Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse

Abstract

The goal of this methodological-critical paper is to pave the way for a new cross-disciplinary model of analysis of political discourse. The model evolves gradually as the paper looks at the multi-faceted phenomenon of legitimization of actions sought by politicians in front of their audiences. To describe this phenomenon, the paper integrates a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic accounts. The argument starts with the accentuation of advantages available to political linguists utilizing in analysis the explanatory power of concepts which are primarily part of the affiliated disciplines, such as political science, social psychology and anthropology. Following this account there is a counter-discussion of hazards which could arise from an indiscriminate or uncontrolled adoption of the methodologically heterogeneous concepts. It is stressed that the transparency and fuzzily defined boundaries of linguistic and extralinguistic data and theory may lead to overdetermination of analysis, whether by the controlling categories of analysis or by the bottom-level category of the actual language constructs. This overdetermination can be neutralized in hierarchical analysis, but only if a peculiar system of ‘checks and balances’ is implemented in the study. First, the positioning of linguistic and non-linguistic categories must be at different levels of analysis and, second, language data must be defined in constant interaction with the overarching social or psychological premise which must itself control the development of analysis. In accordance with the latter assumptions, the paper unfolds with the definition of ‘legitimization’, a major objective pursued by a political speaker seeking justification of the proclaimed actions. It is shown how legitimization reflects in the multiplicity of rhetorical patterns which lend themselves to pragmalinguistic and political-linguistic analysis as a whole. For the most part, the strategy of legitimization is discussed with regard to the American (interventionist) rhetoric—it is observed that (linguistic) legitimization of international involvement, both political and military, is one of the most salient characteristics defining the US international policy after WWII. Against this background, a specific cross-disciplinary scheme for the analysis of legitimization is developed. The scheme utilizes Chilton's (2004) theory of spatial proximization, complemented by temporal and axiological elements. The validity of the elaborated, spatial-temporal-axiological (STA) model is tested in a discourse-pragmatic study of the American involvement in Iraq, from March 2003 onwards.