Discourse Analysis of Trumps North Korea Interactions

plow depth psychology of hooters North Korea InteractionsThe projection of advocator in unite States-North Koreacontemporary interactionsIntroductionLanguage has an inseparable role in the projection of political power (Foucault in Pitsoe and Letseka, 2012). Besides beingness an instrument for communication, it also serves as a tool for projecting power, (Bordieu, 1977), delineation certain image to the audience and turning the publics attention to f arewellicular matters (Behr, Iyengar and Cohen cited in Sirin and Villalobos, 2018). Also, language bay window be a tool for power to realize what it is know as the retentivity of common sense (Jones andWareing, 1999, p. 34), so as to convey certain ideology to the extent of it being voluntarily needed by the public as part of shared system of principles, what Fairclough calls the manufacture of consent (2001, p. 3). Already a controversial public figure, Donald scoop, since the very beginning of his mandate, has been cognis e for his contentious discourse. His inaugural linguistic process showed the offset printing signs of the ornatenessal rift (Sirin and Villalobos, 2018) from his predecessor, whose positive rhetoric greatly differs from surmounts negative and sharp statements. Even though it is non rare seeing saddle horn explicitly addressing other countries in a discrediting way (Watkins and Phillip, 2018) and despite the fact that US-North Korean relations take aim been tense since the Cold War (IBP USA, 2005), clean forms of communication, combined with the new US presidents fondness of public attention, among other factors, name generated a tug-of- fight situation around such risky issues as international security. The aim of this essay, thus, is to analyse how power is being projected in US-North Korea interactions finished discourse analysis.In terms of methodology, several texts leave alone be studied. Speeches pronounced by US President Donald Trump and North Korean government st atements have been chosen for this matter. Prior to our analysis, it is important to address the fact that North Korea public communication indications a high aim of censorship, scoring the last place in the Reporters without Borders 2017 World compact Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders, 2017). Regarding texts issued by the joined States side, the sources consulted have official status (The White shack and Donald Trumps official Twitter) but the Government of North Korea does not have an open-access official website in English. For this reason, the only primary source is the official newspaper of the Central commission of the Workers Party of Korea Rodong Sunmun. In terms of the procedure, the essay will be focalisationed firstly on a general study of the elements of communication secondly, it will consider grammar analysis and thirdly, aspects related to the lexical level will be addressed. This way, the projection of power will be assessed by these elements following a Critical Discourse Analysis model, as according to Simpson and Mayr it is the most comprehensive attempt to develop a theory of the interconnectedness of discourse, power, ideology and social structure (2010, p. 51).Discourse AnalysisElements of communicationFor this section, we will use,among others, the Jakobson criteria model presented in Barbara Johnstones bookDiscourse Analysis (Jakobson in Johnstone, 2002, p.220), which includesan addresser, an addressee and message. In the first linguistic process presented, Remarks by President Trump to the 72ndSession of the united Nations General Assembly (Trump, 2017) thesecomponents will play a very important role. The addresser is Donald Trump inthe sense that he is the direct source. However, in the first line, he statesthat it is a profound honorto stand here(predicate) in my home city, as a representative of the Ameri john tidy sum, to addressthe mass of the humans. (Trump, 2017). This is the first sign of powerprojection wi th this statement, Trump is implying that eitherthing he willmention fucks not only from him but is also shutdownorsed by the people in hiscountry. In other words, his message is not personal it comes from the UnitedStates to the ball and, indirectly, to North Korea. This is not the study withState of the Union Speech, as it is targeted at the United States in particularand not at an international organization as the United Nations. Thus, due tothe different nature of some(prenominal) communications, both messages will have differentrepercussions in terms of projection of power as thither is an increase in legitimacy by including addressees inthe message (Johnstone, 2002, p.46).In the case of North Korea examples, we see that Kim Jong-Un himself is hardly ever the person who directly conveys the message but a government official. In the first example, the addresser is the North Korean Ministry of immaterial Affairs. Nonetheless, in the other selected text, he is the one to de liver the response to Trumps speech in the Office of the United Nations, fact which could be considered as a way to project power itself, as he only speaks in very rare occasions (Smith, 2017) and this is one of them.Regarding the addressee, it is important to underline that there are some differences in terms of direct referencing. North Koreas discourse displays direct explicit references of the United States. In Trump speeches, however, this is highly dependent on the context where the discourse takes place. While speeches thought to be delivered in an international scenario, such as the one pronounced in the