Political discourse coverage of Brexit in the UK and the USA in 2018-2019

Donald Trump's political discourse

Political discourse of Trump can be described by one word - controversial. As we have seen from the data analyzed previously, his political discourse in spontaneous speeches is drastically different from that in his prepared official speeches.

His spontaneous interviews and speeches are similar to the colloquial speech and have a clear negative connotation. Delegitimizing the actions of others, predominantly in improbable clause and past tenses, he tries to legitimize his own actions, domestic and foreign policy.

His prepared speeches are written and delivered in a very different matter, logically covering all the points, implementing the expressive means and other discourse strategies in moderation.

Chapter 3. Against Brexit

3.1 The Labor Party of the UK

Historically, the Labor Party has been the Official Opposition or the governing party for almost 100 years (since 1922). It is a left-centered political party. Its manifesto claims: “For the many, not the few”. Since 2015 Jeremy Corbyn has been the leader of the part, being framed as the “authentic” leader by the British press. Corbyn is a professional politician, whose aim as a leader of Opposition is to criticize the actions of the Conservative Party. His political discourse seems to appear as “true” and “real” (The Guardian).

Jeremy Corbyn's Speech in Wakefield delivered to the Labor Party (10.01.19)

The speech itself divides the British society into two parts, “the Remainers” and “the Leavers”, whom Corbin struggles to unite together against Brexit. The main aim seems to be bringing “people” (14) together against “all kinds of injustice” and making them realize that they “are in it together”. The most frequently used word “country” (17) illustrates this fully, as for the Labor party the country is what matters the most. As a leader of Opposition in the UK Corbin in his speech systematically criticizes “the government” (17) in the face of the Conservative party for its actions on the Brexit “deal” (14).

Mystification Analysis

Passive constructions are mainly revolving around the topic of election, which is to be held in the near future and can help “negotiate a better deal”. Passive voice is used mainly to delegitimize the actions of the governing party in the UK on the Brexit deal. Many problems “have been ignored” by the Conservatives, Scotland and Wales “which have been held back by successive governments”. Most of the passives contain negative connotations of Governmental actions. Nominalizations are frequently used in this speech to stress the importance of particular actions, giving them the actors, like in “uncertainty is putting people's jobs at risk”, where “uncertainty” is a personalized actor taking the responsibility for the consequences of Brexit off the human beings.

Social actor analysis

Figure 7. Frequency of word usage (7th Speech)

Collectivization plays a vital role in political discourse of the Labor Party. The main aim of Corbyn as a leader of the Labor party is to unite British people in order to cope with the problems “we” face as a result of the withdrawal. By “we” Corbyn means “The Labor” and ordinary people, “many, not the few”, whom he agitates to act to change the political, economic and social situation. With the help of collective pronoun “they” he separates the Labor and the Conservatives, because “they have led us from chaos to crisis”. Collective pronoun “they” is repeated many times, creating a persuasive rhythm. However, not only collectivization builds up this speech, but also personal touch is added with the help of “you”, which is used to address every single citizen in the country, making it look like “the most pressing problems” are faced by everybody. Adverb “together” (5) and verb “unite” (4) contribute to the collective image of all the British nation that should be “brought together”. Categorization is presented by two main categories: “The Labor” and “The Tory”. Nomination is used both in terms of delegitimation of the Tory and “Theresa May” and in legitimation and praising the useful actions of the Labor members.

SFG

Generally, this speech is centered around the delegitimation, criticism of the Governing party and its policy. However, Corbyn's speech is not confined to only criticizing the actions of the Conservatives, he also promotes the ideas of his political party, almost “advertising” the Labor's policy. “When Labor goes into government, we will support new high-tech industries” and many more similar promises and future perspectives, which make his speech more argumentative. A lot of nominations contribute to the delegitimation; thus, the name “Theresa” is used 6 times and possessive case “May's” - 5.

Expressive means

The speech is well-organized, formed with the help of short but yet expressive sentences. Interestingly, there are no conceptual metaphors, which make the message conveyed by Corbyn clearer. Furthermore, anaphors such as “flexibility for employers to exploit workers, flexibility for big corporations to pollute our environment” are implemented at the same time with the rhetorical questions. The number of emotionally uncolored epithets used is high, though they are naturally embedded into the discourse, so that the audience does not necessarily focus on them separately while listening. “The inevitable consequences” that Theresa May faces because of her “failure”, Brexit deal, which brought “the real divide” to the country Rhythm is a distinctive feature of this speech, it adds the sense of movement to the speech, and all the means above play a role in creating it.

