Manipulative Strategies in Political Discourse: A Comparative Pragma-Rhetorical and Semantic Analysis of English and Arabic Political Speeches
Qasim Hawas Hadi
1
(
Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
)
Atefesadat Mirsaeedi
2
(
Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
)
Ghanim Jwaid Idan
3
(
Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Karbala, Karbala Iraq
)
Sahar Najarzadegan
4
(
Department of English Language, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
)
کلید واژه: Keywords: Manipulation, Pragmatics, Pragmatic Rhetorical Analysis, Rhetoric and Devices, Semantics,
چکیده مقاله :
This study examines how English- and Arabic-speaking politicians manipulate audiences using pragmatic and rhetorical skills. Semantic analysis shows the intended and inadvertent meanings of their messages, showing how meaning is generated and potentially influenced in English and Arabic political communication. Purposive sampling and a mixed-methods approach including qualitative, quantitative, and comparative analyses ensured that the chosen speeches were noteworthy and representative of major political events. Famous Western and Arab politicians' statements on world affairs from the Iraq War to the present were included. The analysis examined manipulation using speech acts, presuppositions, Grice's Maxims, rhetorical techniques, and semantic devices. The researcher carefully examined these language features and their impact on each speech's main point. The results showed intriguing manipulation practices by politicians from both linguistic groups. English-speaking politicians emphasize directness, trust, and positive narratives through factual pronouncements, commitments, and reasoning and trustworthiness. Arabic-speaking politicians used a more sophisticated method, focusing civility to build relationships and similar goals and emotional appeals to invoke collective identity and historical narratives. Although they spoke different languages, English and Arabic politicians used directness and assertiveness, rapport-building, framing, and clever figurative language. The study found that both language groups used persuasive approaches, although cultural and linguistic distinctions emerged. English speakers valued directness and individual autonomy, while Arabic speakers valued subtleties, collective identity, and religious or traditional allusions. These inconsistencies showed how language, culture, and political discourse interact and how language can influence audiences across cultures. The study's findings are important for understanding political communication dynamics, shaping language training, improving politician cross-cultural communication, and guiding political discourse analysis research. Understanding cultural differences can improve political engagement in various circumstances.
چکیده انگلیسی :
This study examines how English- and Arabic-speaking politicians manipulate audiences using pragmatic and rhetorical skills. Semantic analysis shows the intended and inadvertent meanings of their messages, showing how meaning is generated and potentially influenced in English and Arabic political communication. Purposive sampling and a mixed-methods approach including qualitative, quantitative, and comparative analyses ensured that the chosen speeches were noteworthy and representative of major political events. Famous Western and Arab politicians' statements on world affairs from the Iraq War to the present were included. The analysis examined manipulation using speech acts, presuppositions, Grice's Maxims, rhetorical techniques, and semantic devices. The researcher carefully examined these language features and their impact on each speech's main point. The results showed intriguing manipulation practices by politicians from both linguistic groups. English-speaking politicians emphasize directness, trust, and positive narratives through factual pronouncements, commitments, and reasoning and trustworthiness. Arabic-speaking politicians used a more sophisticated method, focusing civility to build relationships and similar goals and emotional appeals to invoke collective identity and historical narratives. Although they spoke different languages, English and Arabic politicians used directness and assertiveness, rapport-building, framing, and clever figurative language. The study found that both language groups used persuasive approaches, although cultural and linguistic distinctions emerged. English speakers valued directness and individual autonomy, while Arabic speakers valued subtleties, collective identity, and religious or traditional allusions. These inconsistencies showed how language, culture, and political discourse interact and how language can influence audiences across cultures. The study's findings are important for understanding political communication dynamics, shaping language training, improving politician cross-cultural communication, and guiding political discourse analysis research. Understanding cultural differences can improve political engagement in various circumstances.
Al-Mansoori, M., Abed Al-Hafiz, A., & Al-Saadi, M. (2022). Emotional appeals in political discourse: A comparative study between Arabic and English speeches. Journal of Language Studies, 18(3), 45-62.
Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2014). Political communication: A critical introduction. Routledge.
Brown, T., & Lee, S. (2023). Rhetorical strategies across cultures: A comparative analysis of political discourse. International Journal of Political Communication, 29(1), 15-30.
Corbett, J. (2015). Language and politics: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Gimadeeva, R., Stukalova, A., & Kovalchuk, O. (2019). The role of rhetoric in political communication: Insights from recent research. Political Communication Review, 7(2), 23-40.
Gomaa, M. (2023). Rhetorical strategies in political discourse: A comparative analysis of Western and Arab perspectives. International Journal of Linguistics, 15(1), 12-30.
Kuzmenko, E., Shigapova, F., & Zhuravlev, V. (2022). Language manipulation in political discourse: A cross-cultural perspective. Discourse Studies, 24(4), 567-589.
Power Commission (2006). Power to the people: The report of the Power Commission. UK Government.
Shigapova, F., Zhuravlev, V., & Kuzmenko E. (2021). Power dynamics in political discourse: A critical analysis through CDA lens. Critical Discourse Studies, 18(1), 15-32.
Smith, J., & Jones, L. (2023). Directness vs indirectness: A comparative study of rhetorical strategies in political speeches. Journal of Communication Research, 10(2), 78-95.
Stoker, G. (2011). Why politics matters: Making democracy work. Palgrave Macmillan.
