Political Discourse Analysis ENSSP 2024-2025 PDF

Political Discourse Analysis Syllabus ENSSP, 2024-2025 Presented by Pr. Salah Ziani This course offers a comprehensive introduction to Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) as both theoretical and empirical approach to resea...

Political Discourse Analysis Syllabus ENSSP, 2024-2025 Presented by Pr. Salah Ziani This course offers a comprehensive introduction to Political Discourse Analysis (PDA) as both theoretical and empirical approach to research on dynamics of contemporary political change. The course aims to highlight key approaches in PDA widely recognised for their systematic and empirically funded works on both national and supranational politics. The course presents PDA as both theory and practice and does so at the background of various linguistic and social-scientific approaches to text and discourse studies as well as at the background of developments in social and political theory. Teaching and Learning Methods: The module takes the form of lectures but is based on interaction with students and makes use of PowerPoint presentations and quizes. Objectives - Learning Results: The objectives of the course are to provide students with an appropriate vocabulary for understanding and expressing themselves on the phenomena examined (PDA), as well as offering a key to interpreting topical political dynamics, European and global context, developing on them critical thinking skills and independent judgment. Upon successful completion of the course students will be able to: - understand the fundamental relationship between language and politics - recognise the ways in which political discourse works - understand the basic modes and main methodology of analysing political texts - understand the basic modes and methodology of analysis of multimodal texts - analyse and decode the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of political discourse More Learning objectives The course aims to provide students with tools for understanding political language, both in relation to the ostensiveness (mise-en-scene) of power, and in relation to the differences between democratic language and non-democratic languages. Within this general framework, the course aims to provide students with the acquisition of knowledge and concepts related to: - what the institutions are, how they think and how they speak; - power and legitimacy; - the foundations of political action: from fear to sympathy; - what is public history, between identity and belonging, between obedience and freedom; - nature, tradition, society and community in political language. - democracy and secularism: their meaning and their fragility with respect to populisms, ethnisms, fundamentalisms. Expected learning outcomes A) Knowledge and understanding: Knowledge and understanding of the concepts and theories exposed on institutional thought and political language, on power and its exercise, on democracy and the forms of its crisis, on the characteristics of populism and its language. B) Ability to apply knowledge and understanding: Ability to apply the acquired knowledge to the analysis of the political scenario and of the national and international public debate; C) Autonomy of judgment: Ability to critically and autonomously interpret the dynamics of transformation of contemporary political language, also with reference to the new forms of political communication in the era of social media; D) Communication skills: Ability to express the knowledge acquired with argumentative consistency and language properties. E) Learning skills: Develop understanding and autonomous argumentation skills by relating the different thematic areas of the course. Recommended Bibliography: Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. London: Routledge. Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Chilton, P. and Schaeffner, C. (eds) (2002) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cockroft, R. and Cockroft, S. M. (1992) Persuading People. London: Macmillan. Fairclough, Norman (2001). Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman. Goatly, A. (1997) The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge. Kalyango, Y. and Kopytowska, M. (ed.) (2014) Why Discourse matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World. NY: Peter Lang. Karner, Ch. and M. Kopytowska (eds) (2017) Europe in Times of Crisis: Doing and Undoing Europe. Bingley: Emerald. Kopytowska, M. (Ed.) (2017) Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kopytowska, M. (2015). Ideology of here and now. Critical Discourse Studies 12(3): 347-365. Kopytowska, M. (2015). Discourse of hate and radicalism in action. Special Issue on Contemporary discourses of hate and radicalism across space and genres, Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3:1, 1– 11. Kurtes, S. and Kopytowska, M. (red.) (2014). Communicating identities in daily interaction: Theory, practice, pedagogy. Special Issue on Communicating identities in daily interaction: Theory, practice, pedagogy. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 10. 1: 1-17. Kopytowska, M. (2014). Modality, distance, and the television news genre. Revista de estudos do discurso 3, 68-92. Kopytowska, M. (2012). “Critical Perspectives on Ideology, Identity and Interaction”. CADAAD Journal. Special Issue on Ideology, Identity and Interaction in Discourse 5(2): i-xiv. Kress, G. and R. Hodge (1994) Language as Ideology, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul; revised as Hodge R. and G. Kress, 1993, Language as Ideology. London, Routledge. Lakoff, G. (1993) “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. In A. Ortony, Metaphor and Thought. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. and Johnson. M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Okulska, U. and Cap P. (eds) (2010) Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Orwell, G. (1946) Politics and the English Language. (Reprinted in Inside the Whale and Other Essays, 1962). London: Penguin. Schaeffner, C. and Bassnett, S. (eds) (2010). Political Discourse, Media and Translation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Schaeffner, C. (2004) “Political Discourse Analysis from the Point of View of Translation Studies”, Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 117-150. Schaeffner, C. (1997) Analysing Political Speeches. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Sosoni, V. (2016) “The Role of Language in Nation-Building within the EU: Insights from the Greek Eurolect”. In G. E.Barstad, A. Hjelde, S. Kvam, A. Parianou and J. Todd (eds.) Language and Nation: Crossroads and Connections. Münster: Waxmann. Sosoni, V. (2015) “The Rhetoric of Othering in the Greek Parliament: representations of the Troika and the Self/Other dichotomy”. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 11(2). Wodak, R. (1996) Disorders of Discourse, London and New York, Longman. Wodak, R. (1989) Language, Power and Ideology- Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. An overall summary of the lectures 1) Political Discourse Definition Political discourse refers to the way language and communication are used in discussions, debates, and dialogues about political issues, ideologies, policies, and practices. It encompasses a variety of forms, such as : __ Public Speeches: Addressed by politicians or public figures aimed at influencing public opinion. __ Social Media: Platforms where individuals and organizations share opinions, mobilize support, and engage in discussions. Political discourse can be characterized by its rhetoric, framing, and the power dynamics involved. It often reflects and shapes public opinion, influences policy-making, and can mobilize social movements. 1-1 The main types of discourse can be classified into four primary categories: N.B : just remeber that each type serves a unique function and is used in different contexts to achieve specific communication goals. A/ Expository Discourse: Purpose: To inform or explain. B/ Narrative Discourse: Purpose: To tell a story or recount events. C/ Descriptive Discourse: Purpose: To create a vivid picture of a person, place, object, or event. D/ Persuasive Discourse: Purpose: To convince or persuade the audience to adopt a particular viewpoint or take action. 1-2 Main functions of political discourse Political discourse plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion in several ways: 1/ Framing Issues: How issues are presented can influence perceptions. 2/ Rhetoric and Persuasion: The language used in speeches, advertisements, and debates can persuade voters. Emotional appeals, metaphors, and repetition can create strong impressions and influence decision-making. 3/ Information Dissemination: Discourse in media and social platforms spreads information (and misinformation) to shape perceptions4/ Identity and Values: Political discourse often taps into voters' identities and values, aligning candidates with particular social or ideological groups, which can mobilize support or opposition. 4/ Social Media Influence: Online discussions and campaigns enable rapid dissemination of message., 5/ Polarization: Political discourse can contribute to polarization by reinforcing partisan identities for instance. 1-3 The impact of rhetoric in political discourse Rhetoric is the art of persuasion through effective communication. It involves using language strategically to influence an audience's beliefs, attitudes, or actions.  Rhetoric encompasses various elements, including: _ Ethos: Establishing credibility or trustworthiness. _ Pathos: Appealing to the audience's emotions. _Logos: Using logical arguments and evidence. 2) Political Discourse Ananlysis : Political Discourse Analysis Definition: This is a methodological approach used to study political discourse. It involves analyzing the language and structures of political communication to understand their implications and effects. Focus: Political discourse analysis investigates how language reflects, reinforces, or challenges power relations, ideologies, and social structures. It often looks at the context in which discourse occurs, including historical and cultural factors. Methods: This can involve qualitative and quantitative techniques, including linguistic analysis, critical discourse analysis, and semiotic analysis. The analysis of political discourse, understood in the broadest sense as the analysis of written, oral, audio-visual or other forms of communication that explicitly or implicitly carry political ideas, has a long tradition in the social sciences and the humanities. It has gained considerable momentum over the last decades, thanks to a variety of developments that have contributed to its wider use and to making it more methodologically articulate and rigorous, such as: - Advances in software solutions allowing for a systematic qualitative or quantitative treatment of large amounts of textual, visual or audio-visual data - An increased acknowledgement of the role of "ideas" in political science, and interest in developing tools to capture the influence of ideas - The emergence of qualitative discourse analysis (poststructuralist, post-marxist or critical) within a variety of subfields of political science and international relations, such as policy analysis,. Yet, the field of political discourse analysis remains very fragmented, both conceptually and methodologically. This fragmentation is partly due to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, which borrows tools also from outside the social sciences (linguistics, philosophy of science, rhetoric, computer sciences, etc.). 3- Key Differences between Political Discourse and Political Discourse Analysis A/ Scope: Political Discourse: Broader in scope, encompassing various forms of communication. Political Discourse Analysis: More focused on the study and critique of those communications. B/ Purpose: Political Discourse: To understand how political language functions in practice. Political Discourse Analysis: To analyze and interpret the implications of that language critically. C/ Approach: Political Discourse: Descriptive and observational. Political Discourse Analysis: Analytical and interpretive, often with a theoretical framework. 4- Ethical dilemmas in political discourse analysis Ethical dilemmas in political discourse analysis arise from the complexities of analyzing language and its implications in political contexts. Here are some notable examples: a. Misrepresentation of Subjects: Analysts may unintentionally misrepresent the intentions or meanings behind a politician's statements. b. Bias and Objectivity : Issue: Analysts may bring their own biases into the analysis, consciously or unconsciously influencing interpretations.  c. Manipulation of Data : There is a temptation to selectively use quotes or data to support a particular narrative. 5- Development of PDA as a field of study The origins of dicourse analysis can be located in the first studies of the language, literature and verbal communication As a modern academic field, discourse analysis started developing during the 1970s in order to study the language used in written and verbal contexts. Political discourse analysis is a field of discourse analysis which focuses on discourse in political forums (such as debates, speeches, and hearings) as the phenomenon of interest. Policy analysis requires discourse analysis to be effective from different perspectives. A_ 1. Early Pionneers (1960s-1980s) Origins: PDA emerged from a combination of linguistics, political science, and sociology. Early work focused on the analysis of political speeches and texts. Key Theorists: Scholars like Erving Goffman and Kenneth Burke explored how language shapes political reality and identity. Erving Goffman : In his seminal (extraordinary) book, « The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life », Goffman argues that individuals perform roles in social settings. This idea extends to political contexts, where politicians and public figures craft their identities through language and behavior, shaping public perception and political reality. Kenneth Burke, on the other hand, focused on rhetoric and its role in shaping human experience. In works like « A Grammar of Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives », Burke introduced the concept of identification, emphasizing how language creates bonds between speakers and audiences. He argued that language not only reflects reality but actively constructs it. Politicians use rhetorical devices to create narratives that resonate with audiences, shaping political identity and collective action. Intersection of Their Ideas Both Goffman and Burke highlight the performative aspects of language in shaping identity and reality. Goffman emphasizes the management of identity in social interactions, while Burke focuses on the persuasive power of language in creating social bonds and political movements. B_. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (1980s-1990s) Emergence of CDA: Scholars like Norman Fairclough and Teun A. van Dijk emphasized the relationship between language and power, focusing on how discourse reflects and shapes social inequalities. Methodology: CDA employed qualitative approaches to analyze texts in their social contexts, highlighting ideological underpinnings. Fairclough's model involves analyzing texts (spoken or written) to uncover the underlying ideologies. Van Dijk focused on the cognitive dimensions of discourse, examining how people's mental representations and beliefs are shaped by language. He explored how discourse contributes to the formation of social identities and group dynamics. Emergence of CDA: Scholars like Norman Fairclough and Teun A. van Dijk emphasized the relationship between language and power Amon their key concepts : Language and Power: According to them, CDA posits that language is not merely a means of communication but a tool that can reinforce or challenge power structures in society. Both Fairclough and van Dijk argue that discourse shapes social realities and can be used to maintain or resist domination. Social Context: CDA emphasizes the importance of the social context in which discourse occurs. It looks at how societal norms, ideologies, and power relations influence language use and interpretation. C_ The Role of Context (1990s) Scholars like Mikhail Bakhtin and Erving Goffman focused on the importance of context in understanding political discourse, introducing concepts like intertextuality and framing. - Mikhail Bakhtin Bakhtin is best known for his work on dialogism. language is a dynamic, interactive process where meanings are constructed through dialogue between different voices and perspectives. In political discourse, this means that understanding a statement requires considering the various social and cultural contexts that influence its interpretation. - Erving Goffman Goffman's work revolves and focuses around social interaction and the presentation of self in everyday life. He found out that a better understanding of the context in political discourse he uses a special word called « frames » Frame Analysis: Goffman introduced the concept of "frames" as structures that guide understanding. In political discourse, framing influences how issues are perceived and can shape public opinion by highlighting certain aspects while downplaying others, Intersection of their ideas In the final analysis both E. Goffman and M. Bakhtin emphasize on the fact that discourse cannot be divorced from the social, historical, and cultural environments in which it is situated. More details on the meaning of frames and framing Framing in political discourse refers to the way information and issues are presented and structured to influence perception and interpretation.  It involves emphasizing certain aspects of a topic while downplaying others, shaping how audiences understand and respond to political messages. Key elements of framing include: Selection: Highlighting specific facts or viewpoints that align with a particular agenda or argument. Context: Providing background information that influences how an issue is viewed. Language: Using specific wording or terminology to evoke particular emotions. Narrative: Creating a story. Framing can significantly impact public opinion, policymaking, and voter behavior by affecting how issues are prioritized and understood. For example, framing climate change as an urgent crisis may mobilize more action than framing it as a distant problem. D_ The role of the context 1990s-2010 The 90s of the last century witnessed two main developments influencing the academic field of DA and PDA and CPDA We usually refer to first development as « the role of the context » and we refer to the second as « Post-structuralism and Post-colonialism (1990s-2000s) Among the famous figures of the first development scholars like Mikhail Bakhtin and Erving Goffman. Among the most influencial figures of the second wave of thinkers we can mention Michel Foucaul and Edward Said. The main hypothesis of all these intellectual tendencies and currents focuses on how discourse constructs power relations and identities. First development (1990s) Scholars like Mikhail Bakhtin and Erving Goffman focused on the importance of context in understanding political discourse. There main analytical tools including concepts such as « intertextuality » and « framing ». A/ Mikhail Bakhtin Bakhtin did a lot of work on what he called « dialogism » and « intertextuality » He found out that language is a dynamic , interactive process where meanings are constructed through dialogue between different voices and perspectives. The process can be well observed in open society where dialogue is well rooted. So, when it comes to a political discourse, getting a better understanding of any statement we need and that requires taking into account multiple social and cultural contexts that influence its interpretation. A key concept in Bakhtin writings is « intertextuality » this notion indicated in general that a text’s meaning is shaped by its connections to other texts, cultural contexts, and historical backgrounds. B/ Erving Goffman Goffman's efforts focused more on social interaction Among his anlysis tools to understand the context in political discourse the notion « frames » Frame analysis In political discourse, means : « framing usually affect and influences how issues are perceived and can shape public opinion by highlighting certain aspects while downplaying other ». Second Develoment :Post-structuralism and Post-colonialism (1990s- 2000s) Michel Foucault and Edward Said They adressed various aspects of power, culture and identity from differnt perspectives. _Post structralists (jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault) focused more on « intertextuality » which means that texts are interconnected and the meanings have to be understood from those relationships. They focussed more on language and how power is operating due to discourse. They argued that language is inherently unstable and that words do not have fixed and stable meanings ( usually the voice of the dominant groups that have more impact and shape the thruths) As regards post-colonialism : A QUESTION : why do many authors tend to use the the notion of « post-colonial » than « independant » ? The historical and cultural impact of colonialism and imperialism played a crucial role in its developments Post colianlism as an approach critized the western colonial streotypes as regards the East ad being backwared, uncivilized, and even exotic. In fact there exists few differnecs between the two approaches as egard their scope (main interest and assumptions) in certain sides. First : P -strucralism emphasised the importnace of language and meaning while p. colinalist approach focuses more on the historical and cultural imbalancies due to the colonialiste era. Second : while post- structuralism aims at challenging the existing meaning and truths established via language, from the other hand post- colonialism tries to go deeper and deconstruct all the narratives established by colonialism and highlights and favours the experiences of the societies being colonized. E_ The age of social media ( the digital age of PDA) PDA is becoming a subject of real and swift developemnt today due to certain outcomes of e process of globalisation. The digital age is influencing the way information is disseminated, and public opinion is shaped, and the way political engagement occurs. Among the main features of this era : 1/ Social media becomes more and more as a primary source of news and information for many people. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow users to share and consume political content quickly,. That can significantly influence political opinions and beliefs. This shift in how political news is consumed has implications for political participation and engagement 2/ The emergence of sofisticated types of inforamtion The informal and often visual nature of social media (memes, videos, infographics) creates new ways to communicate political ideas. The above forms of inforamtion can in a way simplify complex issues, but they may also lead to oversimplification and misinformation. 3/ Great effect of the advanced technology At the time being many scholars and anlysists put an eye more on blogs and tweets even online forums to a better understanig of new ways of political discourse. Using methods related to computing via what is known now as « big data » halped so mcu the quantitative approaches in analysiinf different patterns of political discourse. 4/ The influence on democatic values norms and practices : While social meadia and new technologies can empower citizens and enhance political engagement, it also poses challenges such as the potential for manipulation by political actors with greater resources. So better to take into account both advantages and disvantges of this new communicative phenomenon. Another relavant element is that Social media platforms create a wide range of voices to participate in political discussions. It is usually identified as « democratization of discourse », A real opportunity that enables deprived and marginalized groups to express their views, challenging traditional narratives often dominated by mainstream media. And hence breaking down traditional barriers to political debate. F_ Current Trends Global Perspectives: PDA now includes a more diverse range of voices and contexts, examining political discourse in various cultures and languages. Focus on Identity and Intersectionality: Recent studies explore how identity politics and intersectionalities shape political discourse, reflecting broader social movements. Nowdays main dominant issues of PDA PDA now includes a more diverse range of voices and contexts 1_ Voices : incorporating a more diverse range of voices, reflecting a broader spectrum of societal perspectives. PDA seeks to include voices from marginalized communities (voices), such as ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, PDA is witnessing a real shift that highlighting and focussing on issues that are often overlooked and underestimated by traditinal PDA analysts and schoolars.in traditional. PDA is more and more offering and even allowing for a more substansive and comprehensive understanding of political dynamics. 2_ Contexts : incorporating a broader array of contexts, reflecting the complexities of contemporary political communication. Inclusion : reaching audiences in different ways. a variety of media is examined such as social media, podcasts, and video content. Traditional PDA focused mainly on written texts and speeches A real shift in the analysis because of the different political communication formats. It is important to mention that PDA is using more interdisciplibary approaches today. 6- Rhetoric and PDA Political rhetoric refers to the persuasive language used by politicians to influence public opinion, convey messages, and motivate action. Among the key iisues of PDA we find Rhetoric. Analysts usually put the emphasis on the main devises of rhetoric including :: 1. Appeals to Emotion Pathos: Politicians often use emotional appeals to connect with voters. For instance, a candidate might share a personal story about overcoming adversity to evoke sympathy and inspire hope. 2. Rhetorical Questions Questions posed to provoke thought rather than elicit answers, such as, "How can we stand by while our children suffer?" This engages the audience and prompts them to consider the implications. 3. Repetition Repeating key phrases or slogans to emphasize a point, like "Yes We Can!" used by Barack Obama, reinforces a message and makes it memorable. 4. Metaphors and Analogies Comparing complex issues to everyday situations can simplify them. For example, a politician might say, "Tackling climate change is like fixing a leaky roof—if you don’t address it now, it’ll only get worse." 5. Fear Appeals Highlighting potential dangers to motivate action, such as, "If we don’t act now, we risk losing our way of life." 6. Inclusive Language Using "we" and "us" to foster a sense of unity, as in, "Together, we can build a better future for our children." 7. Call to Action Urging the audience to take specific steps, such as, "Join us in the fight for justice." 8. Contrasts Juxtaposing two opposing ideas to highlight differences, like, "While my opponent wants to cut education funding, I believe we should invest in our children's future." 9. Anecdotes Sharing stories about individuals or communities affected by policies to personalize issues and create a relatable narrative. 10. Historical References Citing past events or figures to lend credibility to a position, such as, "As Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" These techniques are commonly used in speeches, debates, and campaign materials to persuade and mobilize voters. N.B rhetorical devises such as * Appeals to emotions, Pathos : emotional appeals, evoking sympathy of the voters by the candidates (ex : sharing a personal story) * rhetorical questions : provoking thought than eliciting an answer pushing the audiance to think about the implications ( ex : How can we stand by and our children suffer ?) * Repetition : to repeat a word ofr phrase to put the emphasis on a specific point or idea (ex : Barack Obama : YES WE CAN !) to renforce something and make it memorable. 7- the importance of ideolgy and values in poltical discourse analysis The Importance of Ideology and Values in Political Discourse Analysis Ideology and values are central to political discourse analysis as they shape perceptions, identities, and power relations. By examining how these elements are articulated in political communication, researchers can gain insights into the broader implications for society and governance. Ideology and values play a crucial role in this field for several reasons: Framing Political Issues  Ideologies shape how issues are framed. For example, terms like "freedom" or "security" can be interpreted differently depending on one's ideological perspective. Shaping Identity Ideologies contribute to the formation of political identities. They help groups define who they are and what they stand for, creating in-group solidarity against out-groups. ideologies foster a sense of belonging _ Rhetorical Strategies Persuasion Techniques: Politicians employ ideological language to persuade audiences. Understanding the underlying values can reveal the intent behind certain rhetorical choices. For example Through symbolism and Metaphor Ideologies often utilize symbols and metaphors that resonate with specific values, making arguments more relatable and impactful. _ Social Change and Resistance (Challenging norms) Challenging Norms: Discourse analysis can highlight how alternative ideologies and values emerge, challenging the status quo and advocating for social change. To sum up: All the previous elements are of high importance when it comes to analyzing the impact of ideology and values in any political discourse.