Linguistic Intergroup Bias in Political Communication, Essay Example

Examining the language of political and diplomatic communication is an effective way of identifying rhetoric patterns and common discourses. The author of the current research proposal would like to carry out a  research based on a historical/archivical method to examine political communications related to the recent Syrian conflict. The main focus area of the research will be the word and phrase selection of Western and Eastern countries’ politicians and spokespersons. Speeches and interviews will be selected using a pre-determined criteria, in order to analyze the language, references, and rhetoric tools.

The main focus area of the research will be to identify the ideology behind the language choices in the Global West and the Global East. The culture of these two regions is defined by communication context. Hall’s  theory about cultures that identifies high and low context cultures will be tested in relation with the communication patterns of countries from the global East and West. The theory (Hall) concludes that in high context cultures human relationships and hierarchy play an important role. The speaker is hardly ever interrupted. In low context cultures, however,  use a direct and linear communication style, based on individual opinions and values. The speaker often offers clarification for their statement. The basic assumption of the current research will be that the culture and communication pattern of the Global East is based on collectivism and hierarchy, assigning a high level of authority for the speaker. On the other hand, the communication of the Global West is more individualistic, and provides different perspectives, expands on topics, and offers explanation without claiming absolute authority. For clarification, the Global East and Global West will be identified based on Hofstede’s  categorization of individualistic and collectivist cultures. According to the theory, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and the majority of Western Europe belong to the group of countries with individualistic cultures. Collectivist cultures are countries in Asia and Africa, with strong traditions, religious homogeneity and power distance.

Comparison Design

The basis of comparison during the research will be based on the word selection of political speakers and the signs of authority in their language. The main questions that the researcher would like to address are related to context, word selection, and authority.

1. Phrase Analysis

The following phrases will be examined based on occurrence in Western and Eastern type of political communication, related to the situation in Syria:

1. Syrian crisis
2. Syrian civil war
3. Syrian conflict
4. Syrian refugee crisis
5. Syrian war
6. Syrian civil war
7. Syrian terrorist groups

Based on a selection of one interview representing from both cultures (Global East and Global West), the author of the current research would like to examine how consequent politicians are when referring to the situation in Syria. The selected transcript will be titled: “Obama, Putin Give Dueling Speeches On Syrian Conflict At United Nations” (NPR). The interview represents what Funk and Said calls “intercultural confrontation”.

It is likely that over time the focus, language, level of authority, and references might change in Western cultures that are based on individualism, while they are likely to remain the same in the Global East’s communication.

2. Power and Authority

The research will focus on the language of authority and confidence in the interviews. One of the main methods of asserting one’s authority is to state opinions as if they were facts, without providing justification. Further, labeling and judging issues will be a way of asserting authority. In the text, for example, the difference between the Eastern (Russian) style of communication and the Western (American) discourse can be visible. It can be assumed that while Western speakers are likely to open up for arguments and debates, high power distance cultures, like Russia will assume absolute authority and competence, and will be less likely to compromise. The language of the transcript will be analyzed based on language selection, clarity, and the strength of phrases.

3. Inclusive and Exclusive Language

In political discourse, it is also important to examine the relevance of inclusion and exclusion of groups. Referring to one’s country or a group of countries as “we” or making judgments about other countries can be a sign of excluding groups and creating an opposition. Contrasting two views, behavioral patterns, communication methods, or action plans can also be a method of political exclusion.

Linguistic manipulation, defined by Gunta and Karapetjana (113) as a method “based on the use of indirect speech acts, which are focused on prelocutionary effects of what is said “ can be identified as a main method of inclusion and exclusion.

4. Context Analysis

The context and references used by speakers will also be examined in order to evaluate the associations the speakers make. Pulling in other topics in the conversation can be a way of avoiding to provide straight answers, or to expand the focus of the discussion. This method will be used to identify how focused each speaker’s discourse is.

Theoretical Foundations and Significance

According to Fairclough, there are three dimensions of discourse: description, interpretation, and explanation. The author of the current study will only focus on the verbal language, not paying attention to the body language and visual representation of the ideas. The transcript will be used to ensure that the textual analysis of the rhetoric is based simply on the selection of words, grammar, structure, and grammar. Further, according to the author (Fairclough, 46), “power in discourse is to do with powerful participants controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participant”. This power of language will be analyzed in the above interview text. The three dimensions of power in discourse are contents, relations, and subjects. The power in cross-cultural encounters, just like in the interview analyzed in the future research (Russian and American) can be represented by assumptions about superiority and the inferiority of the other party. Hidden party can also be identified in interviews, in particular within media communication, where hidden relations of power are present. As an example, the interviewer that talks to more than one politicians might be sympathizing with one of them, and tailor the questions to their preferences and cultures.

van Dijk defines political discourse analysis as a method that takes into consideration both the language (text) and the context. In the above analysis, the author would like to examine the context that is referred to by the two speakers.

Justification of Research Model

The project was selected because the political domain of communication is multifaceted, and provides more than one layer of analysis. The representation of culture, values, authority, and judgment will be in the focus of the study, and these facets of the language can be clearly identified using political texts. Further, social cues and linguistic manipulation (Gunta and Karapetjana) will be taken into consideration, along with the selection of phrases and changes in rhetorical patterns.

Works Cited

Anolli, Luigi, Valentino Zurloni, and Giuseppe Riva. “Linguistic intergroup bias in political communication.” The Journal of general psychology133.3 (2006): 237-255.

Fairclough, Norman. Language and power. Pearson Education, 2001.

Funk, N. C., & Said, A. A. (2004). Islam and the West: Narratives of conflict and conflict transformation. International Journal of Peace Studies, 1-28.

Hofstede, G. (2013). Dimensions of national cultures.

NPR “Obama, Putin Give Dueling Speeches On Syrian Conflict At United Nations” September 28, 2015

Rozina, Gunta, and Indra Karapetjana. “The use of language in political rhetoric: Linguistic manipulation.” Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2009.19 (2009).

Van Dijk, Teun A. “What is political discourse analysis.” Belgian journal of linguistics 11.1 (1997): 11-52.