Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Perspectives on Political Discourse
Edited by Pascal Fischer and Christoph Schubert
[Journal of Language and Politics 13:2] 2014
► pp. 313–335

Cognitive categorization and prototypicality as persuasive strategies

Presidential rhetoric in the USA

 | University of Vechta |
Cognitive categorization is an indispensable instrument for organizing human experience. Owing to the obvious appeal of clear-cut categories in ideological discourse, polarization frequently serves as a strategy of political persuasion. The success of such rhetoric corroborates the allure of dichotomies, although they blatantly contradict the fuzzy nature of cognitive categories. Since prototypicality yields a great cognitive effect but demands only little processing effort, prototypes are particularly convenient in political speeches, where speakers must often get their message across to a wide and heterogeneous audience in a limited time span. Along these lines, the analysis of 32 presidential speeches from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush brings to light how the prototypical enemy or national hero is established. This paper aims to show that political rhetoric does not merely reflect existing categorizations but also has the power to shape and perpetuate them in the minds of the target audience.
Keywords: persuasion, rhetoric, speech, categorization, polarization, prototypes, legitimisation, US presidents
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Categorization and prototypicality
  • 3.Persuasion and legitimisation
  • 4.Persuasion through categories and prototypes
    • 4.1Categories: boundaries, levels, and diachronic co-categorization
    • 4.2Prototypes: Enemies, heroes, and presidents
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.06sch
References (48)
References
Aitchison, Jean. 2003. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Aditi. 2008. “Discursive Illusions in the American National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.” Journal of Language and Politics 7 (2): 201–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (eds). 1990. Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2006. Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul A., and Christina Schäffner. 2002. “Introduction: Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul A. Chilton and Christina Schäffner, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Edward W. Said. 1999. Acts of Aggression: Policing “Rogue” States. New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Cockcroft, Robert, and Susan Cockcroft. 2005. Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Collins, John, and Ross Glover. 2002. “Introduction.” In Collateral Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War, ed. by John Collins, and Ross Glover, 1–13. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 2000. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert-Alain, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2008. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed., ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 62–86. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Dörner, Andreas. 1993. “Zur rhetorischen Konstruktion politisch-kultureller Identitäten: Selbst- und Fremdbilder in zwei Reden Ronald Reagans.” In Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt, ed. by Paul Goetsch, and Gerd Hurm, 285–305. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dunmire, Patricia L. 2011. Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fergusson, Rosalind (ed.). 1992. Penguin Dictionary of Synonyms and Antonyms. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2007. “Where does Prototypicality Come from?” In The Cognitive Linguistics Reader, ed. by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergen, and Jörg Zinken, 168–185. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Goetsch, Paul. 1993. “Kriegsbotschaften amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt.” In Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt, ed. by Paul Goetsch, and Gerd Hurm, 73–96. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Jackson, Richard. 2005. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. “Persuasion by Inference: Analysis of a Party Political Broadcast.” In Political Linguistics, ed. by Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen, 121–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.” Viet Nam Generation Journal & Newsletter 3 (3) 〈[URL]〉 (Last Accessed February 20, 2011).Google Scholar
Lazar, Annita, and Michelle M. Lazar. 2008. “Discourse of Global Governance: American Hegemony in the Post-Cold War Era.” Journal of Language and Politics 7 (2): 228–246.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Llorente, Marina A. 2002. “Civilization versus Barbarism.” In Collateral Language: A User’s Guide to America’s New War, ed. by John Collins, and Ross Glover, 39–51. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Mulholland, Joan. 1994. Handbook of Persuasive Tactics: A Practical Language Guide. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, John M. 2003. “‘Our Mission and Our Moment’: George W. Bush and September 11th.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 6 (4): 607–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reardon, Kathleen Kelley. 1991. Persuasion in Practice. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2008. “Rhetoric of Political Speeches.” In Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Veronika Koller, 243–269. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 2000. “Categorization.” In Handbook of Pragmatics: 1998. Installment, ed. by Jef Verschueren et al., 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schubert, Christoph. 2010. “Narrative Sequences in Political Discourse: Forms and Functions in Speeches and Hypertext Frameworks.” In Narrative Revisited: Telling a Story in the Age of New Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann, 143–162. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Craig Allen, and Kathy B. Smith (eds). 1994. The White House Speaks: Presidential Leadership as Persuasion. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication & Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stüwe, Klaus, and Birgit Stüwe (eds). 2005. American Political Speeches. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tulis, Jeffrey K. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2006. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volmert, Johannes. 1993. “Die Kriegsbotschaft als Justification Speech: Argumentation und Benennungsstrategien in Bushs Fernsehrede vom 16.1.1991.” In Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt, ed. by Paul Goetsch, and Gerd Hurm, 329–352. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Waldman, Michael (ed.). 2003. My Fellow Americans: The Most Important Speeches of America’s Presidents: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc. [incl. Audio-CDs].Google Scholar
Wawra, Daniela. 2008. “‘America at its Best’: The Discursive Construction of American Identity in the Inaugural Addresses of US-Presidents since 1789.” In Anglistentag 2007 Münster: Proceedings, ed. by Klaus Stierstorfer, 455–466. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1977. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2008. “The Contribution of Critical Linguistics to the Analysis of Discriminatory Prejudices and Stereotypes in the Language of Politics.” In Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Veronika Koller, 291–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Gayoso, Albina
2023. Introduction. In Understanding Political Public Relations Techniques, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Demir, Mehmet Özer, Biagio Simonetti, Murat Alper Başaran & Sezgin Irmak
2021. Voter Classification Based on Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies: A Machine Learning Approach. Social Indicators Research 155:1 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Wenhui
2020. News Discourse and Cognitive Studies. In A Cross-Cultural Study of Commercial Media Discourses, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Abdelzaher, Esra’ M. & Bacem A. Essam
2019. Weaponizing words. Journal of Language and Politics 18:6 ► pp. 893 ff. DOI logo
Schubert, Christoph
2019. ‘OK, well, first of all, let me say …’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies 21:4 ► pp. 438 ff. DOI logo
Schubert, Christoph
2021. Multimodal cohesion in persuasive discourse: A case study of televised campaign advertisements in the 2020 US presidential election. Discourse, Context & Media 43 ► pp. 100537 ff. DOI logo
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer
2018. Euphemism as a discursive strategy in US local and state politics. Journal of Language and Politics 17:6 ► pp. 789 ff. DOI logo
Renkema, Jan & Christoph Schubert
2018. Introduction to Discourse Studies, DOI logo
Hampl, Marek
2017. ‘BENEFICIARY’ AS A MEANS FOR A DICHOTOMOUS REPRESENTATION IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE. Discourse and Interaction 10:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.