Monologic follow-ups in political macro-discourse
The US anti-terrorist discourse as a case in point
Follow-ups have been often considered a primarily dialogic/conversational phenomenon. In this chapter I demonstrate that the concept of the follow-up could be extended to cover monologic discourses as well, especially those in which the speaker realizes a macro-goal over a number of texts produced in different contextual conditions. These dynamically evolving conditions make the speaker – as happens in dialogue – continually update and redefine her rhetorical choices to maintain realization of the macro-goal intact. Such an approach subsumes a ‘dialogic’ relation between the speaker and the shifting discourse context – rather than between the speaker and her specific interlocutor – and views follow-up as an instance of rhetoric that has been forcibly modified from the previous/initial instance, to keep enacting the speaker’s macro-goal against requirements of the new context. As an illustration, I show how monologic follow-ups work in G.W. Bush’s War-on-Terror discourse. In particular, I discuss how the macro-goal of Bush’s 2003-04 rhetoric of the Iraq War (legitimization of the pre-emptive military strike and the later US involvement) has been maintained in the ‘follow-up discourse’ responding to loss of the initial legitimization premise, i.e. the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
References (59)
References
Bacevich, Andrew. 2010. Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War. New York: Metropolitan Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baumer, Eric, Mark Sueyoshi and Bill Tomlinson. 2011. “Bloggers and Readers Blogging Together: Collaborative Co-Creation of Political Blogs.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 20: 1–36. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London: Continuum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Berlin, Lawrence N. 2013. Following Up in Political Debates. Paper presented at the 13th IPrA Conference, New Delhi [panel: Follow-Ups in Mediated Political Discourse
].
Cap, Piotr. 2006. Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cap, Piotr. 2008. “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 17–41. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cap, Piotr. 2010. “Axiological Aspects of Proximization. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 392–407. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chilton, Paul. 2011. Deictic Space Theory (DST): the Fundamental Theory and its Applications. Paper presented at the 42nd Poznań Linguistic Meeting, Poznań.
Chilton, Paul. 2014. Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dynel, Marta. 2014. “Participation Framework Underlying YouTube Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 73: 37–52. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fetzer, Anita. 2012. “Quotations in Monologic and Dialogic Political Discourse.” In Follow-Ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 72–86. [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fetzer, Anita, Elda Weizman & Elisabeth Reber (eds.). 2012. Follow-Ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions. [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fetzer, Anita and Peter Bull. 2013. “Political Interviews in Context.” In Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice, ed. by Piotr Cap and Urszula Okulska, 73–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fetzer, Anita and Etsuko Oishi (eds.). 2014. Evidentiality in Discourse. Special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics (11(3)). ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Filardo Llamas, Laura. 2010. “Discourse Worlds in Northern Ireland: The Legitimisation of the 1998 Agreement. In Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution. Debating Peace in Northern Ireland, ed. by Katy Hayward and Catherine O’Donnell, 62–76. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Filardo Llamas, Laura. 2013. “‘Committed to the Ideals of 1916’. The Language of Paramilitary Groups: The Case of the Irish Republican Army.” Critical Discourse Studies 10: 1–17. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Granato, Luisa and Alejandro Parini. 2013. Online Follow-Ups as Evaluative Reactions to Presidential Public Discourses. Paper presented at the 13th IPrA Conference, New Delhi [panel: Follow-Ups in Mediated Political Discourse
].
Harré, Rom and Luk van Langenhove. 1999. Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hart, Christopher and Piotr Cap (eds.). 2014. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Herring, Susan. 2010. “Computer-Mediated Conversation: Introduction and Overview.” Language@Internet 7: [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hodges, Adam. 2011. The ‘War on Terror’ Narrative: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 1998. “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437–455. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Janney, Richard W. 2012. “Columbine Revisited: Follow-Ups and the Fractalization of Events in the Modern Media”. In Follow-Ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 134–150. [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jowett, Garth and Victoria O’Donnell. 1992. Propaganda and Persuasion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kecskes, Istvan. 2000. “A Cognitive-Pragmatic Approach to Situation-Bound Utterances.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 605–625. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koller, Veronika. 2008. Lesbian Discourses: Images of A Community. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lomborg, Stine. 2009. “Navigating the Blogosphere: Towards a Genre-Based Typology of Weblogs. First Monday 14: [URL] ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mey, Jacob. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mey, Jacob. 2013. Sequential Acts. Paper presented at the 13th IPrA Conference, New Delhi [panel: Follow-Ups in Mediated Political Discourse
].
Morrish, Elizabeth and Helen Sauntson. 2007. New Perspectives on Language and Sexual Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oishi, Etsuko. 2013. Follow-Ups as Illocutionary Acts in Political Discourse. Paper presented at the 13th IPrA Conference, New Delhi [panel: Follow-Ups in Mediated Political Discourse
].
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul and Mary Bucholtz. 2009. “Public Transcripts: Entextualization and Linguistic Representation in Institutional Contexts.” Text & Talk 5: 485–502. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Patzelt, Carolin. 2011. “‘Souhaitez-vous que je finisse une frase?’. Fragestrukturen im französischen Politainment am Beispiel des débat télévisé Sarkozy-Royal 2007.” In Gli uomini si legano per la lingua, ed. by Claudia Frevel, Franz-Josef Klein and Carolin Patzelt, 353–369. Stuttgart: Ibidem.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reisigl Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silberstein, Sandra. 2004. War of Words. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, John & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Swales, John. 1995. “The Role of the Textbook in EAP Writing Research.” English for Specific Purposes 14: 3–18. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Dijk, Teun. 2014. “Discourse-Cognition-Society: Current State and Prospects of the Socio-Cognitive Approach to Discourse. In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart and Piotr Cap. London: Bloomsbury.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wodak, Ruth (ed.). 2012. Critical Discourse Analysis (4 volumes). London: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2009. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd Edition. London: Sage.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Weizman, Elda
2023.
Recontextualization practices: A scale of directness.
Frontiers in Communication 7
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Berlin, Lawrence N.
2021.
Positioning the Voices of Conflict: Language Manipulation in the Diálogos de Paz. In
Discourse and Conflict,
► pp. 291 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Fitsanakis, Joseph
2019.
Growth and Uncertainty: The Impact of 9/11 on Intelligence and National Security Studies. In
9/11 and the Academy,
► pp. 243 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.