This chapter explores how the term sympathy was co-opted into political discourse in the first part of the seventeenth century, and how Jacobean literary and dramatic texts debated the political aspects of pity and compassion. Focusing on responses to the crises of succession and the plague, the chapter discusses the representation of sympathy in William Muggins’s Londons Mourning garment (1603), William Alexander’s The Tragedy of Croesus (1604), and Shakespeare’s King Lear (1608). It argues that King Lear exposes the ethical and philosophical problems involved in emotional perspective-taking, and points to the ways in which concepts of sympathy in this period were complicated by an individual’s class and status. The chapter then turns to royal elegies from the 1610s and 1620s, including poetic responses to the deaths of Prince Henry and Queen Anne. The chapter also explores several religious works that express concerns about a decline of sympathy during this period, and proposes that the increased bleakness of the 1623 Folio text of Lear may reflect wider social anxieties about what Thomas Medeley calls ‘this iron and flinty age’.

This chapter analyzes how the Great Replacement conspiracy theory is exploited in far-right discursive strategies. Indeed, the common ground and/or collective narratives identified in discourses such as the Great Replacement theory have been created through re- or de-construction of current news, such as the influx of migrants. We draw on the Dynamic Model of Meaning theory, combining the theoretical concept of (emergent) common ground – fundamental to intercultural pragmatics–and the notion of proximization. Our data comprises Marine Le Pen interviews, Viktor Orbán speeches, and Matteo Salvini tweets, where we examine various aspects of their narratives as well as the specific contextualization. Our analysis reveals both common ground and cross-cultural variation in the conspiracy narratives disseminated by these far-right leaders: inferences vs. directness; national history vs. doomed future. We conclude by suggesting that such narratives work as metaphor scenarios and could, in fact, represent covert hate speech against a specific community. Moreover, these narratives function as useful political arguments, since they arouse strong emotions against the declared enemies of populists. While a rational and well-documented counter-discourse is needed to answer such strategies, it is crucial to both deconstruct and understand the beliefs underlying the emotions that lead a person to trust such beliefs.

In the introduction we describe the “wicked” global property problem of homeless squatting on empty land or in empty properties and outline some key themes explored in the book. We reflect on the nature of squatting as a property problem; and introduce the concept of “scale,” which we deploy throughout the book to describe the dynamic nature of state responses to squatting. We outline the importance of seeing “the state” in the analyses of squatting and other property problems, through its interactions with individuals, interactions with other state-bodies, and interactions with its territory, and interactions with its own institutions. Finally, we set out the structure and approach followed in the book, including reference to five primary jurisdictions: the USA, Ireland, Spain, South Africa and England and Wales.

This chapter outlines an approach to the study of categorisation in language practice grounded in the work of American sociologist Harvey Sacks known as Membership Categorisation Analysis. MCA proposes that categories and their associated ‘normative orders’ are not simply stored in people’s heads; they are used as part of the accomplishment of practical tasks in various social settings. Thus, MCA focuses on how categories are used to do things within talk and text, such as criticising, complaining, praising, encouraging, inviting, commending, blaming, and so on. Moreover, we also propose that power relations can be central to the study of categories. We demonstrate this in a political context through analysis of a political speech made by the previous British Prime Minister, Theresa May. We show that May’s category-based reasoning about social injustice was used to appeal to a sense of social solidarity and moral responsibility of ‘the fortunate’ to help the ‘less fortunate’ in society. We conclude that MCA has value for students and practitioners of language because no other approach comes as close to the study of how categories are used in talk and text in real-life situations.

The chapter demonstrates the expressive and evaluative potential of grammatical gender and specifically highlights the ways ‘grammatical neutering’ can be used to belittle and other unpopular politicians. The authors develop the idea that in gendered languages intentional deviations from a grammatical norm are pragmatically loaded and express a notable implicit message. They present a number of examples collected from online Ukrainian-language sources where the neuter pronoun vono (it) was used to refer to two presidents: Putin, the president of the Russian Federation, and Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. Viewing such examples as cases of grammatical metaphor, the authors show that classifying a referent as ‘other’ may be achieved not only by lexical but also by grammatical means. The application of it and neuter morphology where feminine or masculine is expected while expressing disapproval produces a strong pragmatic effect. The addition of grammatical dehumanization and desexualization to derogatory semantic propositions magnifies the utterances’ negative impact and helps to communicate antipathy and dissociation. The chapter discusses the communicative consequences of grammatical metaphorization of the neuter third person pronoun in Ukrainian political discourse, drawing conclusions about pragmatic effects of grammatical gender alternations.

In the field of language and gesture studies, it is noteworthy that no research-based studies of politicians or other public figures have been undertaken in the Indian context. This absence is particularly striking given that India is the world’s largest democracy, with as much lively diversity in its styles of political campaigning as in its linguistic and cultural structures. This chapter is an attempt to fill this lacuna. The span of time considered in the present analysis is the four-year period dating from before Narendra Modi became Prime Minister to just before he was elected to a second term. My suggestion is that this short period was pivotal in modern Indian politics because a primary tool of human communication, namely language, came to be conjoined with a dazzling set of new technologies. I present results from a study of Modi’s speeches and gestures and show how this has also had a significant effect on a younger generation of Indian leaders and obliged them to define their own styles of technologically mediated leadership, with interesting consequences. I end by offering researchers a putative general framework for the study of political gestures as they influence both national narratives and the personal stances of individual politicians.

