Proximization Theory: Proximization Theory: Conceptual Foundations and Conceptual Foundations and

Empirical FieldsEmpirical Fields

Piotr CapPiotr Cap

University of ŁódźUniversity of Łódźhttp://ia.uni.lodz.pl/anglistyka/ZPJ?piotr_caphttp://ia.uni.lodz.pl/anglistyka/ZPJ?piotr_cap

PProximizationroximization as a concept: as a concept: a non-technical descriptiona non-technical description

• LLegitimization egitimization strategystrategy in political in political interventionist discourseinterventionist discourse involving THEM involving THEM (‘bad’) vs. US (‘good’) opposition(‘bad’) vs. US (‘good’) opposition

• SStrategy trategy of of prespresenting THEM’s actionsenting THEM’s actions as as increasingly increasingly closer/consequential/threatening to UScloser/consequential/threatening to US

• Strategy of evoking fear appeals to solicit Strategy of evoking fear appeals to solicit legitimization of pre-emptive responselegitimization of pre-emptive response

Proximization as a theory: Proximization as a theory: (inter)disciplinary components(inter)disciplinary components

• Forced construals of DS organization (UScenter; Forced construals of DS organization (UScenter; THEMperiphery) and changes in this organization THEMperiphery) and changes in this organization (THEM encroaching upon US) – (THEM encroaching upon US) – cognitivecognitive domains/levels of space, time, valuedomains/levels of space, time, value

• Strategic deployment of set amounts of lexical Strategic deployment of set amounts of lexical choices (derived from the 3 domains) to force choices (derived from the 3 domains) to force specific construals to fit the changing contextual specific construals to fit the changing contextual requirements – requirements – pragmaticpragmatic and and lexicallexical levels levels

• Pragmatics – ‘upward’ link to the cognitive; Pragmatics – ‘upward’ link to the cognitive; ‘downward’ link to the lexical‘downward’ link to the lexical

Two examples reflecting proximization Two examples reflecting proximization (corpus – American anti-terrorist (corpus – American anti-terrorist rhetoric 2001-2010, c. 400 presidential rhetoric 2001-2010, c. 400 presidential speeches)speeches)• Example 1 (G.W.Bush, 26 Feb 2003)Example 1 (G.W.Bush, 26 Feb 2003)

On a September morningOn a September morning, threats that had , threats that had gathered for years, in secret and far away, led to gathered for years, in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scalemurder in our country on a massive scale (…) (…) OOur ur country is a battlefieldcountry is a battlefield in the in the first war of the 21first war of the 21stst centurycentury (…) T (…) The dangers of our time must be he dangers of our time must be confronted forcefully, before confronted forcefully, before we see themwe see them again again in in our skies and our citiesour skies and our cities. Saddam Hussein and . Saddam Hussein and his his weapons of mass destruction weapons of mass destruction are a are a direct direct threatthreat to our people and to all free people. to our people and to all free people.

Two examples reflecting proximization Two examples reflecting proximization (corpus – American anti-terrorist (corpus – American anti-terrorist rhetoric 2001-2010, c. 400 presidential rhetoric 2001-2010, c. 400 presidential speeches)speeches)• Example 2 (G.W. Bush, 19 Nov 2003)Example 2 (G.W. Bush, 19 Nov 2003)

This evil This evil [dictatorship, radicalism] [dictatorship, radicalism] might not have might not have reached us yetreached us yet but but it is in plain sight, as plain as the it is in plain sight, as plain as the horror sight of the collapsing towers.horror sight of the collapsing towers.

Different kinds of proximization following from Different kinds of proximization following from different contextual premises/requirements in different contextual premises/requirements in different phases of the legitimization period. different phases of the legitimization period. Premises here: WMD /no WMD.Premises here: WMD /no WMD.

(S)patio-(T)emporal proximization (S)patio-(T)emporal proximization vs (A)xiological proximizationvs (A)xiological proximization• Spatial proximization: Spatial proximization: forced construal offorced construal of THEMTHEM--

instigated eventsinstigated events/actions/actions as physically as physically endangering endangering US (viz. Example 1)US (viz. Example 1)

• Temporal proximization: Temporal proximization: forced construal of the forced construal of the NOW frame as NOW frame as the the moment moment for US for US to start action to start action to preempt the near future to preempt the near future THEM invasive action; THEM invasive action; symbolic centralization of the NOW (viz. Example symbolic centralization of the NOW (viz. Example 1)1)

vsvs• Axiological proximization: Axiological proximization: forced construal of forced construal of a a

gathering ideological gathering ideological cconflictonflict between between US US valuesvalues and THEM values, eventually materializing in and THEM values, eventually materializing in THEM physical impact upon US (viz. Example 2)THEM physical impact upon US (viz. Example 2)

(S)patio-(T)emporal proximization (S)patio-(T)emporal proximization vs (A)xiological proximization: why vs (A)xiological proximization: why ‘vs’?‘vs’?• Interventionist discourses show A’s compensatory Interventionist discourses show A’s compensatory

potential (for the loss of (premises for) S-T)potential (for the loss of (premises for) S-T)

• How to prove it? At lexico-grammatical level, through How to prove it? At lexico-grammatical level, through corpus counts of choices qualified as ‘spatial’, corpus counts of choices qualified as ‘spatial’, ‘temporal’, ‘axiological’. Compensatory regularities ‘temporal’, ‘axiological’. Compensatory regularities endorse the S-T-A model (legitimization constant, endorse the S-T-A model (legitimization constant, proximization types variable, context-driven, applied proximization types variable, context-driven, applied strategically - viz. titlestrategically - viz. title))

• We need 3 frameworks (S,T,A) that will (i) define We need 3 frameworks (S,T,A) that will (i) define lexico-grammatical choices as ‘spatial’, ‘temporal’, lexico-grammatical choices as ‘spatial’, ‘temporal’, ‘axiological’, and (ii) make the choices ‘axiological’, and (ii) make the choices quantifiablequantifiable members of S, T, and A framework categoriesmembers of S, T, and A framework categories

S and A frameworks, problems S and A frameworks, problems with T frameworkwith T framework

• S framework (skeleton version)S framework (skeleton version)

1.1. NPs construed as NPs construed as US, US, elements of the center of elements of the center of the DS the DS ((USAUSA, , American peopleAmerican people, , our people/nation/country/societyour people/nation/country/society, , free people/nations/countries/societies/worldfree people/nations/countries/societies/world, , democratic democratic people/nations/countries/societies/worldpeople/nations/countries/societies/world))

2.2. NPs construed as NPs construed as THEM, THEM, elements outside the elements outside the center of the DS center of the DS ((IraqIraq, , Saddam HusseinSaddam Hussein, , Iraqi Iraqi regime/dictatorshipregime/dictatorship, , terroriststerrorists, , terrorist organizations/networksterrorist organizations/networks, , extremists/radicalsextremists/radicals,, foreign regimes/dictatorships foreign regimes/dictatorships))

3.3. VPs of motion and directionality construed as VPs of motion and directionality construed as markers of movement of markers of movement of THEMTHEM towards towards US US [move [move along (with their plans to attack us), set their course (to attack us), along (with their plans to attack us), set their course (to attack us), head for confrontation (with us)]head for confrontation (with us)]

S and A frameworks, problems S and A frameworks, problems with T frameworkwith T framework

• A framework (skeleton version)A framework (skeleton version)

1.1. NPs construed as NPs construed as US valuesUS values (freedom, democracy, justice, (freedom, democracy, justice, progress)progress)

2.2. NPs construed as NPs construed as THEM values (dictatorship, radicalism, THEM values (dictatorship, radicalism, extremism)extremism)

3.3. Discourse structures involving the materialization of Discourse structures involving the materialization of ideological conflict in the form of physical clash (recall ideological conflict in the form of physical clash (recall Example 2)Example 2)

This evil This evil [dictatorship, radicalism] [dictatorship, radicalism] might not have reached us might not have reached us yetyet but but it is in plain sight, as plain as the horror sight of the it is in plain sight, as plain as the horror sight of the collapsing towers.collapsing towers.

T framework: RT or CT markers?T framework: RT or CT markers?

