Authority-Based Strategy of (De)legitimization in American Electoral Discourse: A Case Study

The paper presents an analysis of (de)legitimization in American pre-election discourse based on the tactics of appealing to “authorities”, any entity, person or value which continue to retain confidence, have credibility or are otherwise entitled to authority in the society and family. Sixty 2020 election campaign speeches of U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden and U.S. vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris were the material of this case study. Our research approach is based on theoretical and methodological findings of linguopersonology and political linguistics. The main methods used are those of intent, semantic and stylistic analysis. The purpose was to identify, describe and categorize the authorities cited by the two politicians during their campaign and to correlate them to voters’ aspirations in the cities and states involved. The analysis of relevant contexts revealed that the choice of authorities is primarily guided by the expectations of target groups of voters to whom the campaign speech is addressed. For this reason, the pre-election discourse of the politicians under study includes the authorities which are important for different target groups of voters addressed all over the country. The study of the American pre-election discourse yields a general classification of authorities to which both politicians are appealing; it includes famous politicians, public figures, renowned experts, scientists, outstanding representatives of the culture and art. The politicians may also appeal to the authority of the speaker himself, their parents (mom, dad); edifying example of ordinary people (not celebrities); authority of high positions; authority of institutions and bodies; authority of universal values; authority of different kinds of texts (reports, laws, Scriptures), and sometimes authority of some mass media sources. The multiplicity of the authorities represented in our classification is explained in the paper as a logical consequence of addresser-addressee interaction. It also reeals the important role of the politician’s personality to appeal at a rally to “authorities” that might in his opinion be attractive for his specific audience. The paper presents the results of the analysis of the linguistic features of the appeal-to-authority tactics.

1. Bagana, Zh., Bocharova, E. A. Preelection political discourse as a special sphere of communication. Vestnik of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: linguistics, 2012, no. 1, p. 121–125. (in Russ.)

2. Beetham, D. The Legitimation of Power. New York, PALGRAVE, 1991, 267 p.

3. Bogatyrev, V. R. Strategies and tactics of discrediting in American political discourse on the example of the election speeches of B. Obama and M. Romney. Education and Science in Russia and Abroad, 2017, no. 3 (32), p. 26–31. (in Russ.) Chovanec, J. Legitimation through differentiation: Discursive construction of Jacques Le Worm Chirac as an opponent to military action. Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, p. 61–82.

4. Dijk, T. A. Van. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society. London: SAGE Publications, 2006, vol. 17 (2), p. 359–383.

5. Dmitrieva, M. I., Dubrovskaya, V. V. Communicative strategies of manipulation on the example of the American election campaign of D. Trump and H. Clinton. Philological Sciences. Questions of theory and practice, 2020, no. 13 (7), p. 180–184. (in Russ.)

6. Fairclough, N. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989, 259 p.

7. Golubeva, T. M. Gender and the strategy of discrediting in the pre-election discourse. Vestnik of Nizhny Novgorod University N. I. Lobachevsky, 2008, no. 5, p. 255–258. (in Russ.)

8. Golubeva, T. M. Linguistic parameters of the strategy of legitimizing the European Union and delegitimizing B. al-Assad in British political discourse. News of Saratov University. New series. Series Philology. Journalism, 2016, no. 16 (4), p. 392–396. (in Russ.)

9. Golubeva, T. M. Linguistic and rhetorical parameters of the delegitimization of Russia and the legitimization of the United States in the speech of American representatives at the UN. News of Saratov University. New series. Series Philology. Journalism, 2017, no. 17 (4), p. 383–388. (in Russ.)

10. Hardin, R. Compliance, Consent, and Legitimacy. In: The Oxford handbook of comparative politics / ed. by C. Boix and S. C. Stokes. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, p. 236–255. Hodge, R., Kress, G. Language as Ideology, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 1993, 230 p.

11. Kameneva, V. A., Ivanova, E. A. Evaluative metaphors of pre-election discourse (linguopersonological approach). Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 2019, no. 6 (428), p. 63–70. (in Russ.)

12. Khajavi, Y., Rasti, A. A discourse analytic investigation into politicians’ use of rhetorical and persuasive strategies: The case of US election speeches. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 2020, no. 7 (1), p. 1740051.

13. Khalatyan, A. B. Election Discourse. Political Linguistics, 2011, no. 2 (36), p. 180–187. (in Russ.)

14. Khlopotunov, Ya. Yu. Discrediting speech tactics in the American pre-election discourse. Problems of Applied Linguistics, 2017, no. 27, p. 77–86. (in Russ.)

15. Kononova, I. V., Melnichuk, T. A. Dynamics of the category of evaluativeness in the discourse of the American pre-election video. Cognitive studies of language, 2020, no. 2 (41), p. 836–840. (in Russ.)

16. Kopacheva, A. R. Features of the pre-election political discourse of Emmanuel Macron. Professional project: ideas, technologies, results, 2019, no. 3 (36), p. 41–46. (in Russ.)

17. Kryachkova, A. P. Linguistic pragmatic means of verbal attacks on the image of political parties in Germany: cand. phil. sci. diss. Moscow, 2019, 170 p. (in Russ.)

18. Kuraleva, T. V., Kondrashova, V. N. Self-presentation in the pre-election discourse: a corpus study (based on the pre-election speeches of B. Sanders and H. Clinton). Scientific Dialogue, 2018, no. 4, p. 100–112. (in Russ.)

19. Lasswell, H. D. The Theory of Political Propaganda. The American Political Science Review, vol. 21, 1927, no. 3, p. 627–631.

20. Leeuwen, T. Van. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 2007, no. 1 (1), p. 91–112. DOI 10.1177/1750481307071986

21. Leeuwen, T. Van. Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Critical Discourse Analysis: Concepts, History, Theory / ed. By R. Wodak. 2013, no. 1, p. 327–350.

22. Lenets, A. V., Sergeeva, D. S. Linguistic manifestation of a communicative strategy of discrediting as a way of constructing a politician’s image in the virtual space (based on D. Trump’s election tweets). Vestnik of Tomsk State University. Philology, 2018, no. 52. DOI 10.17223/19986645/52/6 (in Russ.)

23. Morris, С. State Legitimacy and Social Order. Political Legitimization without Morality / ed. J. Kuhnelt. Heidelberg: Springer Science; Business Media B. V., 2008, p. 15–32.

24. Novoselova, O. V. Implicit changes in the Russian election discourse. World of linguistics and communication: electronic scientific journal, 2019, no. 58, p. 153–168. (in Russ.)

25. Podolyak, N. N., Marinina, G. I. Pre-election discourse of politics: priorities in the linguistic and linguistic-pragmatic aspects. Scientific research: from theory to practice, 2016, no. 2-2 (8), p. 27–31. (in Russ.)

26. Ruzhentseva, N. B. Political and communication strategies in printed campaign materials in 2018. Political linguistics, 2018, no. 2 (68), p. 18–28. (in Russ.)

27. Sadeghi, B., Hassani, M. T., Jalali, V. Towards (de-)legitimation discursive strategies in news coverage of Egyptian protest: VOA & Fars news in focus. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, no. 98, p. 1580–1589.

28. Sergeeva, D. S. Self-presentation and discrediting are key strategies of the pre-election political discourse (based on the pre-election tweets of D. Trump and H. Clinton). News of Southern Federal University, 2017, no. 3, p. 75–83. (in Russ.)

29. Sergeeva, N. A. Strategies and tactics of speech influence in the election discourse of B. H. Obama. Vestnik of modern research, 2019, no. 1, 6 (28), p. 310–316. (in Russ.)

30. Sklyarova, N. G. D. Trump’s electoral discourse: peculiarities of the politician’s idiostyle. Vestnik of Pyatigorsk State University, 2017, no. 3, p. 65–71. (in Russ.)

31. Zlobina, O. N. Means of rational argumentation in American political discourse. Political linguis-tics, 2017, no. 2 (62), p. 71–75. (in Russ.)