- Lossi 36
51003 Tartu
Estonia
Sten Hansson
University of Tartu, Institute of Social Studies, Faculty Member
-
Lancaster University, Linguistics and English Language, AlumnusUniversity of Birmingham, English Language and Linguistics, Faculty Member add
-
Government Communication, Argumentation, Discourse Analysis, Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Overcommunication, and 14 moreBlame Avoidance, Miscommunication, Coalition Government Communication, Linguistic Anthropology, Critical Thinking, Conflict Talk, Ethics of Persuasion, Media and Cultural Studies, Communication Theory, Democratic Theory, Discourse-Historical Approach, Information Policy, Scandals, and Strategic Narratives edit
-
I am developing new frameworks for analysing government communication, political blame games, and information disorder.edit
As government officeholders face criticism for misconduct or policy failures, they are tempted to communicate in self-defensive ways. In this paper, I draw attention to how strategic blame avoidance in government may involve coercive... more
As government officeholders face criticism for misconduct or policy failures, they are tempted to communicate in self-defensive ways. In this paper, I draw attention to how strategic blame avoidance in government may involve coercive impoliteness, that is, the use of expressions that attack the face of (potential) critics with an aim of forcing them to withhold their (future) criticism. Taking a discourse-historical approach to political rhetoric, I present illustrative examples of institutional government messaging from the United States, the United Kingdom, Estonia, and Russia to demonstrate how these face attacks may be accomplished in subtle ways, such as via sarcasm or mock politeness. I discuss the ethical implications of the uses of coercive impoliteness in government communication for democratic debates over public policy issues. The paper contributes to the study of political blame games, language aggression, and incivility in (digitally) mediated contexts.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Linguistic Impoliteness, Face and Facework Theory, Political communication, and 14 moreSocial Media, Critical Discourse Analysis, Political Communication (Communication), Political Discourse Analysis, Humor and Sarcasm, Political Discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Blame, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, Public Communication. Political Communication, Incivility, and Impoliteness
During major crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, government officeholders issue commands to change people's behaviour (e.g., 'Stay at home!') and express thanks to acknowledge the efforts of others and build solidarity. We use... more
During major crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, government officeholders issue commands to change people's behaviour (e.g., 'Stay at home!') and express thanks to acknowledge the efforts of others and build solidarity. We use specialised datasets of replies to social media posts by government ministers in the United Kingdom during Covid-19 lockdowns to explore how people react to their messages that contain directive speech acts and thanking. Empirically, our corpus-assisted analysis of evaluative language and blaming shows that far from promoting team spirit, thanking may elicit at least as much, if not more blaming language than commands. Methodologically, we demonstrate how to analyse government social media communication dialogically to gain more nuanced insights about online feedback from citizens.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Crisis Communication, Political communication, Social Media, Protest, and 13 moreCritical Discourse Analysis, Risk communication, Twitter, Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, Political Discourse Analysis, Applied Corpus Linguistics, Speech acts, Political Discourse, Blame, Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, and COVID-19 PANDEMIC
This article introduces an original theoretical model for understanding how the linguistic framing of political protest messages influences how blame spreads in social media. Our model of blame retweetability posits that the way in which... more
This article introduces an original theoretical model for understanding how the linguistic framing of political protest messages influences how blame spreads in social media. Our model of blame retweetability posits that the way in which the basis and focus of blame are linguistically construed affects people's perception of the strength of criticism in the message and its likelihood to be reposted. Two online experiments provide empirical support for the model. We find that attacks on a person's character are perceived as more critical than blaming focused on the negative outcomes of their actions, and that negative judgements of social sanction have a greater impact than those of social esteem. The study also uncovers a "retweetability paradox"-in contrast to earlier studies, we find that blame messages that are perceived as more critical are not more likely to be reposted.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies, Political Psychology, Attribution Theory, Political communication, and 15 moreApplied Linguistics, Social Media, Protest, Political Communication (Communication), Twitter, Linguistics, Responsibility, Moral Blame, Framing, Protest Movements, Protest and resistance, Framing Effects, Blame, Blame Avoidance, and Public Communication. Political Communication
Modern societies are characterized by unprecedently broad and fast diffusion of various forms of false and harmful information. Military personnel's motivation to defend their country may be harmed by their exposure to disinformation.... more
Modern societies are characterized by unprecedently broad and fast diffusion of various forms of false and harmful information. Military personnel's motivation to defend their country may be harmed by their exposure to disinformation. Therefore, specific education and training programs should be devised for the military to systematically improve (social) media literacy and build resilience against information influence activities. In this article, we put forward a useful methodological approach to designing such programs based on a case study: the process of developing a media literacy learning platform tailored to the needs of the Estonian defense forces in 2021. The approach is grounded in data on (a) the current needs and skills of the learners, (b) the kinds of influence activities that the learners may encounter, and (c) the learning design principles that would enhance their learning experience, such as learning through play and dialogue through feedback.
Research Interests:
Modern politics is permeated by blame games -- symbolic struggles over the blameworthiness or otherwise of various social actors. In this article, we develop a framework for identifying different strategies of blaming that protesters use... more
Modern politics is permeated by blame games -- symbolic struggles over the blameworthiness or otherwise of various social actors. In this article, we develop a framework for identifying different strategies of blaming that protesters use on social media to criticise and delegitimise governments and political leaders. We draw on the systemic functional linguistic theory of Appraisal to distinguish between blame attributions based on negative judgements of the target's (1) capacity, such as references to their incompetence and policy failures, (2) veracity, questioning their truthfulness or honesty via references to deceitful character or dishonest acts and utterances, (3) propriety, questioning their moral standing by references to, for instance, corruption, and (4) tenacity, suggesting that the politicians are not dependable due to, for example, dithering. We add to this a further threefold distinction based on whether blaming is focused on the target's (a) bad character, (b) bad behaviour, or (c) negative outcomes that the target either caused or did not prevent from happening. To illustrate the approach, we analyse a corpus of replies by Twitter users to tweets by British government ministers about two highly contentious issues, Covid-19 and Brexit, in 2020-2021. We suggest that the methodology outlined here could provide a useful avenue for systematically revealing and comparing a variety of realisations of blaming in large datasets of online conflict talk, thereby providing a more fine-grained understanding of the practices of protest and delegitimation in modern politics.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Political communication, Applied Linguistics, Media Activism, Social Media, and 15 moreProtest, Critical Discourse Analysis, Twitter, Appraisal (Systemic Functional Linguistics), Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, Political Discourse Analysis, Moral Blame, Protest Movements, New Media and Political Activism, Political Discourse, Negative Campaigning, Blame, Discourse Analysis (DA), Brexit, and COVID-19 PANDEMIC
When governments introduce controversial policies that many citizens disapprove of, officeholders increasingly use discursive legitimation strategies in their public communication to ward off blame. In this paper, we contribute to the... more
When governments introduce controversial policies that many citizens disapprove of, officeholders increasingly use discursive legitimation strategies in their public communication to ward off blame. In this paper, we contribute to the study of blame avoidance in government social media communication by exploring how corpus-assisted discourse analysis helps to identify three types of common legitimations: self-defensive appeals to (1) personal authority of policymakers, (2) impersonal authority of rules or documents, and (3) goals or effects of policies. We use a specialised corpus of tweets by the Brexit department of the British government (42,618 words) which we analyse both qualitatively and quantitatively. We demonstrate how the analysis of lexical bundles that characterise each type of legitimation might provide a new avenue for identifying the presence, characteristics, and uses of these legitimations in larger datasets.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Legitimacy and Authority, Organizational Communication, Political communication, Applied Linguistics, and 15 moreLegitimacy, Political Legitimacy, Social Media, Corpus Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, Political Communication (Communication), Twitter, Corpus Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, Applied Corpus Linguistics, Lexical Bundles, Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, Legitimization, and Brexit
Governments spread strategic narratives via media to influence foreign audiences and policy makers. A frequent but understudied feature of strategic narratives is the discursive construction of blame. In this article, we use the coverage... more
Governments spread strategic narratives via media to influence foreign audiences and policy makers. A frequent but understudied feature of strategic narratives is the discursive construction of blame. In this article, we use the coverage of the adoption of 5G cellular technology in Russian state-funded news portals as an example to show how to interpret blame narratives about international security issues. We combine methods and insights from the discourse-analytic studies of blame and the research into the uses of strategic narratives in international relations to reveal how various articulations of blame are used to (de)legitimise particular actors and actions, sow discord, and foster alliances. Our analysis sheds new light on blame discourses that are more sophisticated and indirect than straightforward accusations and may serve multiple strategic goals at once. It also contributes to scholarship on Russia's strategic communication about China as well as the United States and its allies.
Research Interests:
International Relations, Propaganda, International Security, Public Diplomacy, Political communication, and 15 moreInformation operations (IO), European Foreign and Security Policy, Moral Blame, Defence and Security, NATO-Russian Relations, Disinformation, Blame, Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, Blame Avoidance, Soft Power and Public Diplomacy, Public Communication. Political Communication, Strategic Narratives, Russia China Relations, Discourse Analysis (DA), and 5G Mobile Communications
When governments introduce controversial policies or face a risk of policy failure, officeholders try to avoid blame and justify their decisions by using various legitimation strategies. This paper focuses on the ways in which... more
When governments introduce controversial policies or face a risk of policy failure, officeholders try to avoid blame and justify their decisions by using various legitimation strategies. This paper focuses on the ways in which legitimations are expressed in government social media communication, using the Twitter posts of the British government's Brexit department as an example. We show how governments may seek legitimacy by appealing to (1) the personal authority of individual policymakers, (2) the collective authority of (political) organisations, (3) the impersonal authority of rules or documents, (4) the goals or effects of government policy, (5) 'the will of the people', and (6) time pressure. The results suggest that official legitimations in social media posts tend to rely more on references to authority and shared values rather than presentation of evidence and sound arguments.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies, British Politics, Political Science, Political communication, and 14 morePolitical Legitimacy, Argumentation, Social Media, Political Rhetoric, Critical Discourse Analysis, Political Communication (Communication), Twitter, Organizational Use of Social Media, Political Discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, Public Communication. Political Communication, and Brexit
The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information-unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on-all around the world.... more
The outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 propelled the creation, transmission, and consumption of false information-unverified claims, misleading statements, false rumours, conspiracy theories, and so on-all around the world. When various official or unofficial sources issue erroneous, misleading or contradicting information during a crisis, people who are exposed to this may behave in ways that cause harm to the health and well-being of themselves or others, e.g., by not taking appropriate risk reducing measures or blaming or harassing vulnerable groups.
To work towards a typology of informational content that may increase people's vulnerability in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, we explored 98 instances of potentially harmful information that spread in six European countries.
We suggest that during the pandemic, exposure to harmful information may have made people more vulnerable in six ways: (1) by discouraging appropriate protective actions against catching/spreading the virus, (2) by promoting the use of false (or harmful) remedies against the virus, (3) by misrepresenting the transmission mechanisms of the virus, (4) by downplaying the risks related to the pandemic, (5) by tricking people into buying fake protection against the virus or into revealing their confidential information, and (6) by victimising the alleged spreaders of the virus by harassment/hate speech. The proposed typology can be used to guide the development of risk communication plans to address each of these information-related vulnerabilities.
To work towards a typology of informational content that may increase people's vulnerability in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, we explored 98 instances of potentially harmful information that spread in six European countries.
We suggest that during the pandemic, exposure to harmful information may have made people more vulnerable in six ways: (1) by discouraging appropriate protective actions against catching/spreading the virus, (2) by promoting the use of false (or harmful) remedies against the virus, (3) by misrepresenting the transmission mechanisms of the virus, (4) by downplaying the risks related to the pandemic, (5) by tricking people into buying fake protection against the virus or into revealing their confidential information, and (6) by victimising the alleged spreaders of the virus by harassment/hate speech. The proposed typology can be used to guide the development of risk communication plans to address each of these information-related vulnerabilities.
Research Interests:
Communication, Health Communication, Disaster risk management, Crisis communication and management, Crisis Communication, and 15 moreRisk and Vulnerability, Hate Speech, Risk communication, Social vulnerability, Health risk communication and behavior change, Risk Perception, Cybercrime, Disinformation, Misinformation, Fake News, Covid-19, Coronavirus COVID-19, Pandemic Coronavirus COVID19, Infodemic, and COVID-19 PANDEMIC
This article draws attention to how the ethics of democratic representation operates as a discreet factor in a crisis of representation afflicting Western democracies by identifying the ways a disregard for truthfulness can harm... more
This article draws attention to how the ethics of democratic representation operates as a discreet factor in a crisis of representation afflicting Western democracies by identifying the ways a disregard for truthfulness can harm democratic representation. We argue that such a disregard undermines democratic representation by (a) reducing freedom and equality, (b) weakening accountability, (c) undermining citizens' trust in democratic institutions, and (d) jeopardising the ability to compromise.
We illustrate the processes that produce these effects by analysing examples of untruthful communication about Brexit by senior British politicians in the post-referendum debates. We show how all four of these effects were triggered by the ways they misled the public by (1) making claims about overwhelming popular support for their policy, (2) misrepresenting the power relations between the EU and the national government, and (3) seriously downplaying the complexity of negotiations involved in leaving the EU and reaching trade deals thereafter.
We illustrate the processes that produce these effects by analysing examples of untruthful communication about Brexit by senior British politicians in the post-referendum debates. We show how all four of these effects were triggered by the ways they misled the public by (1) making claims about overwhelming popular support for their policy, (2) misrepresenting the power relations between the EU and the national government, and (3) seriously downplaying the complexity of negotiations involved in leaving the EU and reaching trade deals thereafter.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies, Rhetoric, Democratic Theory, British Politics, and 15 morePolitical communication, Political Rhetoric, European Union, Deception / Lying (Deception Lying), Critical Discourse Analysis, Democracy, United Kingdom, Deception, Democratic Deficit, Disinformation, Accountability and Governance Issues, Misinformation, Government Communication, Brexit, and Public Policy
The concept of social vulnerability has been increasingly applied in disaster literature, but its communicative drivers have remained understudied. In this article, we put forward a heuristic framework for explaining how... more
The concept of social vulnerability has been increasingly applied in disaster literature, but its communicative drivers have remained understudied. In this article, we put forward a heuristic framework for explaining how communication-related factors may adversely affect people's capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters. This will help researchers, policy makers, and practitioners in the field of disasters and crises to systematically identify individual, social-structural, and situational factors of vulnerability that shape how people access, understand, and act upon information about hazards.
We integrate ideas from recent literature on information disorders – various forms and effects of false or harmful information that are characteristic to modern communication ecosystems – to improve our understanding of how the new media environments may transform the ways people learn about hazards and cope with disasters.
We integrate ideas from recent literature on information disorders – various forms and effects of false or harmful information that are characteristic to modern communication ecosystems – to improve our understanding of how the new media environments may transform the ways people learn about hazards and cope with disasters.
Research Interests:
Communication, Media Studies, Disaster Studies, Disaster risk management, Crisis communication and management, and 15 moreCrisis Communication, Risk and Vulnerability, Social Media, Communication Theory, Risk communication, Disaster Management, Risk and Vulnerability - Natural Hazards, Vulnerability, Disaster Risk Communication, Social vulnerability, Disasters, Disaster risk reduction, Media and Communications, Disinformation, and Misinformation
This chapter focuses on the development of political communication and campaigning in Estonia. It starts with a brief overview of the basic characteristics of the political and party system. Then, it introduces the main laws and rules the... more
This chapter focuses on the development of political communication and campaigning in Estonia. It starts with a brief overview of the basic characteristics of the political and party system. Then, it introduces the main laws and rules the campaigners must comply with. After that, the authors describe the evolution of communication tactics and techniques used by parties and candidates to persuade voters to vote for them over the last three decades. At the end of the chapter, the authors discuss the most recent campaigning trends in Estonia.
Research Interests:
Propaganda, Political Campaigns, Baltic Studies, Political Extremism/Radicalism/Populism, Political communication, and 15 morePopulism, Social Media, Media and Democracy, Campaign Finance, History Of Propaganda, Persuasion, Elections, Political Advertising, Election Campaigning, Electoral Campaign, Political Marketing, Marketing Communications, Estonia, Political Marketing and Branding, and Post-Communist Studies
Modern military training exercises often include an information warfare component. Combat manoeuvres and weapon tests may be combined with large-scale information operations, including attempts at mass deception and cultivation of fear... more
Modern military training exercises often include an information warfare component. Combat manoeuvres and weapon tests may be combined with large-scale information operations, including attempts at mass deception and cultivation of fear via strategic uses of narratives in media. The ways in which fear is constructed in strategic narratives deserve more detailed discursive analysis.
In this article, we use the largest recent Russian war games on NATO's eastern borders, the 'Zapad 2017' military exercise, as an example to show how to interpret fear narratives. We identify and analyse three strategic narratives that were formulated by Russian official spokespeople in relation to the exercise and uncover some of their underlying meaning-making tendencies: the logic of antithesis, affirmation through negation, and the rhetoric of moral victimhood. Our analysis sheds new light on the uses of fear discourses that are more sophisticated and indirect than straightforward threats or (rhetorical) demonstrations of power to inflict damage.
In this article, we use the largest recent Russian war games on NATO's eastern borders, the 'Zapad 2017' military exercise, as an example to show how to interpret fear narratives. We identify and analyse three strategic narratives that were formulated by Russian official spokespeople in relation to the exercise and uncover some of their underlying meaning-making tendencies: the logic of antithesis, affirmation through negation, and the rhetoric of moral victimhood. Our analysis sheds new light on the uses of fear discourses that are more sophisticated and indirect than straightforward threats or (rhetorical) demonstrations of power to inflict damage.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Strategy (Military Science), International Relations, Communication, Media Studies, and 15 moreCritical Discourse Studies, Narrative, Propaganda, Cultural Semiotics, Information Warfare, Political communication, Strategic Communication, Critical Discourse Analysis, Information operations (IO), Military Simulations and Training, Russia, Political Uses of Fear, Political Discourse, Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, and Strategic Narratives
As millions of people were deeply concerned about the adverse effects of Brexit, the British government faced an acute blame risk after deciding to leave the EU. In this chapter, I identify the discursive strategies by which the top... more
As millions of people were deeply concerned about the adverse effects of Brexit, the British government faced an acute blame risk after deciding to leave the EU. In this chapter, I identify the discursive strategies by which the top officeholders who led Brexit tried to avoid blame for their divisive policy. I analyse their public statements to show how they used language to minimise the perceived agency of the government, downplay the contentiousness and harmfulness of their policy, present the UK in a positive and the EU in a negative light, and deal with charges of inconsistency.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Communication, Critical Discourse Studies, Rhetoric, British Politics, and 11 morePolitical communication, Argumentation, Political Rhetoric, European Union, Critical Discourse Analysis, European Union Politics, Political Discourse, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, and Brexit
In this paper, I seek to advance blame avoidance scholarship by introducing to its analytical toolbox useful conceptual instruments from linguistically informed discourse studies. Based on a multidisciplinary literature review, I show how... more
In this paper, I seek to advance blame avoidance scholarship by introducing to its analytical toolbox useful conceptual instruments from linguistically informed discourse studies. Based on a multidisciplinary literature review, I show how the discursive study of policy-related blame games is situated within the wider scholarship dealing with a variety of blame phenomena.
I provide an inventory of the micro-level building blocks of blame games: discursive strategies of persuasion, and narratives of cause, failure, and scandal. I suggest that by treating government blame games as mediated 'language games', policy scholars can complement the analysis of various political variables traditionally discussed in policy literature with detailed understanding of the micro-politics of presentational blame avoidance.
I provide an inventory of the micro-level building blocks of blame games: discursive strategies of persuasion, and narratives of cause, failure, and scandal. I suggest that by treating government blame games as mediated 'language games', policy scholars can complement the analysis of various political variables traditionally discussed in policy literature with detailed understanding of the micro-politics of presentational blame avoidance.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Public Administration, Critical Discourse Studies, Rhetoric, Accountability, and 15 morePolitical Science, Political communication, Critical Discourse Analysis, Public Policy Analysis, Public Sector Accountability, Moral Blame, Mediatization (Communication Studies), Political Discourse, Scandals, Political Scandals, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Public Administration and Policy, Government Communication, and Public Policy
Modern executive politics is characterised by blame games – offensive and defensive symbolic performances by various individual or collective social actors. In this article, I propose a discursive approach to analysing... more
Modern executive politics is characterised by blame games – offensive and defensive symbolic performances by various individual or collective social actors. In this article, I propose a discursive approach to analysing opposition–government blame games where top politicians try to persuade mass audiences to side with them in disputes over government's culpability by using carefully crafted written texts.
Drawing insights and concepts from the tradition of discourse-historical studies into political communication as well as the recent literature on blame avoidance in government, I analyse conflicting opinion pieces published by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the UK in the wake of the global financial crisis that developed since 2007.
I present a basic functional argument model of attributing and avoiding blame, reconstruct the competing argumentation schemes that help us interpret public debates over the crisis, and show how blame is attached or deflected using various persuasive discursive devices, such as metaphors, lexical cohesion, and ways of framing and positioning, that underlie particular attacks, justifications, or excuses. In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of looking beyond the formal structure of the arguments to identify the more subtle emotional appeals used in government-related blame games.
Drawing insights and concepts from the tradition of discourse-historical studies into political communication as well as the recent literature on blame avoidance in government, I analyse conflicting opinion pieces published by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the UK in the wake of the global financial crisis that developed since 2007.
I present a basic functional argument model of attributing and avoiding blame, reconstruct the competing argumentation schemes that help us interpret public debates over the crisis, and show how blame is attached or deflected using various persuasive discursive devices, such as metaphors, lexical cohesion, and ways of framing and positioning, that underlie particular attacks, justifications, or excuses. In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of looking beyond the formal structure of the arguments to identify the more subtle emotional appeals used in government-related blame games.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Rhetoric (Languages and Linguistics), Media Studies, Critical Discourse Studies, Political Behavior, and 23 moreGovernment, British Politics, Political communication, Applied Linguistics, Argumentation, Critical Discourse Analysis, Political Communication (Communication), Political Discourse Analysis, Persuasion, Argumentation Theory, Argumentation Theory and Critical Thinking, Financial Crisis of 2008/2009, Argument Structure, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse, Stephen Toulmin, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, Blame Attribution, Public Communication. Political Communication, Strategic Maneuvering, and Public Policy
In this chapter, I provide suggestions as to how communication practices of executive government institutions could be conceptualised and operationalised for a discourse analytic study. I delineate several competing ways in which scholars... more
In this chapter, I provide suggestions as to how communication practices of executive government institutions could be conceptualised and operationalised for a discourse analytic study. I delineate several competing ways in which scholars have written about government communication, flesh out three example analyses of government officeholders' strategic language use, and point at some conflictual aspects of government communication that would merit further linguistic study.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Rhetoric (Languages and Linguistics), Public Administration, Communication, Critical Discourse Studies, and 21 morePragmatics, Government, Propaganda, Political Science, Public Relations, Politics, Political communication, Applied Linguistics, Critical applied linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, Communication Theory, Political Communication (Communication), Democracy, Political Discourse Analysis, Persuasion, Public Sector Accountability, Political Discourse, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, and Public Communication. Political Communication
In this article, I argue that when officeholders try to avoid blame, they often engage in defensive performances which can be analysed in terms of how they exploit various multimodal semiotic resources to ward off (potential) criticism:... more
In this article, I argue that when officeholders try to avoid blame, they often engage in defensive performances which can be analysed in terms of how they exploit various multimodal semiotic resources to ward off (potential) criticism: the setting, appearance, and manner chosen for a particular interaction with an audience; and both verbal and non-verbal ways of arguing, legitimising, framing, and representing social actors and actions.
I apply these analytic categories to interpret the data gathered during fieldwork at a major training event of British government communicators. By combining insights from multimodal discourse analysis, discourse-historical studies of organisational behaviour, and recent research into blame avoidance in public administration, I demonstrate how certain semiotic strategies used by officeholders have an effect of backgrounding the ideas about any possible norm violations that government communicators may have been associated with in the eyes of critical audiences, such as lying, spin doctoring, and using tax money for propaganda campaigns that may not actually serve the interests of the public.
I suggest that analysts of government communication should pay more attention to the defensive practices of government insiders, and study in great detail how these practices are incorporated into everyday behaviour through professional training.
I apply these analytic categories to interpret the data gathered during fieldwork at a major training event of British government communicators. By combining insights from multimodal discourse analysis, discourse-historical studies of organisational behaviour, and recent research into blame avoidance in public administration, I demonstrate how certain semiotic strategies used by officeholders have an effect of backgrounding the ideas about any possible norm violations that government communicators may have been associated with in the eyes of critical audiences, such as lying, spin doctoring, and using tax money for propaganda campaigns that may not actually serve the interests of the public.
I suggest that analysts of government communication should pay more attention to the defensive practices of government insiders, and study in great detail how these practices are incorporated into everyday behaviour through professional training.
Research Interests:
Organizational Behavior, Discourse Analysis, Semiotics, Sociology, Political Sociology, and 41 morePublic Administration, Communication, Critical Discourse Studies, Rhetoric, Language and Social Interaction, Animation, Pragmatics, Dramaturgy, Accountability, Visual Semiotics, Public Relations, Political communication, Applied Linguistics, Symbolic Interaction, Legitimacy, Argumentation, Critical Discourse Analysis, Visual Communication, Professional Development, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Multimodality, Impression Management, Social Semiotics, Responsibility, Erving Goffman, Symbolic Interactionism, Multimodal Communication, Moral Blame, Non Verbal communications, Framing, Bureaucracy, Political Discourse, Framing and agenda setting research, Theo Van Leeuwen, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Multimodal Discourse (Kress and Van Leeuwen), Government Communication, Visual Argumentation, Public Communication. Political Communication, and Verbal and nonverbal discourse strategies
Public communication practices of executive governments are often criticised by journalists, politicians, scholars, and other commentators. Therefore, government communication professionals routinely adopt various blame avoidance... more
Public communication practices of executive governments are often criticised by journalists, politicians, scholars, and other commentators. Therefore, government communication professionals routinely adopt various blame avoidance strategies, some of which are meant to 'stop blame before it starts' or to reduce their exposure to potential blame attacks. The linguistic aspects of such anticipative strategies are yet to be studied by discourse analysts.
I contribute towards filling this gap by showing how written professional guidelines for government communicators could be interpreted as complex discursive devices of anticipative blame avoidance. I outline historically and institutionally situated issues of blame that inform the occupational habitus of government communicators in the UK. I bring examples from their propriety guidelines to illustrate how the use of certain discursive strategies limits the possible perceived blameworthiness of individual officeholders. I conclude by explicating the discursive underpinnings of two common operational blame avoidance strategies in government: 'protocolisation' and 'herding'.
I contribute towards filling this gap by showing how written professional guidelines for government communicators could be interpreted as complex discursive devices of anticipative blame avoidance. I outline historically and institutionally situated issues of blame that inform the occupational habitus of government communicators in the UK. I bring examples from their propriety guidelines to illustrate how the use of certain discursive strategies limits the possible perceived blameworthiness of individual officeholders. I conclude by explicating the discursive underpinnings of two common operational blame avoidance strategies in government: 'protocolisation' and 'herding'.
Research Interests:
Critical Theory, Organizational Behavior, Discourse Analysis, Sociology, Policy Analysis/Policy Studies, and 32 morePublic Administration, Communication, Critical Discourse Studies, Rhetoric, Organizational Communication, Social Research Methods and Methodology, Social Identity, Accountability, British Politics, Public Relations, Political communication, Applied Linguistics, Argumentation, Rhetorical Criticism, Critical Discourse Analysis, Habitus, Language in Society, Pierre Bourdieu, Communities of practice, Sociology of Professions, Linguistics, Impression Management, Responsibility, Public Sector Accountability, Moral Blame, Bureaucracy, Government transparency, Professionalization, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, and Public Communication. Political Communication
Oversupply of information, irrelevance, and repetition in political and administrative text and talk have received considerable scholarly attention, but the tendency to date has been to analyse these phenomena separately. In this article,... more
Oversupply of information, irrelevance, and repetition in political and administrative text and talk have received considerable scholarly attention, but the tendency to date has been to analyse these phenomena separately. In this article, I argue that it would be fruitful to explore these aspects in combination, as constitutive dimensions of calculated overcommunicative behaviour in public administration.
Based on a multidisciplinary review of literature on cognitive manipulation, prolixity, (ir)relevance, discourse repetition, and administrative behaviour, I propose an original ‘overcommunication framework’ for explicating certain discursive macro-strategies of positive self-presentation used by public officeholders. In particular, I discuss how governments may use calculated overcommunication to avoid or deflect blame, to signal democratic openness, and to perform swiftness.
By problematising the notion of ‘overcommunication’ and introducing it into discourse studies, I seek to open up new avenues of understanding and investigating political and organisational communication.
Based on a multidisciplinary review of literature on cognitive manipulation, prolixity, (ir)relevance, discourse repetition, and administrative behaviour, I propose an original ‘overcommunication framework’ for explicating certain discursive macro-strategies of positive self-presentation used by public officeholders. In particular, I discuss how governments may use calculated overcommunication to avoid or deflect blame, to signal democratic openness, and to perform swiftness.
By problematising the notion of ‘overcommunication’ and introducing it into discourse studies, I seek to open up new avenues of understanding and investigating political and organisational communication.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Public Administration, Communication, Media Studies, Critical Discourse Studies, and 38 moreOrganizational Communication, Political Behavior, Pragmatics, Government, Propaganda, Accountability, Public and Political Communication, Relevance Theory, Political communication, Argumentation, Rhetorical Criticism, Deception / Lying (Deception Lying), Critical Discourse Analysis, Cognitive Linguistics, H.P. Grice, Linguistics, Democracy, Manipulation (Psychology), Political Discourse Analysis, Persuasion, Argumentation Theory and Critical Thinking, Impression Management, Manipulation in Discourse, Symbolic Interactionism, Public Sector Accountability, Deception, Information Overload, Bullshit Studies, Repetition, Government transparency, News Values, Scandals, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, Teun A. Van Dijk, Overcommunication, Tellability, and Irrelevance
Governments’ policies and actions often precipitate public blame firestorms and mediated scandals targeted at individual or collective policy makers. In the face of losing credibility and resources, officeholders are tempted to apply... more
Governments’ policies and actions often precipitate public blame firestorms and mediated scandals targeted at individual or collective policy makers. In the face of losing credibility and resources, officeholders are tempted to apply strategies of blame avoidance which permeate administrative structures, operations and language use.
Linguistic aspects of blame avoidance are yet to be studied by discourse analysts in great detail. In this article, I contribute to filling this gap in knowledge by proposing an improved heuristic for understanding typical macroconversational discursive practices adopted by officeholders in the circumstances of blame risk to achieve the goal of positive self-presentation.
Based on a multidisciplinary review of scholarly literature, I show how personal and institutional risk aversion involves the application of certain strategies of argumentation, framing, denial, social actor and action representation, legitimation and manipulation. I use concrete textual examples from public statements of UK government officeholders to illustrate how blame avoidance works at the highest level of administration.
I argue that to understand blame avoidance as a dominant recurring theme in public communication we should look beyond current linguistic approaches to conflict talk. This could lead to the application of new useful analytic tools within discourse studies and open new avenues of critical research into language use in politics and bureaucratic organisations.
Linguistic aspects of blame avoidance are yet to be studied by discourse analysts in great detail. In this article, I contribute to filling this gap in knowledge by proposing an improved heuristic for understanding typical macroconversational discursive practices adopted by officeholders in the circumstances of blame risk to achieve the goal of positive self-presentation.
Based on a multidisciplinary review of scholarly literature, I show how personal and institutional risk aversion involves the application of certain strategies of argumentation, framing, denial, social actor and action representation, legitimation and manipulation. I use concrete textual examples from public statements of UK government officeholders to illustrate how blame avoidance works at the highest level of administration.
I argue that to understand blame avoidance as a dominant recurring theme in public communication we should look beyond current linguistic approaches to conflict talk. This could lead to the application of new useful analytic tools within discourse studies and open new avenues of critical research into language use in politics and bureaucratic organisations.
Research Interests:
Discourse Analysis, Rhetoric (Languages and Linguistics), Public Administration, Communication, Critical Discourse Studies, and 37 moreOrganizational Communication, Government, Qualitative methodology, Conflict, Accountability, Crisis communication and management, British Politics, Political Science, Public and Political Communication, Language and Power, Political communication, Political Legitimacy, Argumentation, Rhetorical Criticism, Political Rhetoric, Critical Discourse Analysis, Qualitative Research, Language in Society, Linguistics, Political Discourse Analysis, Corporate Reputation, Responsibility, Justifications and Excuses, Manipulation in Discourse, Public Sector Accountability, Financial Crisis, George Lakoff, Moral Blame, Pragma-Dialectics, Social Conflict, Blame, Scandals, Theo Van Leeuwen, Discourse-Historical Approach, Blame Avoidance, Government Communication, and Teun_A._Van_Dijk
It is not hyperbolic to claim that in recent years we have witnessed an explosion of new academic publications on conspiracies. Comprehensive volumes edited by Uscinski (2018) and Butter and Knight (2020) have covered the topic from... more
It is not hyperbolic to claim that in recent years we have witnessed an explosion of new academic publications on conspiracies. Comprehensive volumes edited by Uscinski (2018) and Butter and Knight (2020) have covered the topic from multiple disciplinary and geographical perspectives. Philosophers have debated the nature of conspiracy theories (Coady, 2019), a stream of psychologically informed research has explored the causes of people's 'conspiracy beliefs' or 'conspiracy thinking' (e.g., van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018; Douglas et al., 2019; Walter & Drochon, 2020), and scholars of politics have dissected the effects of conspiracies on democratic life (e.g., Runciman, 2018; Rosenblum & Muirhead, 2020). One might rightfully ask: is there anything original and useful left to say about conspiracies?