• Real time markers (grammatically sanctioned) against the Real time markers (grammatically sanctioned) against the idea of proximization as a symbolic construal operationidea of proximization as a symbolic construal operation

• Primacy of CT (= Husserl: CT ‘Primacy of CT (= Husserl: CT ‘offsetsoffsets’’ the RT the RT ‘‘deficitdeficit’’ of of the imperceptibility of all events at one timethe imperceptibility of all events at one time, CT has RT , CT has RT dated events ‘come to us’ – ski lift metaphor, events = dated events ‘come to us’ – ski lift metaphor, events = skiers latching on – reflecting the mechanism of skiers latching on – reflecting the mechanism of proximization, ‘perception’ of the entire (compressed) proximization, ‘perception’ of the entire (compressed) time axis) time axis)

BUT BUT

• How to abstract construed time markers?How to abstract construed time markers?

T framework: A CT marker T framework: A CT marker candidate?candidate?

Bush 2002-2003: Bush 2002-2003: AA September morningSeptember morning

• CT marker CT marker AA ‘making sense of’, profiling RT instant ‘making sense of’, profiling RT instant September morningSeptember morning to make the CT+RT phrase to make the CT+RT phrase meaning a forensic/epideictic/deliberative blendmeaning a forensic/epideictic/deliberative blend

• T framework members: CT+RT phrases construing T framework members: CT+RT phrases construing imminence (and thus, construing NOW as pre-imminence (and thus, construing NOW as pre-emption frame) through forced indefiniteness of RT emption frame) through forced indefiniteness of RT instants (e.g. phrases including nominalizations as instants (e.g. phrases including nominalizations as

CT markers (‘threat’);CT markers (‘threat’); phrases including modal phrases including modal auxiliaries as CT markers (‘could’))auxiliaries as CT markers (‘could’))

Core of STA: capturing compensatory Core of STA: capturing compensatory potential (to ensure constancy of potential (to ensure constancy of legitimization) of the 3 kinds of legitimization) of the 3 kinds of proximizationproximization

Departure from S/T proximization around Departure from S/T proximization around December 2003, sample 2003:2004 lexical drops:December 2003, sample 2003:2004 lexical drops:

• Iraq Iraq 330 (hits): 165330 (hits): 165

• terrorists terrorists 255:112255:112

• headhead (or syn. VP) (or syn. VP) toward toward (or syn. PP) (or syn. PP) tragedy tragedy (or syn. NP) (or syn. NP) 126: 41126: 41

• destroy destroy (of THEM) 105:30(of THEM) 105:30

• use use (or syn.) (or syn.) WMD WMD (by THEM) 88:6 (by THEM) 88:6

Core of STA: capturing compensatory Core of STA: capturing compensatory potential (to ensure constancy of potential (to ensure constancy of legitimization) of the 3 kinds of legitimization) of the 3 kinds of proximizationproximizationSample compensation: ‘Axiological proximization Sample compensation: ‘Axiological proximization

formula’:formula’:

TThis evil his evil THEM-ideologyTHEM-ideology NP NP

might not have reached us yetmight not have reached us yet remote possibility VPremote possibility VP

but but remote possibility – actual occurrence transition pointremote possibility – actual occurrence transition point

it is in plain sight, it is in plain sight, actual occurrence VPactual occurrence VP

as plain as the horror sight of the collapsingas plain as the horror sight of the collapsing towerstowers.. NP expressing (effect of) NP expressing (effect of) THEMTHEM--USUS physi physical clashcal clash

2003: 7 hits …. 2004: 63 hits!!2003: 7 hits …. 2004: 63 hits!!

What has STA demonstrated wrt What has STA demonstrated wrt interventionist discourses like interventionist discourses like American anti-terrorist discourse 2001-American anti-terrorist discourse 2001-2010?2010?

- interventionist solicitation of - interventionist solicitation of legitimization first relies on material legitimization first relies on material premises since they are initially easier premises since they are initially easier to obtain and possess a more direct to obtain and possess a more direct appeal to the audience which grants an appeal to the audience which grants an immediate approval of the speaker’s immediate approval of the speaker’s actions actions BUT BUT … …

What has STA demonstrated wrt What has STA demonstrated wrt interventionist discourses like interventionist discourses like American anti-terrorist discourse 2001-American anti-terrorist discourse 2001-2010?2010?

- contextual (geopolitical) changes may contextual (geopolitical) changes may have the initial premise disappear have the initial premise disappear SO SO

- compensation from axiological premises:compensation from axiological premises: A groundworks are, i) less vulnerable to A groundworks are, i) less vulnerable to

geopolitical changes, ii) they set up geopolitical changes, ii) they set up discourses which are essentially abstract discourses which are essentially abstract and involve less specific interpretations and involve less specific interpretations (viz. „threat”, „danger”) – despite moving (viz. „threat”, „danger”) – despite moving to a new premise, it is possible to save the to a new premise, it is possible to save the logic of the initial premise!logic of the initial premise!

