Article published in:
Cognitive Perspectives on Political Discourse
Edited by Pascal Fischer and Christoph Schubert
[Journal of Language and Politics 13:2] 2014
► pp. 313–335

Cognitive categorization and prototypicality as persuasive strategies

Presidential rhetoric in the USA

| University of Vechta
Cognitive categorization is an indispensable instrument for organizing human experience. Owing to the obvious appeal of clear-cut categories in ideological discourse, polarization frequently serves as a strategy of political persuasion. The success of such rhetoric corroborates the allure of dichotomies, although they blatantly contradict the fuzzy nature of cognitive categories. Since prototypicality yields a great cognitive effect but demands only little processing effort, prototypes are particularly convenient in political speeches, where speakers must often get their message across to a wide and heterogeneous audience in a limited time span. Along these lines, the analysis of 32 presidential speeches from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush brings to light how the prototypical enemy or national hero is established. This paper aims to show that political rhetoric does not merely reflect existing categorizations but also has the power to shape and perpetuate them in the minds of the target audience.
Keywords: persuasion, rhetoric, speech, categorization, polarization, prototypes, legitimisation, US presidents
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Categorization and prototypicality
  • 3.Persuasion and legitimisation
  • 4.Persuasion through categories and prototypes
    • 4.1Categories: boundaries, levels, and diachronic co-categorization
    • 4.2Prototypes: Enemies, heroes, and presidents
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.06sch
References
Aitchison, Jean
2003 Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi
2008 “Discursive Illusions in the American National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.” Journal of Language and Politics 7 (2): 201–227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson
(eds) 1990 Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr
2006 Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul A., and Christina Schäffner
2002 “Introduction: Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul A. Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Edward W. Said
1999 Acts of Aggression: Policing “Rogue” States. New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Cockcroft, Robert, and Susan Cockcroft
2005 Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Collins, John, and Ross Glover
2002 “Introduction.” In Collateral Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War, ed. by John Collins, and Ross Glover, 1–13. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan
2000 Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert-Alain, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler
1981 Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A
2008 Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed., ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 62–86. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Dörner, Andreas
1993 “Zur rhetorischen Konstruktion politisch-kultureller Identitäten: Selbst- und Fremdbilder in zwei Reden Ronald Reagans.” In Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt, ed. by Paul Goetsch, and Gerd Hurm, 285–305. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dunmire, Patricia L
2011 Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fergusson, Rosalind
(ed.) 1992 Penguin Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2007 “Where does Prototypicality Come from?” In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Jörg Zinken, 168–185. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Goetsch, Paul
1993 “Kriegsbotschaften amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt.” In Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt, ed. by Paul Goetsch, and Gerd Hurm, 73–96. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jackson, Richard
2005 Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H
1997 “Persuasion by Inference: Analysis of a Party Political Broadcast.” In Political Linguistics, ed. by Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 121–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.” Viet Nam Generation Journal & Newsletter 3 (3) 〈<http://​www3​.iath​.virginia​.edu​/sixties​/HTML​_docs​/Texts​/Scholarly​/Lakoff​_Gulf​_Metaphor​_1​.html>〉 (Last Accessed February 20, 2011).Google Scholar
Lazar, Annita, and Michelle M. Lazar
2008 “Discourse of Global Governance: American Hegemony in the Post-Cold War Era.” Journal of Language and Politics 7 (2): 228–246.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo
2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Llorente, Marina A
2002 “Civilization versus Barbarism.” In Collateral Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War, ed. by John Collins, and Ross Glover, 39–51. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Mulholland, Joan
1994 Handbook of Persuasive Tactics: A Practical Language Guide. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, John M
2003 “‘Our Mission and Our Moment’: George W. Bush and September 11th.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6 (4): 607–632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reardon, Kathleen Kelley
1991 Persuasion in Practice. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin
2008 “Rhetoric of Political Speeches.” In Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Veronika Koller, 243–269. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
2000 “Categorization.” In Handbook of Pragmatics: 1998. Installment, ed. by Jef Verschueren et al., 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Christoph
2010 “Narrative Sequences in Political Discourse: Forms and Functions in Speeches and Hypertext Frameworks.” In Narrative Revisited: Telling a Story in the Age of New Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann, 143–162. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Craig Allen, and Kathy B. Smith
(eds) 1994 The White House Speaks: Presidential Leadership as Persuasion. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication & Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stüwe, Klaus, and Birgit Stüwe
(eds) 2005 American Political Speeches. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R
2003 Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tulis, Jeffrey K
1987 The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid
2006 An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak
1999 “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Volmert, Johannes
1993 “Die Kriegsbotschaft als Justification Speech: Argumentation und Benennungsstrategien in Bushs Fernsehrede vom 16.1.1991.” In Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt, ed. by Paul Goetsch, and Gerd Hurm, 329–352. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Waldman, Michael
(ed.) 2003 My Fellow Americans: The Most Important Speeches of America’s Presidents: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc. [incl. Audio-CDs].Google Scholar
Wawra, Daniela
2008 “‘America at its Best’: The Discursive Construction of American Identity in the Inaugural Addresses of US-Presidents since 1789.” In Anglistentag 2007 Münster: Proceedings, ed. by Klaus Stierstorfer, 455–466. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1977 Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2008 “The Contribution of Critical Linguistics to the Analysis of Discriminatory Prejudices and Stereotypes in the Language of Politics.” In Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Veronika Koller, 291–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart
2009 The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Abdelzaher, Esra’ M. & Bacem A. Essam
2019. Weaponizing words. Journal of Language and Politics ► pp. 893 ff. Crossref logo
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer
2018. Euphemism as a discursive strategy in US local and state politics. Journal of Language and Politics 17:6 ► pp. 789 ff. Crossref logo
Demir, Mehmet Özer, Biagio Simonetti, Murat Alper Başaran & Sezgin Irmak
2021. Voter Classification Based on Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies: A Machine Learning Approach. Social Indicators Research 155:1 ► pp. 355 ff. Crossref logo
Hampl, Marek
2017. ‘BENEFICIARY’ AS A MEANS FOR A DICHOTOMOUS REPRESENTATION IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE. Discourse and Interaction 10:1 ► pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
Renkema, Jan & Christoph Schubert
2018.  In Introduction to Discourse Studies, Crossref logo
Schubert, Christoph
2019. ‘OK, well, first of all, let me say …’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies 21:4 ► pp. 438 ff. Crossref logo
Schubert, Christoph
2021. Multimodal cohesion in persuasive discourse: A case study of televised campaign advertisements in the 2020 US presidential election. Discourse, Context & Media 43 ► pp. 100537 ff. Crossref logo
Yang, Wenhui
2020.  In A Cross-Cultural Study of Commercial Media Discourses, ► pp. 9 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.