This chapter explores the particular background of critical psychology and its links with political psychology. We discuss of some of the most significant features of critical perspectives in political psychology: historical awareness and critique, and the pursuit of social justice. In the remainder of the chapter, we focus specifically on the ways in which the discursive turn in psychology has advanced our understanding of two key topics of interest to political psychologists: prejudice, and political discourse. We end with a discussion of how alternative ways of advancing intellectual critique can drive new political psychology projects on the most pressing social problems of our age.

Explores the contents of the thousands of Urgent Action alerts issued by Amnesty International from 1975-2007 on behalf of individuals at risk from human rights violations. The chapter references to care, law, and justice as part of a distinctive culture of human rights argument. By analyzing references to law and aspects of justice in the thousands of UAs, the chapter charts change and continuity in human rights appeals over many years. Throughout the time period, the alerts give voice to the active care found in the justice of neighborhood by expressing, for example, fear for a person’s safety, and by inquiring about alleged ill-treatment of people by authorities or their agents. Appeals to global human rights norms in the documents indicate the emerging importance of law as a tool for the political realization of justice at the global level.

Chapter 2 offers an extensive literature review of reported speech and evidentiality, and introduces the relevant terms and concepts of the study. It describes reported speech as the object of study and positions the study in the field of evidentiality. In keeping with the diachronic, usage-based nature of the monograph, the chapter makes a case for viewing reported speech as a construction and briefly discusses its potential for entering processes of grammaticalisation. Revisiting the debate whether quotations represent constructed or reconstructed utterances, the chapter examines the notions of 'literalised' direct speech (Rumsey 1992) and 'constructed dialogue' (Tannen 2007) as relevant descriptive labels for reported speech in political speech. Due to the analytic interest of the study, a focus is placed on accounts made for English.

Introduces rhetoric, discussing how the long history of the study of rhetoric from Plato to the present day has developed tools that can be used to understand contemporary readings and uses of sacred texts, specifically as a part of political speech.

This chapter examines the contextual constraints and requirements of argumentative, political and legal discourse, focusing on their bridging points as well as on where they depart. While political discourse and legal discourse are representatives of public discourse and institutional discourse with political discourse also constituting media discourse, argumentative discourse can be found across various discourse domains ranging from political and legal discourse to mundane, everyday talk. The first part provides an analysis of the pragmatics of argumentative discourse, concentrating on the communicative function of argumentative strategies and their generalized and particularized realizations across different discourse domains. The second part examines political discourse as communicative action considering the multilayeredness of production and reception formats, and the third part gives an analysis of legal discourse. In the final part the strategic use of argumentative strategies is discussed in the context of political and legal discourse.

This chapter discusses the critical role of discourse in politics, highlighting the benefits to development advocates that accrue when the voices of concerned citizens are silenced. Seeking consent for industrial development has always been a game of claimsmaking, involving what Sheila Jasanoff refers to as “sociotechnical imaginaries” designed to solicit endorsement for particular development pathways. But behind the curtain of overt claimsmaking lay efforts to keep certain claims out of the limelight, when those claims may be perceived as particularly threatening to development. Davidson explores the manifold strategies employed by development advocates to silence concerned rural residents in southern Alberta, where natural gas reserves are being extracted through hydraulic fracturing, a technique associated with a host of environmental, climate, and health risks.

Although the notion of “populism” goes back to Roman/Greek antiquity, the twenty-first century has seen a surge in both the success of such movements and academic interest in them, especially their rhetorics, discourse and politics. In engaging with populism, discourse studies has interfaced with political and social sciences and struggled to find a conceptually sound and empirically grounded definition, while avoiding an overly broad use of the term. In this, the field is far from homogenous, but it offers many insightful approaches to studying contemporary populist politics. A specific point of interest (and contention) is the interrelationships among rhetorical strategies, discourse-analytical concepts relating populism to hegemony or society (such as interdiscursivity, recontextualization and normalization) and the agenda of populist politics. Behind this looms the larger question of the status of populism itself. While some scholars regard populism as an ideology, others call it a movement or syndrome. While some argue that it is both a form and a content, others maintain that it is only a style or, rather, that it combines specific forms with specific contents. In terms of evaluation, some argue that (at least contemporary) populism is a danger to democracy or, more specifically, to liberal democracy, while others see it as an integral part of any democracy or even a positive force. Central among the traits identified in populist politics is its divisiveness and appeal to “the people”: It divides society into two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.” At the same time, it is antipluralist in claiming that it alone represents the true will of the people, claiming to raise that will over all else. This often links to a larger opposition constructed by populist politics: “national” versus “international” interests. Beyond such commonalities, populist politics, their rhetorics and discourse differ strikingly across the globe and across political affiliations. Empirical discourse studies engage with the specifics of the rhetorics employed by populist politics and how they relate to discourses within the respective contexts.

Plausible deniability is a common feature of political discourse that allows speakers to avoid taking responsibility for a controversial utterance by invoking possible counter-interpretations. To engage in plausible deniability, Trump invokes seemingly reasonable evidence to contest or refute that he meant what he said, foregrounding only select elements of the meaning-making process while downplaying others. Trump’s use of plausible deniability allows him to rally his base while feigning innocence when confronted about controversial remarks. Although common to politics, Trumpian discourse pushes this language game to the limits of credulity through frequent acts of strategic denying that arouse both supporters and critics. This chapter analyzes the way Trump and his allies engage in plausible deniability through the examination of several high-profile cases, introducing the linguistic concept of “implicature” to shed light on the discursive moves and interpretive processes that underlie attempts to invoke plausible deniability. Key to deconstructing each of these examples is an anthropological understanding of the interactional context in which political remarks are spoken and understood.