Further applications of Further applications of (STA?) proximization(STA?) proximization

• Theory of political (interventionist) Theory of political (interventionist) discourse?discourse?

• Theory of political / public space Theory of political / public space (public policy) discourse?(public policy) discourse?

• (Eventually?) Theory of (Eventually?) Theory of communication?communication?

(viz. deictic grounding of the STA (viz. deictic grounding of the STA model)model)

Further applications of Further applications of (STA?) proximization(STA?) proximization

• Health (legitimization in „war-on-Health (legitimization in „war-on-cancer”)cancer”)

Some say we can contain melanoma with standard chemotherapy Some say we can contain melanoma with standard chemotherapy measures. The evidence we have says measures. The evidence we have says we must strike it with a we must strike it with a full force in its full force in its earliestearliest stages stages. We will continue to conduct . We will continue to conduct screening programmes to spot screening programmes to spot the deadly disease the deadly disease before it has before it has spread throughout the bodyspread throughout the body. We must be able to wipe out all the . We must be able to wipe out all the infected cells infected cells in one strike, otherwise it takes a moment in one strike, otherwise it takes a moment before before they continue to they continue to replicate and migrate around the bodyreplicate and migrate around the body. We . We nownow aim to develop a aim to develop a newnew treatment that targets the infected cells treatment that targets the infected cells with precision, effectively destroying the engine at the heart of with precision, effectively destroying the engine at the heart of the disease, and doing the disease, and doing minimal harm to healthy cellsminimal harm to healthy cells.. ( (British British Association of Cancer ResearchAssociation of Cancer Research 2010) 2010)

Further applications of Further applications of (STA?) proximization(STA?) proximization

Environment: climate change discourseEnvironment: climate change discourse

(A.F. Rasmussen 2009)(A.F. Rasmussen 2009)

•WWe e nownow know enough to start moving from know enough to start moving from analysis to analysis to actionaction. Because the . Because the trend lines trend lines from from climate change are climate change are clear enoughclear enough, and , and grimgrim enough, that we need to begin taking active enough, that we need to begin taking active steps to deal with this steps to deal with this developing developing global threatglobal threat..

Further applications of Further applications of (STA?) proximization(STA?) proximization• When it comes to climate change, When it comes to climate change, the the

threat knows no bordersthreat knows no borders.. We may not We may not yet know the precise effects, the exact yet know the precise effects, the exact costs or the definite dates of how costs or the definite dates of how climate change will affect security. But climate change will affect security. But we already know enough to start taking we already know enough to start taking action. This is my first point: action. This is my first point: either we either we start to pay now, or we will pay much start to pay now, or we will pay much more latermore later..

Further applications of Further applications of (STA?) proximization(STA?) proximization

• Climate change is different than any other Climate change is different than any other threat threat we face todaywe face today. The science is not yet perfect. The . The science is not yet perfect. The effects are just starting to be visible, and it’s effects are just starting to be visible, and it’s difficult to pin down what will actually change difficult to pin down what will actually change because of climate change. The because of climate change. The timelines are not timelines are not clearclear either. But either. But that only makes the threat that only makes the threat biggerbigger.. […] […] The challenges being discussed today The challenges being discussed today are are big, and they are growingbig, and they are growing. . Anything’s Anything’s possible.possible.

(T-proximization: indefinite Future mobilizing resources in the Now)

Further applications of (STA?) Further applications of (STA?) proximization – prospects, empirical proximization – prospects, empirical fields – CDS domainsfields – CDS domains

• CDS explorCDS explores es ways in which ideologies and identities ways in which ideologies and identities are reflected, enacted, negotiated, reproduced, etc., in are reflected, enacted, negotiated, reproduced, etc., in dichotomous dichotomous discoursediscourse space (DS) (racism, space (DS) (racism, xenophobia, intra-national vs. national vs. inter-xenophobia, intra-national vs. national vs. inter-national identity, gender (in-)equalities…)national identity, gender (in-)equalities…)

• Thus:Thus: any “doing” of CDS must involve, studying any “doing” of CDS must involve, studying original positioning of different ideologies and identitiesoriginal positioning of different ideologies and identities andand studying the “target positioning”, the changestudying the “target positioning”, the change taking place through the speaker’s use of discoursetaking place through the speaker’s use of discourse;;

• ThusThus:: doing CDS means, eventually, handling issues of doing CDS means, eventually, handling issues of the Dthe DS S re-arrangement.re-arrangement. Proximization adds to CDS Proximization adds to CDS tools, while CDS informs proximization as a theory.tools, while CDS informs proximization as a theory.

Further applications of (STA?) Further applications of (STA?) proximization – problems with the proximization – problems with the current modelcurrent model

• PProposing a DS conception universal enough roposing a DS conception universal enough to handle to handle different ranges of the deictic center different ranges of the deictic center and the deictic periphery, in particular and the deictic periphery, in particular discoursesdiscourses..

• US/THEM in political interventionist rhetoric, US/THEM in political interventionist rhetoric, cancer treatment, environmental discourse, cancer treatment, environmental discourse, etc. are NOT conceptually the same (viz. etc. are NOT conceptually the same (viz. Cancer. US: Healthy cells? Body? Surgeon? Cancer. US: Healthy cells? Body? Surgeon? THEM: Develop THEM: Develop insideinside the body). the body).

• The DS problem The DS problem will continue to grow as more will continue to grow as more discourses are investigateddiscourses are investigated..

Selected bibliography:Selected bibliography:

• Boykoff, M. 2008. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK Boykoff, M. 2008. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. tabloids. Political Geography Political Geography 27: 549-569.27: 549-569.

• Cap, P. 2008. Towards the proximization model of the analysis of Cap, P. 2008. Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse. legitimization in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics 40: 17-4140: 17-41..

• Cap, P. 2010. Axiological aspects of proximization. Cap, P. 2010. Axiological aspects of proximization. Journal of Pragmatics Journal of Pragmatics 42: 392-407.42: 392-407.

• Cap, P. 2013. Cap, P. 2013. Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsAmsterdam: John Benjamins

• Cap, P. & U. Okulska (eds.) 2013. Cap, P. & U. Okulska (eds.) 2013. Analyzing Genres in Political Analyzing Genres in Political CommunicationCommunication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Chilton, P. 2004. Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and PracticeAnalysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: . London: Routledge.Routledge.

• Chilton, P. 2005. Discourse Space Theory: Geometry, brain and shifting Chilton, P. 2005. Discourse Space Theory: Geometry, brain and shifting viewpoints. viewpoints. Annual Review of Cognitive LinguisticsAnnual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116. 3: 78-116.

• Chilton, P. 2010. From mind to grammar: Coordinate systems, prepositions, Chilton, P. 2010. From mind to grammar: Coordinate systems, prepositions, constructions. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds.), constructions. In V. Evans and P. Chilton (eds.), Language, Cognition and Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New DirectionsSpace: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox.. London: Equinox.

Selected bibliography, ctd.:Selected bibliography, ctd.:

• Chilton, P. 2011. Deictic Space Theory (DST): The fundamental theory and its Chilton, P. 2011. Deictic Space Theory (DST): The fundamental theory and its applicationsapplications. . Paper at the 42nd Poznań Linguistic Meeting, Poznań, 1-3 May Paper at the 42nd Poznań Linguistic Meeting, Poznań, 1-3 May 2011.2011.

• Cienki, A., B. Kaal and E. Maks. 2010. Cienki, A., B. Kaal and E. Maks. 2010. Mapping world view in political texts Mapping world view in political texts using Discourse Space Theory: Metaphor as an analytical tool. Paper using Discourse Space Theory: Metaphor as an analytical tool. Paper presented at RaAM 8 conference, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.presented at RaAM 8 conference, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

• Dunmire, P. 2011. Dunmire, P. 2011. Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrineof the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

• Gavins, J. 2007. Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory. An Introduction. Text World Theory. An Introduction. Edinburg: Edinburgh Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.University Press.

• Hart, C. Hart, C. 2010.2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse.Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Van Rijn-van Tongeren, G. 1997. Van Rijn-van Tongeren, G. 1997. Metaphors in Medical TextsMetaphors in Medical Texts. Amsterdam: . Amsterdam: Rodopi.Rodopi.

• Werth, P. 1999. Werth, P. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.