Political discourse of Jeremy Corbyn

The contents of the speech match the aim that is supposed to achieve. The audience are “the many, not the few”, working class, who are addressed on the basis of the most pressing problems that everyone faces due no Brexit. The vocabulary and grammar are rather simple to speech's purpose and target audience as well.

Delegitimation of the Conservative Party's action and policy on Brexit issue is an underlying discourse strategy throughout the whole speech.

The political image of Corbyn is proved to be “real” and “natural, a leader who is struggling for everyone's rights.

3.2 The Liberal Democrats

A political party famous for opposing Brexit campaign, promoting liberal and social ideas. “Emphasizing stronger protections for civil liberties, the party promotes socially liberal approaches”. The speaker that is going to be analyzed is the youngest female professional politician and an MP, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party of the UK - Jo Swinson. She is most heard of because of her populism criticism towards Trump and Farage, she also claims to be a feminist, which clearly has an impact on her discourse. Its slogan claims: “Stop Brexit, build a brighter future.”

Jo Swinson's speech on the closing of the Liberal Democrats Conference (17.09.19)

Figure 8. Frequency of word usage (8th Speech)

A word that is worth paying attention to is “Boris” which refers to the PM Boris Johnson, who advocates for Brexit deal. The future verb form “will” (13) is frequently used in the British political discourse usually depicting the vision of the politicians forward into the real and possible future. Interestingly, in her speech Jo Swinson tends to cite ordinary people's examples in order to seem to be close to the nation, addressing the main questions the nation might have about the Brexit deal and its conditions and consequences; due to this the reporting verb “asked” is used 7 times. The Opposition does not occupy the position of power in comparison to the governing party, so it tends to use personalization technique to gain the trust of the audience. The intention and main aim of this speech is to make it “clear” why “we should stop Brexit”.

Mystification analysis

Passive constructions are predominantly used when talking about the “a new kind of politics” by the government “driven by hate, fear and division”. Deligitimation of the consequences is also seen in the speech in form of passives, people are “being detained at the checkpoint” due to the governmental decisions. The most of the society are viewed by Swinson as “vulnerable” and are “left to fend for themselves”, evidently by the government. Throughout the whole speech it is quite hard to spot the nominalization strategy, as she tends to use verbs instead. The two examples of nominalization are concerned with Boris Johnson' s “insults of choice” in terms of “insulting girls”. This is where nomination adds value to the feminist discourse, avoiding the mentioning of the circumstances and detail, helping to focus on the fact that Johnson is clearly sexist in his public speeches. “Being a woman is somehow a weakness”, this is his stand according to Swinson.

Social actor analysis

Traditionally, collectivization is implemented in order to address and thus unite the target audience - the Conference. Collective pronoun “we” refers to every single member of the Party, persuading everyone that “our country needs us”. Furthermore, personalization effect is achieved by providing a personal story about Swinson's father, who “taught her to challenge vested interests” and is an example of “a good liberal” (a collective image). Categorizations “I am Scottish. I am British. I am European” are contradictory contributing to this collective image of the British nation united with the European society. Sentences without nomination could hardly be noticed, as Swinson does not hesitate to name the guilty party, criticizing Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn for their Brexit policy.

SFG

The leader of the Liberal Democrats structures her speech on the basis of the open delegitimation of the Conservatives, the Labor, the Brexit party. “Nigel Farage might be Brexit by name, but it is very clear that Jeremy Corbyn is Brexit by nature”. Boris Jonson is being criticized “for what he's done” and compared to “a socialist dictator”. Despite that she failed to present any political strategy in case the Liberal Democrats come to power, using only emotional argumentation to “stop Brexit”.

Expressive means

To begin with, the whole speech appears to be very emotionally colored and expressive. Conceptual metaphors are frequently used, for example, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are compared to “our family of nations”, and the Brexit deal is perceived as a “the fight of our lives for the heart and soul” of the country. Untypically, similes, such as “planning for no-deal is like planning to burn your house down”, adding irony and seriousness to the situation at the same time. Modal verbs “must” and “can” are used to call to action. Anaphors and parallel constructions make the speech sound more sincere and persuasive for the common listener.

Political discourse of Jo Swinson

Political discourse of Jo Swinson is partly shaped by the feminist agenda and by the delegitimation of all the political parties in Britain except for Liberal Democrats.

A large spectrum of expressive means is implemented by the speaker, all of them adding imagery, but not disturbing from the main message. Strategies of personalization and collectivization also strengthen it.

The speech appears to be overemotional and lacks constructive arguments.

She is the first one among the British politicians to introduce the topic of same-sex marriages and their legalization

3.3 The Scottish National Party

The Scottish National Party (SNP) is the largest political party in Scotland and the third largest party in Britain. SNP is a social democratic party in terms of policy, and since 2014 it has been led by Nicola Sturgeon, a current Scottish Prime Minister. Sturgeon possesses a law degree and worked as a solicitor. She is known for criticizing and opposing Theresa May's approach to Brexit, having suggested to hold a second Scottish referendum in 2016, which was later postponed and cancelled due to the governmental regulation.

Nicola Sturgeon at the SNP party meeting (14.10.19)

Figure 9. Frequency of word usage (9th Speech)

A conceptual metaphor of “the Brexit cliff” is what goes through the whole speech, and what makes the word Brexit be repeated 11 times. The concept of cliffs goes deep into the Scottish history and its usage is intentional, as they represent something that the nation values. According to Nicola Sturgeon, “Theresa” (5) and her “government” (6) are behaving inadequately in terms of Brexit deal, as the “future” (5) of the nation is at stake. Particularly, the party leader focuses on the “business” (4) and their damages and losses due to the withdrawal from the EU.

Mystification analysis

Passive constructions are found to represent the actions and the consequences of the Brexit deal, promised and proposed by Theresa May and “her government”. Agentless passives “the food safety will be jeopardized” and companies “have been told to stockpile medicine” emphasize the losses of this deal for Sturgeon. The British people “are left with the perspective” of ending up in an economic and social crisis. Nominalization is used in order to provide “the warnings of dire consequences” that come from the UK government's guidance.

Social actor analysis

Collective pronouns “we” and “us” are used frequently, highlighting the unity of the SNP. Apart from these no collectivizing constructions are implemented in the speech, which makes the speaker sound matter-of-fact and go straight to the point. Two main categories if this speech are two conflicting parties: the Tories and the “the Scottish government”, although the latter is mentioned only a few times. As part of delegitimation, nomination is a huge segment of this speech. Theresa May is mentioned 5 times, David Cameron is mentioned once as the cause of “the mess we are in”.

SFG

Like other speeches of the oppositional leaders, this is based on the delegitimation of the Governmental policy and legitimation of their party's approach to the Brexit deal. In this particular speech sample, delegimating prevails, giving no space for the presentation of the tentative program of the SNP. Statistics and numbers also contribute to this strategy, making the damages from the Tory's Brexit deal look official and persuasive. “A hard Brexit would cost 80,000 jobs, shrink our economy by 12.7 billion by 2030”.

Expressive means

As it was mentioned previously, a metaphor of UK government's plan to “take the whole UK off the cliff” appears to be remarkable. Historically, the metaphor of falling from the edge of the cliff is implemented when there is some kind of a choice to make: to jump or not. Interestingly, here the metaphor is altered to “being dragged from the cliff-edge” by Tory UK government, meaning that the nation has no choice, no vote in it. Emotionally colored and negative epithets like “catastrophic damage” and “unworkable and inadequate” relationship with the EU depicts the negative connotation of the speech. Interestingly, there are no anaphors and logical repetitions as well as comparisons and similes. Modality is represented by verbs “might”, “could” and “would be”, moreover, this speech is formed in past tenses mostly, which gives us no clear understanding of the SNP view on the future of the deal.

Political discourse of Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola Sturgeon is formulating her speech in a rather reserved manner, relying on the statistics and numbers, rather than on emotional appeal.

Although she is a female leader, her feminist agenda could not be identified in her speeches. However, most of her speech consists of the delegitimation and criticism of Theresa May and “her government”.

A metaphor of the UK “falling off the Brexit cliff” implies a negative connotation and an urgent call to action due to the financial and economic crisis.

The Democratic Party of the USA

The Democratic party of the USA is one of the two major political parties in the USA, that's policy is based upon social liberal values. It also advocates equality in terms of social and economic development. “It seeks to provide government regulation in the economy to promote the public interest” (Levy, 2006). Hilary Clinton is well-known for being the former first lady, and, moreover, for being a professional lawyer and politician for more than 40 years. On 2016 presidential elections she won a popularity vote, but lost during actual presidential elections in Electoral College, she is constantly opposing the presidency and personality of Donald Trump. Furthermore, she occupies the position of the Chancellor of the Queens University Belfast.

