Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 33:4 (2023) ► pp.505–531

The pragmatics of alternative futures in political discourses

Legitimising the politics of preemption in Trump’s discourse on Iran

ORCID logo | University of Isfahan
| University of Isfahan
| University of Isfahan

We shall concentrate on how the construction and modality system of alternative futures in political discourses are influenced by the construal of past-to-present threats and preemptive politics. Using Dunmire’s (2005) proposed framework and further explorations by Cap (2020) on the subject, we approach twenty of Trump’s speeches on Iran, from 2017–2020. Our analyses indicated that the construction of alternative futures is modified by the evaluations of Iran’s past-to-present status and the politics of preemption. This relationship modifies the speaker’s epistemic judgment on the certainty of the privileged future, the cause-effect relation, and the sceptic views on the successful implementation of preemptive measures, resulting in the articulation of the privileged future through probabilistic and dynamic modalities. Moreover, the privileged future is conceptualised as necessary through deontic modality. By contrast, the realisation of the oppositional future is articulated through unmediated modality pinpointing the status that will materialise in light of inaction and negligence.

Keywords: alternative futures, preemption, past-to-present evaluations, modality system, Donald Trump, Iran
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Review of literature
    • 2.1The politics and ideology of future pre-configuration
    • 2.2Alternative future and the politics of preemption
  • 3.Analytical frameworks
    • 3.1Analytical toolkits for alternative futures in political discourses
      • 3.1.1Logico-rhetorical tools
      • 3.1.2Lexico-grammatical and pragmatic properties
    • 3.2Proximisation theory
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1The now and past of Iran
    • 5.2The preemptive policies
    • 5.3The privileged future
    • 5.4The oppositional future
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 23 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22014.bas
References
Achugar, Mariana
2009 “Constructing the Past and Constructing Themselves: The Uruguayan Military’s Memory of the Dictatorship.” Critical Discourse Studies 6 (4): 283–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anghie, Antony, and Charles Hill
2004 “The Bush Administration Preemption Doctrine and the United Nations.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 981: 326–31. [URL]. DOI logo
Basarati, Ali
2022 “Preempting the Past: How the Future Space Unfolds in Political Discourse of Iran.” Discourse & Society 33 (2): 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basarati, Ali, and Hadaegh Rezaei
2019 “Discursive Manufacturing of Iranophobia and Global Preemptive Collaboration in Trump’s Discourse.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 11 (1): 57–83.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr
2006 Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars PressGoogle Scholar
2008 “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (1): 17–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Axiological Aspects of Proximization.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 392–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Expanding CDS Methodology by Cognitive-Pragmatic Tools: Proximization Theory and Public Space Discourses.” In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 189–210. London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
2017 The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Spatial Cognition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by John Flowerdew, and John Richardson, 92–105. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2020 “Alternative Futures in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 32 (3): 328–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Linjuon, Danyang Zhang, Yingfei He, and Guoliang Zhang
2020 “Transcultural Political Communication from the Perspective of Proximization Theory: A Comparative Analysis on the Corpuses of the Sino–US Trade War.” Discourse & Communication 14 (4): 341–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, Leda
1989 “The Logic of Social Exchange: Has Natural Selection Shaped How Humans Reason? Studies with the Wason Selection Task.” Cognition 31 (3): 187–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Goede, Marike, and Randalls, Samuel
2009 “Precaution, Preemption: Arts and Technologies of the Actionable Future.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 (5): 859–878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunmire, Patricia L.
2005 “Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (4): 481–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Emerging Threats and Coming Dangers”. In Discourse, War and Terrorism, ed. by Adam Hodges, and Chad Nilep, 19–43. Amesterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Knowing and Controlling the Future: A Review of Futurology.” Prose Studies 32 (3): 240–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Projecting the Future through Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “American Ways of Organizing the World: Designing the Global Future through US National Security Policy.” In Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 321–345. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray J.
1964 The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
1971 Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
1988 Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Elmer, Greg, and Andy Opel
2006 “Surviving the Inevitable Future: Preemption in an Age of Faulty Intelligence.” Cultural Studies 20 (4–5): 477–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon
1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, Phill
2001 “Space: Irrealis Objects in Technology Policy and Their Role in a New Political Economy.” Discourse & Society 12 (6): 761–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Predication and Propagation: A Method for Analyzing Evaluative Meanings in Technology Policy.” Text & Talk 22 (2): 227–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halbwachs, Maurice
1992 On Collective Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1995 “Agent-oriented vs. Epistemic Modality.” In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Bybee, and Suzanne Fleischman, 32–17. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress
1988 Social Semiotics, Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
Inayatullah, Sohail
1990 “Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Future: Predictive, Cultural and Critical Epistemologies.” Futures 22 (2): 115–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Adam, and Fitzgerald, Richard
2008 “This Poll Has Not Happened Yet: Temporal Play in Election Predictions.” Discourse & Communication 2 (1): 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopytowska, Monika
2022 “Proximization, Prosumption and Salience in Digital Discourse: On the Interface of Social Media Communicative Dynamics and the Spread of Populist Ideologies.” Critical Discourse Studies 19 (2): 144–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemke, Jay L.
1995 Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Li, Ke, and Xiaonan Gong
2022 “Proximization: A Critical Cognitive Analysis of Health Security Discourse.” Text & Talk 42 (5): 713–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mando, Justin, and Stack, Garrett
2019 “Convincing the Public to Kill: Asian Carp and the Proximization of Invasive Species Threat.” Environmental Communication 13 (6): 820–833. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C., and Thompson, Sandra, A.
1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization.” Text 81: 243–281.Google Scholar
Martin, Thomas
2014 “Governing an Unknowable Future: The Politics of Britain’s Prevent Policy.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 7 (1): 62–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Eleonora Barbieri
2002 “A Vision of Futures Studies.” Futures 34 (3–4): 249–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, Peter
2002 “Politicization and Depoliticization: Employment Policy.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton, and Christina Shchaffner, 45–80. Amesterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozyumenko, I. Vladimir, and T. V. Larina
2021 “Threat and Fear: Pragmatic Purposes of Emotionalisation in Media Discourse.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 25 (3): 746–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
2001 Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sancho, G. Carmen
2018 “The Emotional Prosody of US Fatal Air-Accident Dockets Online: Risking Risk Communication?” Russian Journal of Linguistics 22 (1): 126–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
2000 “Metarepresentations in an Evolutionary Perspective.” In Metarepresentation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Dan Sperber, 117–138. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Daniel
2017 “Threat Scenarios in the Ukraine Conflict.” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Studies and Environmental Communication 6 (2): 16–24.Google Scholar