The “Friend–Foe” Opposition in Modern Ironic Political Discourse
https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-2-49-61
Abstract
The present study focuses on irony in political communication and ways of expressing it, since in modern political discourse irony is becoming an indispensable characteristic. The ideas are verified on the material of English and American politicians’ speeches. The paper argues that the ironic type of communicative behaviour is realized through an ironic image, a certain temporary role, in compliance with which the speaker builds up his/her remarks. The ironic image functions as an element of the strategy of theatricality, which is typical of political discourse and is aimed at an indirect addressee – the public. Such images rely on the “friend–foe” opposition (also known as: “us vs. them”), which divides the world into those who support “us” and those who oppose “us”. The latter becomes the object of political irony, which is implemented in discourse through various ironic discourse tactics, such as destructiveness, eccentricity, harmonization of communication and others. These tactics are closely connected with the national style of communication and reflect the communicative values of Anglo-Saxon culture: privacy, individualism, common sense, competitiveness, politeness, etc. The hypothesis, stated and verified in the paper, regards ironic images, which in this study are divided into two kinds: those connected with the genre (situational images) and those regulated by the context and the format of speech (emotional images); the latter reflect the mood and feelings at the given moment. The results of the analysis may help to reveal the real politicians’ intentions and preferences and pose challenges for further investigation of political discourse regarding irony and ironic images.
About the Author
A. A. Gornostaeva
Moscow State Linguistic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna A. Gornostaeva, Cand. Sci. (Philology), is an Associate Professor in the Department of Translation and Pedagogy,
Moscow.
References
1. Alba-Juez, L. (2014). Irony as inferred contradiction. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 139–152.
2. Arquilla, J. (2011). Insurgents, Raiders, and Bandits: How Masters of Irregular Warfare Have Shaped Our World. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee Publisher.
3. Arroyo, J.L. (2010). Interpersonal issues in political discourse. In M.A. Locher & S.L. Graham (Eds.), Interpersonal Pragmatics (pp. 405–434). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110214338.3.405
4. Attardo, S. (2007). Irony as a Relevant Inappropriateness. In H.L. Colston & R.W. Gibbs (Eds.), A Cognitive Science Reader (pp. 135-172). New York; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bilig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule. Towards a social critique of humour. Nottingham Trent University, Sage Publications, UK.
6. Blank, T.J. (2013). The Last Laugh. Eurospan.
7. Brown, P. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
9. Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Analyzing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. Basingstoke : Palgrave-Macmillan.
10. Chilton, P. (1990). Politeness, Politics and Diplomacy. Discourse and Society, 1(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926590001002005
11. Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
12. Fialkova, L., & Yelenevskaya, M. (2013). In Search of the Self: Reconciling the Past and the Present in Immigrants’ Experience. Tartu ELM Scholarly Press.
13. Hall, K., Goldstein, М., & Ingram, M.B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6(2), 71–100.
14. Hutcheon, L. (2005). Irony’s Edge. The Theory and Politics of Irony. New York: Routledge.
15. Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London; New York: Longman.
16. Leech, G.N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Lewis, P. (2006). Cracking up. American humour in a time of conflict. The University of Chicago Press.
18. Libicki, M. (2017). The Convergence of Information Warfare. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11(1), 49–65.
19. Luginbuhl, M. (2007). Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(8), 1371–1387.
20. Musolff, А. (2016). Political metaphor analysis. Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
21. Musolff, A. (2017). Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 109, l95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
22. Ponton, D.M. (2011). For Arguments’ sake: speaker evaluation in modern political discourse. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
23. Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Quam, J. (2016). “Let Me Tell You…”: Audience Engagement Strategies in the Campaign Speeches of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20(4), 140–160. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-140-160
24. Scollon, S. (2007). Political and Somatic Alignment: Habitus, Ideology and Social Practice. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 167-199). Palgrave Macmillan, London. doi: 10.1057/9780230288423_9
25. Van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and society, 17(2), 359–383.
26. Wodak, R. (2011). The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Wodak, R. (2015). The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage
28. Woods, N. (2006). Describing discourse: a practical guide to discourse. London: Hodder Arnold.
Review
For citations:
Gornostaeva A.A. The “Friend–Foe” Opposition in Modern Ironic Political Discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2024;6(2):49-61. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-2-49-61
Email this article 