Framing and manipulation of person deixis in Hosni Mubarak’s last three speeches: A cognitive-pragmatic approach

Zouheir A. Maalej

Abstract

The “Arab Spring,” as the revolutions in some Arab countries were called by the international media, was triggered by the “Jasmine Revolt” in Tunisia, which provoked a domino effect to some Arab leaders, starting from Tunisia and spreading to Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc. Using the insights of cognitive-pragmatics, the current article shows how the last three speeches of Husni Mubarak, the demised president of Egypt (DPE), framed the revolution in Egypt and filled person deixis. In particular, the article argues that, from the antepenultimate to the ultimate speech, the DPE, unlike his Tunisian counterpart, made little change to the initial framing of the revolution in Egypt as a strategy to maintain the sociopolitical situation as it was. As transpires from the lexical items environing person deixis, the DPE filled it with cognitive content which prevented him from coming any closer to a pragmatic rapprochement to the Egyptian people.

Keywords:
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Abu-Abbas, Khaled H., Samir O. Jarbou, Thaer T. Al-Kadi, Muhammad A. Badarneh, and Fathi H. Migdadi
(2010) Fictive kinship names in Jordanian Arabic. Ononomasiology Online 11: 1-10.Google Scholar
Adetunji, Akinbiyi
(2006) Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo's speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics 5.2: 177-191.Google Scholar
Bassiouney, Reem
(2012) Politicizing identity: Code choice and stance-taking during the Egyptian revolution. Discourse & Society 23.2: 107-126. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
(2006) A theory of play and fantasy. In K. Salen, and E. Zimmerman (eds.), The game design reader: The rules of play anthology. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, pp. 314-328.Google Scholar
Benvéniste, Emile
(1966) La nature des pronoms (The nature of pronouns). Paris: Collection Gallimard, pp. 251-257.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. J
(1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistic Society 1: 123-131.Google Scholar
Galasinski, Darius
(2000) The language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage Publications, Inc.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1974) Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F
(1992) The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti, and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-76.Google Scholar
(2005) Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology 46.2: 191-212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, Nigel
(2005) ‘We do not seem to have a theory... the theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26.3: 343-375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken
(2002) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1091–1112. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Íñigo-Mora, Isabel
(2004) On the use of the personal pronoun we. Journal of Language and Politics 3.1: 27–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Sai-Hua
(2002) From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22.1: 29–55.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Involvement vs. detachment: Gender differences in the use of personal pronouns in televised sports in Taiwan. Discourse Studies 5.4: 479-494. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
(2004) Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C
(1983) Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies 8.1: 85-93. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Maalej, Zouheir
(2007) Doing critical discourse analysis with the contemporary theory of metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In C. Hart, and D. Lukeš (eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse studies: Application and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 132-158.Google Scholar
(2010) Addressing non-acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic: A cognitive-pragmatic account. Intercultural Pragmatics 7.1: 147-173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The “Jasmine Revolt” has made the Tunisian revolution: A critical discourse analysis of the last three political speeches of the ousted Tunisian president. Discourse & Society 23.6: 679-700. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, Sophia. S.A
(2000) Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan
(2001) Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Brendan, Maisa Taha, and Megan Sheehan
(2008) Castro's shifters: Locating variation in political discourse. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14.2: 121-129.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alistair
(1994) The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal 48.2: 13-18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petersoo, Dr Pille
(2007) What does ‘we’ mean? National deixis in the media. Journal of Language and Politics 6.3: 419-436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A
(2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17.3: 359-383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
(1999) Understanding pragmatics. London and New York: Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vertommen, Bram
(2013) The strategic value of pronominal choice: Exclusive and inclusive “we” in political panel debates. Pragmatics 23.2: 361-383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, John
(1990) Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar