ABSTRACT
As John Whyte (1990: viii) notes, Northern Ireland is one of the most researched places in the world. Most studies on Northern Ireland are aimed at explaining the conflict by relying on sociological, political or economical theories. This research differs in its attempt to understand this conflict situation with reference to the different political perceptions or interpretations that may be voiced about the same reality. In doing so, this chapter looks at political discourse through a discourse analysis framework characterised by a deep linguistic foundation. Political discourse is a useful way of spreading political beliefs, which are mostly related to the identity shared by those involved in the communication process – something which becomes even more significant in conflict situations. This identity is evoked by means of the ideological beliefs which imbue a text and which can, in turn, be defined as mental representations that social groups have both about their own social practices and the practices of other groups in society (Van Dijk 1996: 12, 19). Therefore, the ideologies that underlie a text are frequently related to the construction of social and political groups; in most cases, they are determined by the position of the group in society and are framed ‘in relation to one or other group that are seen to threaten the basic interests of the own group’ (Van Dijk 1996: 19). These shared mental representations, which include ideological knowledge as well as more general and cultural knowledge, are known as ‘common ground’ (Van Dijk 2001). Mental representations perform an important function in the process of communication of political discourse as they involve the construction of a mental frame that is shared by the speaker (e.g. the politician) and the addressee. It is this shared identity between communicators which motivates the legitimising task of political discourse (Chilton 2004: 23). The objective of this chapter is to demonstrate how political discourse in Northern Ireland functions to legitimise specific actions or world views about reality, and to show how this function can be unveiled through careful linguistic analysis. It is important to note that such world views are frequently opposed on ideological, political and discursive grounds. Hence, it can be argued that the
aforementioned linguistic structures serve to establish a relationship between legitimisation and the creation of a ‘paradoxical reality’ that may be discursively transmitted (Aughey 2002: 2). Therefore, this chapter will compare how the representatives of the two main Northern Irish ideologies – nationalism and unionism – make use of those strategies to justify or oppose the 1998 Agreement. As noted by Hayward (Chapter 1), this can be explained by looking at the different meanings that are understood in relation to the ‘agreed terms’ encompassed in this accord.
