Discourse of Conflict As Political Genre
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE UNIVERSITY OF LODZ Interfaculty Interdisciplinary Doctoral Studies in the Humanities Faculty of Philology Institute of English Studies Department of Pragmatics Doctoral Thesis Discourse of conflict as political genre Paulina Królikowska Register No. 4116 Doctoral thesis written under the supervision of Prof. dr hab. Piotr Cap Łód ź 2015 UNIWERSYTET ŁÓDZKI Mi ędzywydziałowe Interdyscyplinarne Humanistyczne Studia Doktoranckie Wydział Filologiczny Instytut Anglistyki Zakład Pragmatyki J ęzykowej Praca doktorska Dyskurs konfliktu jako gatunek polityczny Paulina Królikowska Nr albumu 4116 Praca doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem Prof. zw. dra hab. Piotr Capa Łód ź 2015 To my Mother and Daniel CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Communicative genres 7 1. Communicative genres: Origins and developments 8 1.1. Bakhtin and speech genres 8 1.2. Genres in new rhetorical studies 12 1.3. Genres in Systemic Functional Linguistics 16 1.4. Genres in applied linguistics 20 1.5. Genres in Critical Discourse Studies 27 1.6. Genres in sociolinguistics 32 1.7. Genres in linguistic pragmatics 37 2. Characteristics of communicative genres 46 2.1. Genres as abstractions 47 2.2. Genres and situational contexts 49 2.3. Genres as flexible macrostructures 50 2.4. Genres are interrelated in social Fields 51 2.5. Genres assign interpersonal roles 52 Chapter 2. Political discourse and political genres 54 1. Political communication: a domain of life and a domain of research 55 1.1. ‘Political’ versus ‘communicative’ 55 1.2. Political communication and public communication 62 1.3. Political communication, Political Linguistics and the Analysis of Political Discourse 66 1.4. Challenges in the analysis of political discourse 70 2. Political genres: Challenges, characteristics, typologies 72 2.1. Challenges in the analysis of political genres 73 2.2. Criteria characterizing political genres 80 2.3. Typologies of political genres 88 Chapter 3. Around ‘Conflict’ 92 1. ‘Conflict’ in social sciences 94 2. ‘Conflict’ in linguistic research 105 3. The situation of Israel in the Middle East 121 3.1 Conflict in the Middle East 121 3.2. The Middle East peace process 126 3.3. Zionism 131 Chapter 4. Discourse of Conflict as Political Genre: Data and Methodology 136 1. Data 136 2. Methodology 141 3. The profile of this research in relation to potential future studies 154 Chapter 5. Discourse of Conflict as Political Genre: Analysis and Discussion 157 Part 1. Macro-criteria characterizing political genres 159 1. Discourse of conflict is a dynamic abstraction 164 2. Discourse of conflict may activate and realize contexts in a non-standard way 168 3. Discourse of conflict is a (flexible) macrostructure 174 4. Discourse of conflict is interrelated in and across social fields 180 5. Discourse of conflict manifests hierarchies of behavioral patterns 185 Part 2. 5 micro-criteria characterizing political genres 190 1. Discourse of conflict is defined based on, both, discursive and contextual properties 190 1.1.Content-related regularities in the entire corpus 192 1.2. Illustration of the mechanism of using the micro-contexts of the speeches to activate and realize the macro-context of the Middle East conflict 198 2. Discourse of conflict is realized by means of specific linguistic strategies 207 2.1. Deictic operation 208 2.2. Implicatures 213 2.3. Presuppositions 220 2.4. Forced construals 225 2.5. Assertion-directive pattern 230 2.6. Intertextuality 233 2.7. Historical analogy 239 3. Discourse of conflict is strategic in form and distribution of content 242 4. Discourse of conflict features a hierarchy of goals 249 Chapter 6. Outlook 256 References 266 Summary 286 Streszczenie 289 Appendix 1 292 INTRODUCTION In the very first words of the introduction to the volume Discourses of War and Peace (2013), Adam Hodges states that humans never engage in war without the mediating force of discourse. From the rhetorical saber rattling that precedes conflict through the diplomatic overtures that sue for peace, discourse plays an integral role in the outbreak, conduct and disputation of armed political conflict around the world. (Hodges 2013: 1) This short, yet meaningful quote underlines the essential role of discourse in social relations and, most importantly, the practice of conflict as an expressed struggle between at least two parties who contend with each other over specific values, power or resources. Although Hodges focuses here on armed conflicts, his observation signals the importance of discourse even before the outbreak of war or any other instances of military violence, and indicates that every conflict, irrespective of its dynamics, is assisted and shaped by specific discursive processes. Hence, the conflicting parties and other sides directly or indirectly involved in the struggle participate in the production and negotiation of meanings about the very process of struggling and the issues at stake to discursively (re)construct the reality they live in and to manage their actions. Such a perception of discourse and its influence on various types of conflicts is also accentuated by some – although not many – scholars who are not directly affiliated with linguistics (cf. Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse 2011), but who adopt different perspectives to investigate conflicts through a focus on their dimensions such as peace- building processes, reconciliation, reaction to terror, gender issues, ethics of intervention, dialogue, discourse, the influence of culture, etc. In such studies, discourse is viewed as “the chief linguistic form of intense political conflict once conflict parties have formed” (Ramsbotham, Miall and Woodhouse 2011: 378), which entails that it develops with the antagonistic relations between the conflicting sides and serves as a tool in the struggle for supremacy. Interestingly, however, the label of “discourse of conflict” is still to a large extent unpopular in the wide panorama of multidisciplinary (including linguistic) research on various types of conflicts. As the very title suggests, this dissertation comes as an attempt to increase the academic applicability and visibility of this label, although it primarily implies that discourse of conflict is approached here using strictly linguistic terms, i.e. as political genre. Nevertheless, the motivation for this has its source in the exact idea behind the role of 1 discourse that I described above and that can – and shall – be treated as an essential element of the practice of conflicts irrespective of the disciplinary affiliation of the analyst. Following from that, in this research I assume that a long-lasting political/social conflict is a phenomenon determining potentially all communicative events in which political speakers representing the conflicted parties participate, irrespective of the individual time and place of these communicative events. The conflict that I deal with here is the Middle East conflict and, more specifically, the official Israeli stance in the Israeli-Palestinian/Israeli-Arab struggle, as represented by the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu in his 2009-2014 rhetoric. This is done on the assumption that, after over sixty years of conflict following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the parties engaged have developed their own, distinguishing ways in which they discursively (re)construct the situation in the Middle East, and that investigating their official voices might help trace major regularities that these discursive representations feature. Scholars such as Gelvin (2009), although – again – they are not affiliated with linguistics – argue that all sides to this conflict rely on similar means of expression and have created narratives that illustrate the uninterrupted origins of their nations to legitimize their right of statehood and actions taken as part of their struggle for recognition. Although the limitations of this dissertation make it possible to focus on the discourse of the Israeli side only, this research simultaneously signals the need to devote equal attention to the discourses of other sides of this long-lasting conflict in the future. As far as these regularities in the discourse of conflict are concerned, the motivation for investigating them comes also from my previous studies in the Israeli political discourse (Królikowska 2009, 2011), which revealed repeatable patterns of persuasion and legitimization used by Israeli political leaders, and which inspired me to approach the image of conflict in the Israeli rhetoric holistically – as a cluster of conventionalized goal-oriented discursive forms. This has brought me to the linguistic scholarship on genres in political communication and, in particular, to the most recent theoretical developments in this domain (cf. Cap and Okulska 2013), which label discursive structures that follow some recognizable patters and suit the accomplishment of identifiable goals as political genres. This way, the very title of this dissertation presupposes my thesis statement, according to which in this research I list and analyze specific and (more or less) stable structural, content-related and functional characteristics of the discourse of conflict as typical for political genres and, thus, as features that enable to classify, analyze and interpret the discourse of conflict as a (potentially new) genre in political communication. This entails that in my study I take these regularities as constitutive of a potentially new generic