Office of the United Nations, feature a to a greater extent serious rhetoric, it is not uncommon to find direct descriptions, like Rocket Man in communications coming directly from Trump in more informal contexts or lines of communication, such as Twitter. On the other hand, as stated before, North Korea lacks this individual dimension as statements hardly ever come from i ts leader himself. It terms of projection of power, this clearly states a difference Donald Trump is a public figure, as the president of the United States but also, as an individual persona with his own opinions. Kim Jong-Un, on the other hand, not only is not separated from his position (he does not have a private channel of communication) but does not appear in the public international scenario. This way, an image of unreachability is portrayed, as if he did not participate directly in this issue. Finally, the channel of communicationis also worth mentioning. Donald Trump is an avid Twitter user (36,900 tweets)(Trump, 2018b), which can be used not only as a way of communication but alsoas a way of portraying influence. The very homogeneous act of communicating by socialmedia has a strong connotation in terms of projecting power. In the firstplace, due to its spontaneous nature, this tool enables to reach a high numberof people (Sirin and Villalobos, 2008) in seconds. Most import antly, joint discourseactivitycreates and affirmed shared membership in a community ofpractice (Wenger in Johnstone, 2002, p.116). Twitter has its own textual conventions. Due to its capacity of reach the public and the brevity of the messages, language tends to be direct and informal. Even though political discourse is highly stylized and predictable most of the time (Edelman in Lim, 2008, p. 4), it is highly noticeable how Trumps discourse through social media is nowhere near traditional presidential rhetoric and his remarks feature well-nigh bantering language. We can see this in the well-known nuclear button tweet, where he states that his button is bigger than the North Korean leaders (Trump, 2018b). It would be germane(predicate) to think that this is part of a political strategy in the sense that power can be projected by highly intellectual rhetoric but also by disregarding the formality aspect expected taking into account the type of interaction (Fairclough, 2001). In sim pler words, informal language could be used to downplay North Korean threats. On the other hand,North Koreas official channel of communication is a perfect example of one ofFaircloughs psyches. He supports that the access to discourse itself is as muchof a good as economic wealth (Fairclough, 2001). If one were to access theKorea Central News Agency, it would be unattainable to find much information, asaccess is highly restricted and the system does not allow to search for morethan a couple of statements if subscription is not paid. Thus, the channel ofcommunication is this case is a tool for projecting power by not providinginformation, being the exact opposite of Trumps case. GrammarAgency in voicesIn the first place, we are going to analyse these texts in terms of grammar as grammatical and semantic forms can be used as ideological instruments (Fowler et al. cited in Simpson and Mayr, 2010, p. 50). To let with, our study will focus on operation. Agency is expressed in grammar through the use of the passive or the active voice as this is a way to determine which participants are actors and which ones are the recipients of the action. One significant trait of the selected extracts from Trump is the lack of use of passive voice except for two cases which will be later addressed. We can see that in Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict (Trump, 2018a), where the fact that North Korea (or authoritarian regimes) is trying to end with the current state of peace is stated indirectly. Also Trump is making an implicit reference, which can be used in political discourse as a way to evade indebtedness (Simpson and Mayr, 2010, p.43). We find another example in this same text no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in North Korea. Again, the regime is the main actor through the use of personalization and the use of active voice. at that place is a change of meaning between citizens have been oppressed by the regime and the regime has oppressed the citizens as the centre of the action has been shifted. However, it is significant to draw a bead on out that the passive voice is used twice in the extract related to North Korea in the State of the Union speech (Trump, 2018a) and it is when Trump tells the written report of a North Korean defector (he was tortured by North Korean authorities and his father was caught trying to escape). In this part of the speech, the centre of the action has shifted through the use of passive voice and it is not the North Korean regime anymore but the defector. We can see how here the human factor is what is important, appealing to the more emotional aspect by making this defector the passive subject of the sentence. There aresimilar strategies in North Koreans response. While the majority of sentencesin the text are introduced by verbs in active voice, there are some cases wheresubjec ts have been changed into objects. We can see this in the prevailingserious circumstances, in which the situation on the Korean peninsula has beenrendered tense as never before (The New York Times, 2017). The gene isunknown, which can be, according to Johnstone, due to the fact that it is unknown,obviousorunimportant as well as a way of hidinganagentwhoisknown (2002, p. 