, that can either be used singly or intervened. The discursive strategy of evidentiality is applied to authorities, officials, witnesses that are accepted as trustworthy sources of data; the number game strategy combined with victimization are verbalized by metaphoric simile, metonymy, enumerating and magnifying the numbers with the modifying adverbs; the strategy of hyperbole conveys the positive impression of the in-group and negative acts magnification of the out-group verbalized by metaphor, metonymy, metaphtonymy; the personalization strategy is deployed with the purpose of foregrounding the positive actions of the in-group that implies negative out-group actions; the strategy of analogy is applied in the comparison of the war in Ukraine and the struggle of the Ukrainians for their independence with other historical events. Linguistic means used to realize the discursive strategies of polarization include the conceptual metaphor, metonymy, simile, idioms, metaphtonymy, intertextual allusion and personification.

From Universal Perceptions to Diverging Behaviors: An Exploratory Comparison ofResponses to Unreasonable Accusations among People from the United States, Japan, and South Korea Sachiko KIYAMA, Yuki TAKATORI, Hyunjung LIM ; Katsuo TAMAOKA Abstract The combined application of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) principles in some modern studies has gone beyond the boundaries of fictional discourse / text. It has witnessed an increasing interest in real-life discourse /text such as newspapers / magazines articles, court verdicts, and presidential and/or political speeches. This new linguistic-discursive trend is substantiated by the fact that the real-life and non-fictional texts/discourses are often ideologically loaded. Therefore, analyzing such speeches would enable to scrutinize, unearth, and reveal their hidden ideologies. It is against this backdrop that this article aims at shedding the SFL projectors’ light on the Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s inaugural speech, by adopting CDA theory as the backbone. The analysis focuses on mood, epistemic and deontic modality choices, as well as recoverable references through personal pronouns used throughout the political discourse under consideration. The study has demonstrated how political leaders' discourses unearth a sort of harmony with ideologies that tally and commensurate the domestic, sub-regional and international realities. Furthermore, it provides sufficient evidence that the grammar of speech is not merely a combinational tool of creating correct constructions, but a method of structuring information and transferring ideology. Full Text: PDF DOI: 10.15640/ijlc.v4n1a3

The main subject of this study is a detailed literature review analysis of critical discourse researches made in the Turkish language. As a unique discipline, critical discourse analysis has played an important research tool role in social sciences. Critical discourse analysis, which emerged in the late 1980s, can be considered a relatively new research method in our country. This discipline has developed around the schools of three different academics. One of the leading figures in this field is Teun A. van Dijk (b. 1943). Van Dijk, the founder of the Socio-cognitive Approach, is one of the important names cited in the analysis of political and media discourses. Another name is Norman Fairclough (b.1941). Fairclough's 3-Dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis method also constitutes an important space in discourse studies. Another significant figure in the field of critical discourse analysis is Ruth Wodak (b. 1950). Wodak, the founder of the Discourse Historical approach, first developed this method to analyze the biased anti-Semitic language and imagery in Waldheim's electoral programs in the Austrian presidential election that was held in 1986. Since then, the methodology developed by Wodak has been useful for discourse analysis of cases with an important historical dimension. This study aims to explain the approaches of the discourse experts mentioned above and to compile critical discourse analysis and corpus analysis studies conducted in political and media texts in Turkish academia. As a result of this study, which was carried out within the scope of the qualitative research method, important insights into the basic features, possibilities, and limitations of critical discourse analysis research in Turkish academia have been obtained. Some of the insights obtained can be summarized as follows: It has been determined that the critical discourse analysis studies available in the Council of Higher Education online database include a total number of 54 master’s and doctoral theses published since 2003. Among these theses, the number of the theses prepared in Turkish is 23. As a result of the Google Scholar search, it has been found that the number of Turkish studies conducted since 2003 is more than 90. The most cited research among these studies is the article “Discourse Analysis” published in 2008. The main limitation of most of the critical discourse analysis studies made in the Turkish language is about the usage of the translations of the works authored by the above-mentioned experts who developed this discipline, and this usage limits the number of resources concerning the method because not every major work has been translated into Turkish. In the light of the findings, the ways to improve the discipline in Turkish academia shows the importance of this study.

The subject of the article is the history of discourse development, the current situation, the characteristics of language at different stages, and its problems. The object of the study includes various practices of political media discourse in Chinese and foreign communication space, including traditional media, documentaries, virtual space and other media. We accomplished the following tasks in the research : 1) Described the history of the development of political discourse in China and the characteristics of each stage of its development in both Chinese and international dimensions. 2) Identified the problems and challenges facing the development of Chinese political discourse at present. 3) Attempt to find ways to solve the problems of discourse development and look into the future. The paper uses the methods of case analysis, comparative and descriptive analysis, as well as generalization and outline. Critical discourse analysis, multimodal discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, narrative theory and intercultural communication methodology served as the theoretical basis. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that it presents a comprehensive picture of the development and transformation of Chinese political media discourse in recent years from a macroscopic perspective, and summarizes the features and new trends in Chinese political communication. The results of the study show that Chinese political media discourse has achieved the transition from unidirectional ideological output to diversification of content and form. From a linguistic perspective, it can be determined that Chinese political media discourse at this stage faces developmental challenges such as monotonous vocabulary, limited narrative, lack of audience adaptation and cultural differences. In the context of the new era, Chinese political media discourse should enrich vocabulary and sentences, utilize different linguistic styles of speech, change narrative perspective and adapt to cultural differences.

To elucidate the deliberate use of Islamophobia in the political sphere, this study carefully examines Donald Trump's presidential campaign speeches using political discourse analysis (PDA). Trump’s Islamophobic position in political discourse has sparked a global discussion. His divisive political language during the 2016 elections contributed to an overall rise in incidents showing hatred for Muslims in the America by painting a poor picture of the Muslim world. The present study employs the theoretical framework of Van Dijk (1998) to examine the socio-political contexts of the discourse: participants’ insight (their goals, relevant knowledge and their belief system), group organization, power dynamics, as well as favourable and unfavourable perceptions of “us” against “them”. The purpose of the work is to highlight the processes by which Islamophobia is created, propagated, and normalised in public discourse. The nature of the current investigation involves heterogeneous techniques. It analyzes the text using PDA methods. Additionally, it computes word frequency to determine the proportion of positive to negative terms in Donald Trump's political speech. The analysis reveals that political leaders use language as a tool to serve their own political ends. This study focusses on understanding the complex interplay between language, power, and ideology in contemporary political communication. By shedding light on the pervasive influence of Islamophobia as a political strategy, it underscores the imperative of critically engaging with political discourse to challenge hegemonic narratives, and to foster all-inclusive and democratic societies. Political leaders frequently employ language as a weapon to further their agendas. This research work highlights the necessity of critically interacting with political discourse to challenge dominant narratives and promote inclusive and democratic societies by bringing to light the pervasive influence of Islamophobia as a political strategy.

Political discourse analysis is aimed at highlighting the emancipatory agendas of political actors who dialectically produce their discourses for the specific purpose of grasping “pro-ideologies” of masses without giving much room to their real interests. To a great extent the manipulation of language serves as a sturdy tool for political benefits and consequently it provides a strong base for the exploitations of the ideological assumptions of people on a large scale. A critical discourse analysis of Imran Khan’s point of view on Islamophobia suggested that a good speaker always overwhelms the masses and changes the way of thinking of the public. The researchers have accentuated that Imran Khan has affected the mindset of the people regarding Islamophobia. Also an analysis has been done by the researchers of discourses examples in the Imran Khan’s Speech. The researchers have explored various indicators of van Dijk in the Speech of Imran Khan.
 This paper aims to discuss the realization of the resistance of islamophobic ideology in Imran Khan Speech by means of language use in a political discourse, which is mainly grounded in Teun van Dijk‟s assumptions in critical discourse analysis. For this aim, the discursive strategies of the Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan during a press conference in the United Nation General Assembly held on 25th September 2019.The Speech will be examined within the context of his ideological, cultural and language background.
 . Keywords
 Political Discourse, Power, Ideology, Critical Discourse Analysis.