Dialectics and International Hegemonism in the Discourse of Trump on COVID-19
The present study was an attempt to bridge the gap between political discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and COVID-19 which can be considered as the most recently contentious social event in the contemporary history of the world. It aimed to identify the relationships between language and identity and to examine the dialectics of the international hegemony in the speech of the former American President Trump which was delivered to the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, 2020. For achieving the objectives of this study, Fairclough’s (2001) Dialectical Ways of Social Practices and Halliday’s (1985) SFG were adopted. The study arrived at certain conclusions which could be summed up as the following: I. via ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the American national identity was disclosed as the most prominent theme in the whole speech; II. Interpersonal metafunctions of ‘Tense’, whereby the employment of present tense appeared to be more frequent (11 times) than the past tense (7 times), helped reveal the embedded ideology of ‘Americanism’ or ‘exceptionalism’ as a social act and behavior; III. the ideology of ‘Americanism’ was also displayed by the interpersonal metafunctions of pronouns whereby the inclusive pronouns appeared to be more frequent (11 times) than the exclusive ones (1 time), IV. by-way-of the ideational and interpersonal metafunctions, the dialectical social practice of ‘Othering’ was defined; China and the WHO were identified to be the fundamental ‘Other’ for Trump, and V. the American hegemony as a dialectical social practice was revealed through the interpersonal metafunction of the modal verb ‘must’.
Keywords: Political Discourse, National Identity, Critical Discourse Analysis, COVID-19, Intra-national Struggle
Articles”. In Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, vol. 7, pp. 24-31.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press.
Coffin, C. (2006). “English Grammar in Context, Book 3: getting practical”. In The Open University, pp. 68-86.
Creswell, J. & Poth, C. (2017). Research inquiry: Research design. London: Sage Publishing
Cuomo, A. (2020). American crisis: Leadership lessons from the COVID 19 pandemic. New York: Crown, Inc.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Fairclough, N. &Wodak, R. (1997). “Critical discourse analysis”. In Discourse as Social Interaction: Discourse Studies, pp. 258-284.
Fairclough, N. (2001). “The dialectics of discourse”. In Textus, vol. XIV, No. 2, pp. 231-242.
Gramcsi, A. (1971). Selection from the prison notebook. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). “Dimensions of discourse analysis: Grammar”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol.2, London: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hassan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994 a). “Systemic theory”. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 8, Pergamon Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994 b). Introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). “On the architecture of human language”. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol.2, pp. 262-288.
Haugh, D. (2019). The road to Americanism: The constitutional history of the United States.New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Howard, D. &Utton, D. (2020). COVID 19: The greatest cover-up in history from Wuhan to the white house. Oregon: Blackstone publishing.
Hutington, S. (1996). The clash of civilization and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Shuster, Inc.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Katz, H. (2006). “Gramsci, hegemony, and global civil society networks”. In International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organization, vol. 17, pp. 333- 348.
Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laclau, E. &Mouffe, C. (1989). “Hegemony and socialist strategy”. In Verso, pp. 183- 222.
Levin, M. (2018). Rediscovering Americanism: And the tyranny of progressivism. New York: Simon & Shuster, Inc.
Nima, B. and Jameel, A. (2017). “A Linguistic Analysis of Halliday’s Systemic Functional Theory in Political Texts”. In ALUSTATH Journal for Human and Social Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 1-20.
Oldstone, M. (2020). Viruses, plagues, and history: Past, present, and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pillsbury, M. (2016). The hundred-year marathon: China’s secret strategy to replace America as the Global superpower. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sameer, I. and AL-Dilaimy, H. (2020). “Ideational Aspect of Systemic Functional Grammar in Bush’s and AL-Assad’s First Inaugural Speech”. In International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation, vol. 24, pp. 1204- 1218.
Sasson, A. (2000). Gramsci's and contemporary politics: Beyond pessimism of the intellect. London: Routledge.
Scarborough, J. (2020). Saving freedom: Truman, the cold war, and the fight of western civilization. New York: Harper Collins Publisher.
Smith, D. (1995). Nations and nationalism in global era. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Susan, E. (2011). What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches? http:// chronicle.Unbmentoring.org/on-method-whats-the-difference-between-qualitative-and-quantitative- approaches/ 1 January 2021.
Thier, H. (2020). A people’s guide to capitalism: An introduction to Marxist Economics. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
vanDijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
vanDijk, T. A. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. The Handbook of Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
vanDijk, T. A. (2006). “Ideology and discourse analysis”. In Journal of political ideologies, vol. 11, pp. 115- 140.
Verbra, S., Norman, H., and Norman N. (1993). “Citizen activity: who participates? What do they say?” In American Political Science Review, vol. 87, pp. 303-318.
Yergin, D. (2020). The new map: energy, climate, and clash of nations. London: Penguin.
Copyright (c) 2022 Thi Qar Arts Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Thi Qar Arts Journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows users to copy, to create extracts, abstracts and new works from the Article, to alter and revise the Article, and to make commercial use of the Article (including reuse and/or resale of the Article by commercial entities), provided the user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI), provides a link to the license, indicates if changes were made and the licensor is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work. The authors hold the copyright for their published work on IJVS website, while IJVS responsible for appreciate citation for their work, which is released under CC-BY-4.0 enabling the unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction of an article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.