Linguistics as Geopolitical Strategy: Framing, Legitimacy, and Power in Global Discourse

Iskandarsyah Siregar

doi:10.55927/jldl.v5i1.16344

Authors

Iskandarsyah Siregar Universitas Nasional

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55927/jldl.v5i1.16344

Keywords:

Linguistics, Geopolitic, CDA, Semiotics, Pragmatics

Abstract

This study investigates the strategic function of linguistics in forming transnational geopolitical configurations from 2015 to 2025. The paper draws from 250 purposively sampled texts official speeches, media releases, and mainstream news and media coverage, from the US, Russia, China, and the European Union. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), semiotics, and linguistic pragmatics serve as the conceptual basis to explain how political elites employ discourse strategies to shape a global public opinion by using strategies such as framing, euphemism, delegitimising opponents' claims, and conceptual metaphors. Quantitatively, the study indicates framing (35%) and euphemism (28%) when utilised by the United States and China, respectively, served to strengthen legitimacy for foreign policy, to frame 'good' narratives, delegitimisation (22%) was used mainly by the EU and Russia to frame a good enemy, and conceptual metaphors (15%) - though the least used, were also effective in framing normative imperatives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957).

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218.

Chilton, P. (2017). Toward a theory of political discourse: Meaning and ideology in media and politics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368.

Krebs, R. R., & Jackson, P. T. (2007). Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107074283.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Musolff, A. (2021). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. Bloomsbury Academic.

Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. PublicAffairs.

Pamment, J. (2016). British public diplomacy and soft power: Diplomatic influence and the digital revolution. Palgrave Macmillan.

Putin, V. V. (2021). Address to the Federal Assembly. President of Russia. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/65418.

Tsygankov, A. P. (2016). Russia’s foreign policy: Change and continuity in national identity (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250.

Wang, Y. (2019). China’s “peaceful rise” and discourse construction: Cultural representations in Chinese media. Asian Journal of Communication, 29(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2018.1549266.

Willard, C. A. (2010). Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A new rhetoric for modern democracy. University of Chicago Press.

Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R., & Boukala, S. (2015). European identities and the revival of nationalism in the European Union: A discourse historical approach. Journal of Language and Politics, 14(1), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.1.05wod.