سحر نجارزادگان

This study provides a comparative analysis of the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians to manipulate their audiences. By examining political speeches from both linguistic contexts, the research reveals distinct cultural patterns in manipulation. English-speaking politicians often employ direct, fact-based appeals (logos), while Arabic-speaking politicians rely more on emotional and collective identity appeals (pathos). These strategies reflect the cultural and linguistic norms of each group. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric.

This article performs a CDA on White House press briefings and is especial in its focus on how gendered language impacts relations of power. Adopting a mixed-method approach, this study will examine linguistic strategies and deictic expressions used by male and female spokespersons articulating ideologies and constructing authority. The latter is based on Fairclough's three-dimensional CDA model, whereby text analysis is involved, together with discourse practices and social context in explaining how language reflects and constructs political realities. The research questions were as follows: (1) How are deictic expressions used by spokesmen and spokeswomen in the White House press briefings? (2) What is the inter-relationship between power and language through the usage of modal verbs, and is there a gender-based difference herein? (3) How do women spokespersons, through language, claim ideologies and power? It is a contribution to applied linguistics and presents evidence of subtle linguistic mechanisms that shape public perception of gendered language in political discourse. The research questions were as follows: (1) How are deictic expressions used by spokesmen and spokeswomen in the White House press briefings? (2) What is the inter-relationship between power and language through the usage of modal verbs, and is there a gender-based difference herein? (3) How do women spokespersons, through language, claim ideologies and power? It is a contribution to applied linguistics and presents evidence of subtle linguistic mechanisms that shape public perception of gendered language in political discourse.

This research explored the intricacies of incitement as a speech act in political discourse, particularly in the context of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, the study combined qualitative analyses—focusing on rhetorical structures and pragmatic strategies—with quantitative evaluations of speech act frequencies. The corpus included speeches from prominent political figures delivered between February 2022 and March 2024, selected for their relevance to incitement. The analysis revealed that incitement often straddles the boundary between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts, showcasing how politicians use indirect language to maintain plausible deniability while still mobilizing action. This ambiguity complicates traditional classifications within speech act theory. Furthermore, the study highlights various persuasive strategies employed in political rhetoric, such as emotional appeals and historical analogies.The implications of this research are significant for understanding how language functions as a tool of political power, particularly in conflict situations. It provides insights into ethical considerations surrounding incitement in political communication, suggesting that awareness of linguistic strategies can help prevent escalation of tensions and promote more responsible discourse among leaders.

This article examines gendered patterns in public discourse by analyzing the cognitive and sociolinguistic features of interruptions, turn-taking, and collaborative language during Iraqi TV talk shows. We used a mixed-methods approach to examine transcripts from 20 episodes of TV talk shows in which both male and female guests appeared. This and other studies suggest that there are strong gender-based differences in, for example the per cent of talk with interruptions (evaluated by numerical frequency), topic control or continue, males talking more than females coded as take-talks or pivoting responses, whereas types of type-control regards turn taking was higher among female speakers than male while total degree of fluency to engaged language use. These trends are consistent with Iraq's historical gendered norms — a juxtaposition against American shifts toward more equitable media relations. The main conclusions suggest the significance of cultural constraints in communication, indicating practical paths for media literacy as well as suggestions where sociolinguistic training and gender-inclusive policy design may benefit from a closer look.

This study investigates the ideological dimensions of media representation of the Russia-Ukraine crisis by comparing British and Arab online newspapers. Grounded in Fairclough's framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, this paper investigates the narrative structure of The Guardian, The Sun, Arab News, and Gulf News in representing the conflict and how sociocultural and political contexts influence language use and framing strategies underpinning the ideologies. The study shows that British media, most especially The Guardian and The Sun, claim to mainly reinforce Western geopolitical narratives by framing Russia as an aggressor and Ukraine as a victim of war, emphasizing themes of democracy, aggression, and victimization. However, the media in the Arab world, such as Arab News and Gulf News, afford a more balanced approach that focuses on regional concerns like economic stability, humanitarian issues, and neutrality; on the other hand, it also covers a broad spectrum of views. Using such a comparison, this study exemplifies and contrasts the different ideological roots of media discourse within diverse cultural and political contexts. By pointing out how sociopolitical priorities and cultural values shape media framing, this study contributes to an understanding of the role that media plays in building global public opinion about international conflicts, more precisely in how media from different regions may frame the same event quite differently. This thus underlines the importance of cross-cultural media literacy and gives insight into the power of media in the perception-shaping process of a conflict.