46). However, althoughthe attempt to conceal the agent could be argued, it is noticeable that thesame verb (to render) has been used just a line below (Trump has rendered theworld restless through threats and blackmail against all countries in the world),this time in active voice, with a clear agent, establishing thus a direct linkbetween the alive tension and the Presidents actions. There is a similarcase Should theKorean peninsula and the world be embroiled in the crucible of nuclear warbecause of the reckless nuclear war mania of the U.S. (Rodong NewsTeam, 2017), wherethe use of the passive voice and the verb em broil suggest that this situationis almost circumstantial, as neitherKorea nor the world would be taking part in this conflict and would findthemselves in the middle of a war. Agency in pronounsAs Fairclough mentions, pronouns in English can establish different relations (2001). In Trumps statements, it is worth noting that the first person of the plural form appears throughout the whole text (i.e. our military will briefly be the strongest or the scourge of our planet). The sentence I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today, which belongs to the United Nations speech, is particularly revealing. With this statement, Trump is essentially conveying that North Korean threat is not only an attack to his country, but the addressees as well this matter involves the world and not just one nation. However, it is also important to point out that the use of the pronoun we, especially as inclusive, can be used to obscure responsibility and agency and a method to sha re responsibilities (Simpson and Mayr, 2010, p. 44). In this case, taking into consideration that the addressee is the United Nations and that Donald Trump does not usually hide his intentions towards North Korea, it would be more appropriate to think that he is trying to convey a message of unity against this country, an attempt to engage the rest of nations, instead of aiming at concealing his opinions. In consequence, by using this pronoun, power has shifted, as now it would not be US against North Korea but North Korea against the United Nations. Unlike Trumps statement at the United Nations,Kim Jong-Un response contains just one inclusive pronoun. As it has beenmentioned, it is very rare that the Korean leader himself delivers a speechpersonally. Nonetheless, he is the direct addresser in this response and heshows it by always using the pronoun I. This way, Kim Jong-Unsstatement is portrayed as a reaction toa personal attack. Trumps words were not only targeted atNorth Korea bu t his leader himself. Thus, the figure of the leader, alreadyvery prominent in this nation, is even more enhanced. Power, in this case, is portrayedby focusing the interaction solely onone (or two, with Trump) participants. LexicalaspectsWe have also regarded the analysis of vocabulary as something very relevant, as choices round grant and wording deciding what to call something can constitute a claim about it (Johnstone, 2002, p. 46) In this regard, we will consider referencing and metaphors. In other words, we will focus in the way each participant refers to the other. It is usual to find implicit referencing to North Korea in Trumps discourse and many times this is make using metaphors, which are well-known to the public such as the famous fire and fury (NBC News, 2017). In the selected texts, we can find that Trump talks about authoritarian regimes as the scourge of our planet (Trump, 2017) without mentioning directly North Korea. However, he mentions it a line below as a way of example. This strategy appears in Johnstones book Discourse Analysis under the name of presupposition, where the public is delivering information implicitly and leaving it to the hearer to deduce meaning and make assumptions (Johnstone, 2002, p.43). The same strategy is used the same text if the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. In this case, he refers to these regimes (and, ultimately, North Korea) as wicked but, more importantly, he is implicitly referring with the word righteous not only to himself, as taking into account that this speech is pronounced at the United Nations, this serves as an appeal to engage for the rest of countries. Lastly, in his speech for the State of the Unionof 2018, several references are made through metaphors which are related to theidea of North Korea being a nation deprived from freedom. We can see that inthe final part, where Trump tells the story of a North Korean defector, is ametaphor itself. This is becom es clear in the final sentence he states sayingthat Seong-hos tale is a testament to the yearning of every human soul tolive in freedom. Regarding North Korea, Kim Jong-Uns use of metaphors is also quite relevant. In the response speech (The New York Times, 2017), a constant metaphor exists in which the North Korean leader associates Trump with an animal, specifically, a dog. We can see that in the idiomatic sentence a frightened dog barks louder. This implicit reference becomes explicit at the end of the speech, (I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire), through the use of the verb to tame which, according to the Oxford Dictionary online, means make less powerful and easier to control but also to domesticate (an animal). He also uses the style with fire, retaking Trumps statement (fire and fury), which could be considered as a response. Also in this speech, we can see that, enchantment he refers to himself as a man representing the DPRK, app ealing to the Democratic in Democratic Popular Korean Republic he calls Trump the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the US, appealing to the fact that he is the sole person holding the power. In terms of projection of power, metaphors are an essential part of political discourse as they can change the addressees perspective on the referent or topic that is the target of the metaphor, by making the addressee look at it from a different conceptual domain or space (Steen, 2008, p.22) and an important means of conceptualizing political issues and constructing world views (Charteris-Black, 2004, p. 48). In this case, we can state that they are a resource to engrain in public opinion a certain association so the audience can identify an idea with a concept belonging to their reality, which Simpson and Mayr refer to as target domain and source domain respectively (2010, p.43).ConclusionsFrom our analysis we can conclude that power is being portrayed in the language of N orth Korea-US interactions in different ways in the first place, by an increase of legitimacy on the part of Donald Trump by including the American people and the United Nations as addressers. Secondly, by making explicit references. We see a change in the language of Donald Trump in cases where the addressees differ. While in an international context, references are more implicit, we see an explicitation process when the speech is pronounced at a national event or come through a personal way channel of communication.Thirdly, by restricting access to information. Finding official statements made by Donald Trump is much easier than purpose North Korean official sources. Information from this country, thus, would be reserved only to a few people. In this regard, the exposure to the public is also relevant. The North Korean leader does not appear usually in the media which, on the one hand, portrays an image of unreachability and, on the other, increases the importance of the occasion s when he does. Fourthly, by the position of agency through the use of active and voice and pronouns. Shifting agency is useful when portraying to the audience who does what. Lastly, through the use of metaphors, also present on both sides. While Trump intends to lead the public to assumptions and evoke the emotional side of the story, Kim Jong-Un uses this resource for the portrayal of authority downplaying Trumps and this, establishing an asymmetrical relation of power. As Simpson and Mayr state (2010, p.4) language is influenced by ideology. By analysing the elements studied in this essay, it can be said that ideology can also be touch on by language. In the case of United States-North Korean interactions, where current events keep changing the international scenario and taking into account that discourse is one of the principal activities through which ideology is circulated and reproduced (Foucault in Johnstone, 2002, p.45), it will be relevant to keep observing both countries discourse from the projection of power perspective. BibliographyBourdieu, P. (1977)Outlineofatheoryofpractice. CambridgeCambridgeUniversityPressCharteris-Black, J.(2004) Corpus Approaches to CriticalMetaphor Analysis. Basingstoke and New York Palgrave. MacmillanFairclough, N.(2001)Languageandpower. 2nd edition.London Longman IBP USA (2005)Us Korea North Political and EconomicRelations Handbook. Washington DC International Business Publications.Johnstone,B. (2002)DiscourseAnalysis.OxfordBlackwellJones, J.,S. Wareing (1999) Language and politics. In Thomas, L. and S. Wareing. eds. Language, society and power. London andNew York Routledge, pp. 31-47.Lim, E.T. (2008)Theanti-intellectualpresidency. New York Oxford University PressNBC News (2017) Donald Trump North Korea go forth Be Met With Fire And Fury online. uncommitted from Youtube accessed 3 February 2017Pitsoe, V.M.,Letseka(2012)Foucaults Discourse andPower Implications for Classroom Management. Open Journal of Philosophy, 3(1 ), pp. 23-28Reporters without Borders (2017) 2017 World Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without Borders online, 26 April. Available from https//rsf.org/en/ranking accessed 1 February 2018 Rodong News Team, (2017) FM Spokesman on Planned Joint Aerial Drill by U.S. and S. Korea. Rodong Sinmun online, 5 December. Available from accessed 31 January 2018Semino, E. (2008) Metaphorin Discourse. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Simpson, P., A. Mayr (2010) Language and power A resource book for students. London RoutledgeSirin, C. and Villalobos, J. (2018)Rhetoric,PublicPolitics, and Security. In Conley, R. ed.PresidentialLeadershipandNationalSecurityTheObama legacyandTrumpTrajectory. New York Routledge, pp. 19-42Smith, M. (2017) Kim Jong-Un calls Trumps UN speech declaration of war and brands US president mentally deranged in rare speech. The Daily Mirror online, 21 September. Available from accessed 3 February 2018Steen, G.J. (2008) The paradox of metaphor Why we need athree-dimensiona l model for metaphor in Metaphor& Symbol 23(4), 213-241.The New York Times (2017) wax Text of Kim Jong-uns Response to President Trump. The New York Times online, 22 September. Available from accessed 27 January 2018Trump, D.(2018a) President Donald J. Trumps Stateof the Union Address. Capitol Building, Washington, 31 January.Trump, D.(2017) Remarks by President Trump to the72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Office of the UnitedNations in New York, 19 September. Trump, D. (2018b) 2 January. Available at accessed 23 JanuaryWatkins, E., A. Phillip (2018) Trump decries immigrants from shithole countries coming to US. CNN online , 12 January. Available from accessed 5 February 2018