Figure 11. Frequency of word usage (10th Speech)

Hilary Clinton on Brexit Deal in Queens University Belfast

Mystification analysis

In this speech both active and passive constructions are used in order to consider the Brexit deal. Passive forms contribute to the metaphor of vulnerable Britain suffering from Brexit, which “should not be allowed to undermine peace and prosperity has been so dearly won”. Brexit seems to have a role of an actor in this speech, giving no importance to pointing at who made it happen. “Brexit seems to be going ahead one way or another”. Another remarkable usage of passive construction refers to the consequences of Brexit, according to Clinton, “prosperity can leave”, as it is supposed to do it by itself without actors. No nominalization strategy can be found.

Social actor analysis

No collective pronouns and the collectivization strategy are used. The most frequently used pronoun is a personal pronoun “I” and it is used to express Clinton's personal opinion on Brexit issue. She does not hesitate to show that “she was against Brexit from the start”, making her political power enough for the young audience to believe it.

SFG

Clinton does not directly delegitimate anyone using strategy of nomination, thought she openly criticizes and delegitimates the Brexit deal itself and all the consequences it has on the British nation. “However it comes out, it should not be allowed to undermine the peace and prosperity…”. It seems like she cares more about the prosperity of the British nation, rather than about who's responsibility this is.

Expressive means

Despite the fact that the speech is quite short, it still manages to maintain concision. Impersonation is used to make “prosperity” an actor that “can leave” and “history” which “teaches another lesson”. The main metaphor of this speech compares Brexit to “greatest and most unnecessary self-inflicted wounds in modern history”, which portrays Britain as vulnerable and devastated because of the Brexit consequences. It is a rather creative metaphor in comparison with the previously used metaphors in political discourse and it contributes to a different image of Britain dealing with the withdrawal from the EU. Moreover, it drastically differs from the conceptual metaphors of “politics being war”, where we have to fight and defeat the enemy, because politics has a lot to do with power and politicians play the role of soldiers (Ling, 2010). A small number of epithets is used throughout the whole speech, though their lexical meaning is rather accurate and precise. “Peace is fragile, progress can be fleeting”, “twenty quiet years can…”.

Political discourse of Hillary Clinton

Hilary Clinton has her speech structured succinctly, but still manages to use various expressive means, in particular conceptual metaphor of “wounded Britain”, epithets and impersonation, which is rather untypical.

However, the choice of linguistic strategies is not extensive. Indirect delegitimation, passivisation and active constructions are the only strategies implemented by Clinton. Personal appeal seems central in this speech, as the only pronoun used is “I”.

Conclusion

The following table provides a schematic overview of the main linguistic strategies the chosen politicians use in their public speeches and interview.

Figure 12. Summary table

As it is evident from Figure 12, there are major differences in political discourse coverage between the UK and the USA. The conclusions and patterns drawn could be divided into 3 main categories:

The UK political discourse coverage

It should be mentioned that the analyzed data consists of 7 speech samples of the UK politicians. The data is limited in representation and is not aimed at identifying and describing all the differences in political discourse coverage of Brexit in the UK and the USA in 2018-19. However, the provided material on the UK coverage is a solid base for providing the main outlines on the topic.

Two key political groups can be outlined in British Brexit discourse: The Opposition (the Labor party, Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party) and the Governing party (the Conservatives). From the political order of the UK it is apparent that the existence of two opposite stances on the Brexit deal is legitimate. It turns out, that these two groups use different linguistic and discourse strategies to pitch their ideas on the issue. Thus, the Governing party sees no use in using direct delegitimation technique, nomination, the speakers prefer to rely on legitimation and centrality of their own political commitment in terms of Brexit. On the contrary, the Opposition's political discourse tends to be more emotional and appeals to human consciousness. This may be due to the fact that the Conservatives already own the power and respect on the political arena. It comes as a pattern from the addressed research questions: political discourse is determined by social aspect and background of the speakers.

For/against political discourse coverage

As it was mentioned above, the political discourse of the speakers who support Brexit differs from that of the opponents. In particular, when we look at usage of the expressive means, the opposing side is prone to using conceptual military metaphors of fighting against “an enemy”. Second pattern of this research is based upon the political discourse being dependent on the political stand and position of power on the issue can be proven.

The UK political discourse coverage vs the US political discourse coverage

Although the analyzed speech samples are unequally distributed among British and American politicians, it is possible to come to the following conclusion; The hypothesis of this research is proved: The American politicians (Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton) implement different linguistic strategies and stylistic presentation, including delegitimation and choice of conceptual metaphors, in comparison to their British colleagues. Taking into consideration the lack of data to prove the interconnection of the cultural aspect and political discourse, this issue could be a topic for the further research in this field.

The work has as well provided an overview of the political discourse coverage of Brexit in the UK and the USA in 2018-19 and outlined what determines the political discourse. Thus, this work may also contribute to the existing knowledge of the political discourse studies by addressing the gap in researches on the Brexit agenda.

References

1. Blackledge, Adrian (2004). “Constructions of identity in political discourse in multilingual Britain.” In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts (pp. 68-92). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

2. Blackledge, Adrian & Pavlenko, Aneta (2002). “Ideologies of language in multilingual contexts.” Multilingua, 21 (2/3), 121-140.

3. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. University of Chicago Press.

4. Chilton, Paul & Scha?ffner, Christina (2002). “Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse”. In P. Chilton & C. Scha?ffner (Eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse (pp. 1-41).

5. Chilton, P., & Schaffner, C. (Eds.). (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (Vol. 4). John Benjamins Publishing.

6. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Mouton and Company: 116.

7. De Landtsheer, C. (1998a). `Introduction to the study of political discourse'. In O. Feldman and C. De Landtsheer (eds.), Politically Speaking, a Worldwide Examination of Language Use in the Public Sphere, 1-16.

8. De Landtsheer, C. (1998b). `The political rhetoric of a unified Europe'. In O. Feldman and C. De Landtsheer (eds.), Politically Speaking, a Worldwide Examination of Language Use in the Public Sphere (pp.129-45) (Westport, CT: Praeger).

9. Demiankov V.Z. (2005). Tekst I diskurs kak terminy i kak slova obydennogo iazyka [Text and Discourse as Terms and Words of Everyday Language], In Iazyk. Lichnost'. Tekst: Sbornik k 70- letiiu T.M. Nikolaevoi [Language. Person. Text: Collection Dedicated to the 70th Anniversary of T.M. Nikolaeva]. Moscow, Iazyki slavianskikh kul'tur.

10. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2, 162-187.

11. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical policy studies. 2, 177-197.

12. Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: The`TCU' revisited. Pragmatics, 6, 427-454.

13. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge (t. (A.M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.

14. Givón, Talmy. (1984). Prolegomena to discourse-pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 8(4). 489-516.

15. Halliday, Michael A.K. (2002). How do you mean? On grammar, volume 1 in the collected works of M.A.K. Halliday, 352-368. Edited by Jonathan J. Webster. London & New York: Continuum.

16. Hardison, Karen P.L. (2011). Text and Discourse. Enotes.com, Enotes.com, 6 Aug. 2011.

17. Hart, Christopher. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.

18. Kibrik, Andrej A. (1999). Cognitive inferences from discourse observations: Reference and working memory. Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics. Proceedings of the 5th International cognitive linguistics conference, ed. Karen van Hoek, Andrej A.Kibrik, and Leo Noordman, 29-52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (In Russian)

19. Kress, G. (1985). Ideological Structures in Discourse // Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 4. Discourse Analysis in Society.

20. Kubryakova E.S. (2004). Iazykiznanie: Na puti polucheniia znanii o iazyke: Chasti rechi s kognitivnoi tochki zreniia. Rol' iazyka v poznanii mira [Language and Knowledge: On the Way to Gain Knowledge about the Language: Parts of Speech through the Cognitive].

21. Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press.

22. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

23. Ling, S. (2010). A Cognitive Study of War Metaphors in Five Main Areas of Everyday English: Politics, Business, Sport, Disease and Love. Kristianstad University: School of Teacher Education.

24. Polanyi, L. (1985). A theory of discourse structure and discourse coherence. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Linguistics.

25. Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 12.601-38.

26. Polanyi, L. (1996). The Linguistic Structure of Discourse. Stanford, CA: CSLI Technical Report

27. Scheigal, E. I. (2004). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [ Political discourse semiotics], p. 342. (In Russian)

28. Shi-Xu. (2006). A cultural approach to discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, Pp. x, 233.

29. Wodak, R. and De Cilia, R. (2006). Politics and language, overview. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd edn: pp. 707-19) (Oxford: Elsevier).

30. Wodak, Ruth (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.63-95). London: Sage.

31. Wodak, Ruth (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber F. Gubrium & David Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp.197-213). London: Sage.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru