Suggest a plan of what else can be written to complete the research paper. Suggest a detailed plan and valuable ideas. ‘Us vs. Them’ Mentality and Communicative Strategies in American Political Discourse: A Functional-Linguistic Approach to Polarization


1. Introduction


The introduction to your article is well-structured and informative, providing a clear overview of the topic and its significance. However, there are a few areas where the text could be improved to enhance clarity and coherence. Here's a revised version with some suggestions:

The concept of 'us vs. them' mentality, or the tendency to view oneself and one's group as distinct from and superior to others, has been widely studied in various domains, such as politics, psychology, sociology, and communication. Researchers have argued that this mentality can have negative consequences for individuals and societies, including polarization, conflict, discrimination, and violence. However, the role of 'us vs. them' mentality in shaping the functional-pragmatic space of political discourse has received less attention compared to other contexts.

Political discourse, the use of language to communicate ideas, opinions, values, and interests related to political issues and actors, can be seen as a form of social interaction that shapes public opinion and policy outcomes. Lakoff (2008) describes contemporary American political discourse as a "framing war" between "conservatives" and "progressives," in which adversaries constantly try to impose their own frames, values, and narratives on the public. Central to this struggle are concepts essential to this form of communication, especially the ubiquitous opposition of "us vs. them" (Brewer 2001; Entman 2004; Iyengar 2019; Kinder, Kam 2009; Mason 2018; Theiss-Morse 2009).

At the heart of any culture lies the division of the world into the domains of "ours" / "own" / "good" / "orderly" and "theirs" / "alien" / "bad" / "disorderly" (Lakoff 2008). This opposition pervades every aspect of social and political life (Kinder, Kam 2009) and plays a crucial role in the self-identification of various political actors in contemporary America (Abramowitz, Saunders 2008; Baldassarri, Gelman 2008; Hetherington, Weiler 2009), particularly the two major parties (Republican and Democratic) that have dominated the political scene for decades (GOP since 1854; DNC since 1848). The fundamental, informational, and structural features of the "us versus them" concepts are clearly delineated in the platforms of these parties. For self-identification, each political group seeks to clearly distinguish its allies and enemies, as well as the social groups whose interests it claims to represent and defend.

One of the main functions of political discourse is to create a sense of identity and belonging among political actors and their supporters. This can be achieved by using linguistic devices that emphasize the differences between oneself and others, such as labels (e.g., liberals vs. conservatives), stereotypes (e.g., rich vs. poor), or metaphors (e.g., red vs. blue). These devices can also be used to challenge or undermine the legitimacy or credibility of opponents by exposing their perceived flaws or weaknesses. For example, a politician might accuse an opponent of being dishonest, corrupt, or incompetent by using words such as 'liar,' 'crook,' or 'fool.'

However, the effectiveness and appropriateness of linguistic devices that create 'us vs. them' distinctions may vary depending on different situations or contexts. Factors that may influence the choice and use of these devices include the level of formality or informality of the discourse (e.g., formal debates vs. casual conversations), the degree of agreement or disagreement between the speakers (e.g., allies vs. enemies), the purpose or goal of the discourse (e.g., persuasion vs. expression), and the audience or listeners (e.g., experts vs. laypeople). Moreover, linguistic devices may have different effects on different groups of people depending on their prior knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, emotions, values, identities, and experiences.

Polarization, a state in which the opinions, feelings, behaviors, or interests of a group or society become more bimodal and the two modes move further apart, can be categorized into specific types: ideological or preference polarization, affective polarization (or negative partisanship), residential or social polarization, and partisan polarization. In American politics, polarization has led to political gridlock, obstructionism, a decline in policy innovation, and even reduced public support for democracy. Recently, scholars have also explored polarization in US foreign policy, finding that Democrats and Republicans have grown further apart on international issues, mirroring their domestic divisions. However, questions about the scope and implications of polarization in US foreign policy remain to be fully answered.

Therefore, it is important to examine how 'us vs. them' mentality is expressed and perceived in political discourse from different perspectives and levels of analysis. This paper aims to fill this gap by applying a functional-linguistic approach to analyze how candidates for president in the 2020 US election used various linguistic devices to create 'us vs. them' distinctions with their opponents during televised debates.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the existing literature on the 'us vs. them' mentality in general and its manifestations in political discourse specifically; Section 3 describes the methodology used for data collection and analysis; Section 4 presents the results of the data analysis; Section 5 discusses the implications and limitations of the findings; Section 6 concludes with suggestions for future research.

By examining the use of 'us vs. them' mentality in American political discourse through a functional-linguistic lens, this study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the communicative strategies employed by political actors to shape public opinion, mobilize support, and influence policy outcomes. The findings of this study may also have practical implications for improving the quality and civility of political discourse, reducing polarization and conflict, and promoting more inclusive and collaborative forms of political engagement.

 
2. Theoretical Background

	2.1. Otherness, ‘us vs. them’ and polarization in discourse
Language, as a multifunctional tool, plays a central role in shaping social realities, influencing power structures, and contributing to the construction of identities (Wilmot et al., 2023). Berger and Luckmann (1966) emphasize that language not only facilitates communication but also serves as a medium through which power, multiple meanings, and ideologies are created and negotiated. Roberts (2021) and Śliwa & Johansson (2014) highlight how mastery of dominant language repertoires determines social positioning and institutional credibility, underscoring the sociopolitical implications of language use.  
Language and Otherness are intricately intertwined, creating and sustaining social interrelations in various ways. A key aspect is how language constructs the Other and sets up (in)visible social boundaries. Hozhabrossadat (2015) points out that language, as a dynamic and evolving entity, is a powerful tool for categorizing individuals into different language communities. This categorization, shaped by language ideologies and linguistic abilities, affects the inclusion or exclusion of individuals within specific language groups. The consequences are significant, as language can either foster solidarity or alienate individuals, making them the Other.
Kassis-Henderson and Cohen (2020) challenge the conventional view that superior language skills automatically grant status and privilege. They follow the dialectical perspective, inspired by dialogic scholars such as Bakhtin (1982) and Baxter (2004), which stresses the dynamic and continuous role of language in shaping identities. The dialectical approach highlights the simultaneous interaction of various forces, such as individual vs. societal, differences vs. similarities, privilege vs. disadvantage, exposing the inherent inequalities in societies. This perspective is a useful tool for understanding the complex factors that affect interactions among diverse language identities. Furthermore, the intersectionality approach (Zander et al., 2010) provides a lens to understand an individual’s combination of identities within the social system, revealing the relative significance of different linguistic features, the power structures, and conflicts in the domain of Otherness.
Yang & Chen (2021) regards ‘us vs. them’ as a polarizing discursive construction pivotal for the study of the national identity, which is arguably not a fixed or static concept, but rather a dynamic and relational one that is influenced by both internal and external factors. They propose that national identity can be understood as a formation of the self-other dialectic, in which, the notion of “us” and “them” is constantly created and recreated through language and social practice.  Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is recommended as a method to reveal how political actors use various discursive strategies to emphasize the positive aspects of the self and the negative aspects of the other, while downplaying the opposite (Oktar, 2001). It is suggested that such discursive practices serve to maintain, reproduce, and normalize a certain version of national identity, while excluding or marginalizing alternative or competing ones.
Building on this understanding of language’s profound impact on social dynamics and identity formation, it is crucial to explore how linguistic mechanisms contribute to the polarization and ‘us vs. them’ divisions prevalent in contemporary political discourse.
Hamed (2020) analyzes how discourse polarization pervades various societal domains. Polarization arises from the firm boundaries between distinct groups, based on factors like race, nationality, religion, and ideology. This division affects language use and societal attitudes and behaviors, creating a dichotomous worldview where one group is superior and the other is inferior. Language is a potent tool to fortify and sustain these divisions. Through linguistic techniques such as categorization and people’s description, individuals and groups are strategically portrayed, exaggerating their dissimilarities and accentuating the superiority of one group over another. Polarization reflects broader societal tensions and power struggles, entrenched prejudices, a fear of the other, and the perpetuation of hierarchies. Addressing these polarized ideologies is imperative for inclusivity, social cohesion, and a more equitable society.
Speaking about polarizing tendencies of modern Anglophone political and mass media discourse, Wodak (2008) uses term ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ to describe specific strategies aimed at discursive construction of in-groups and out-groups, related to linguistic techniques of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, such as praising the in-group’s achievements, values, and culture (e.g. ‘we are a proud nation with a rich history and a bright future’), criticizing the out-group’s actions, beliefs, and behavior (e.g. ‘they are a threat to our security, our freedom, and our way of life’). 
‘Us vs. them’ can also be used to justify actions and policies that favor the in-group and disadvantage the out-group, such as supporting the in-group’s interests, rights, and needs (e.g. ‘we deserve better education, health care, and jobs’) and denying the out-group’s claims, demands, and rights (e.g. ‘they are not entitled to any benefits, services, or citizenship’). 
Thus, polarization is a discursive strategy that creates a sharp contrast between two groups, often based on essentialist and stereotypical attributes. One of the consequences of polarization is the formation of ‘us vs. them’ categories. Polarization can be expressed through various language means, such as metaphors (e.g. ‘the clash of civilizations’), pronouns (e.g. ‘we’ vs. ‘they’), presuppositions (e.g. ‘as you know, they are not like us’), argumentation schemes (e.g. ‘if we do not act now, they will take over’)
Inclusion and exclusion are dynamic and context-dependent processes that determine who belongs and who does not belong to a certain group or society. The final consequence of inclusion and exclusion is the impact on the rights, opportunities, and well-being of individuals and groups. Inclusion and exclusion can be based on various criteria, such as ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, culture, gender, class, etc. Inclusion and exclusion can have significant consequences for the rights, opportunities, and well-being of individuals and groups (Van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 2008).
Oddo (2011) argues that a series of pragma-semantic elements within political discourse, which he calls ‘thematic formations’ of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, can perform an important function of legitimation and justification of certain political actions which might otherwise look questionable to the audience. 
Allen (2007) examines the ‘Us vs. Them’ conceptual framework in Australian political discourse and shows how language, especially pronouns, is used to construct and persuade diverse identities. Political discourse becomes more personality rather than ideologically driven and it leads to politicians’ deliberate construction of identities which voters can relate to and identify with. Allen claims that politicians rely on pronouns to appeal to a wide range of voters and influence their support.
Guttormsen (2015) highlights the dialectical relationship between identity formation and the construction of the Other. Othering processes, shaped by dominant social groups, create and reinforce boundaries between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’. The multidimensional nature of Otherness, as elucidated by Guttormsen (2018), underscores the contextual and intersectional dimensions of identity categories across various spatial and conceptual domains.
Leudar et al. (2004) apply the lens of Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) (Sacks, 1992) to examine the ‘us vs. them’ division, as it has valuable application to understanding how people categorize and create identities in everyday communication. According to MCA, ‘us’ and ‘them’ are membership categories, which are the most general categories individuals use in everyday interaction. These two categories have various functions, such as shaping moral, social, and religious characteristics; accomplishing rejections; recruiting allies; setting the groundwork for future actions, including violence.
Van Dijk (2005) examines how discourse creates and maintains the pragmatics of ‘Us vs. Them’ based on ideologies and political views. He defines ideologies as mental systems that organize group attitudes on socio-political issues, claiming that ideologies are learned through social interactions and influence the group’s identity, goals, norms, and values. For example, feminists may adhere to beliefs in equality and autonomy, while racists may espouse ideologies of superiority and exclusion. In this framework, ‘Us vs. Them’ dynamics arise from the mental representation of the in-group and the out-group, which are often contrasted in positive and negative terms, respectively, using lexical, pragmatic, and persuasive strategies. Van Dijk also shows how discourse expresses and reinforces ideologies through language and communication. For instance, lexicalization can encode ideological stances, such as the use of racist slurs or politically charged terms. Pragmatic strategies, such as disclaimers or blame transfer, can also enhance the positive self-presentation of the in-group and undermine the out-group. Van Dijk proves that discourse can manipulate mental models and comprehension by highlighting preferred information and omitting dispreferred information. This manipulation can occur through both explicit and implicit cues in discourse structures.
Thus, othering in discourse is an essential functional and pragmatic phenomenon that strategically constructs individuals or groups as fundamentally different from a specific group of people. It creates an ‘Other’ who is seen as separate, inferior, or alien, often resulting in their marginalization and exclusion. Language can facilitate othering by using linguistic markers or discursive strategies to highlight differences between the ‘Us’ and the ‘Them’/‘Other’.
Political discourse can employ various forms of othering, such as stereotypes, derogatory language, or exclusionary narratives that depict the Other as deviant or threatening. By doing so, individuals or groups aim to assert their superiority or legitimacy, while also strengthening social boundaries and power dynamics. Othering is not only a descriptive but also a performative act, as it affects social realities and interpersonal relationships, attitudes, and behaviors. It can be subtle and implicit, ingrained in everyday interactions and cultural norms, or explicit and overt, evident in discriminatory practices and institutional policies.
To understand othering in discourse, one needs to examine the linguistic and rhetorical strategies used to create and maintain group identities and boundaries. One also needs to acknowledge the wider social, historical, and ideological contexts in which othering takes place, as well as its consequences for social justice, inclusion, and collective identity formation.
On reviewing theoretical research sources, it is logical to conclude that there is a need for an additional methodological basis for exploring the concepts of ‘us vs. them’ and otherness. These concepts are grounded in the goal-setting processes that underlie the conscious communicative activities of individuals. Therefore, these concepts are relevant for analyzing the goals of speech interaction, the intentional selection of language techniques and means, and the construction of the functional-pragmatic space of discourse as well as the realization of the speaker’s communicative intentions. Hence, these concepts are of great interest from the viewpoints of two approaches: (1) functional-linguistic, which is capable of unpacking the mechanisms through which diametrically opposite views are expressed and perpetuated in political discourse, and (2) communicative-strategic, which deals with planning the persuasive aspect of a speech act and executing intentions.

	2.2. Communicative strategies and tactics
The study of communicative strategies in American political discourse is crucial, especially in the highly charged environment of adversarial and confrontational communication prevalent in today’s struggles for power amidst significant polarization of the society. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive yet concise theoretical foundation for this key concept. Due to its versatile nature and frequent interchangeability with terms like ‘speech strategy’ and ‘discourse strategy,’ the use of the word ‘strategy’ in the context of language and discourse studies often leads to confusion. Therefore, it is essential to elucidate the diverse perspectives surrounding this concept.
Within foreign language acquisition, strategies refer to the typical maneuvers learners employ to overcome linguistic barriers and achieve their communicative goals (Alhourani, 2018; Mirsane & Khabiri, 2016). Conversely, functional linguistics emphasizes deliberate planning in speech act execution, where speakers utilize linguistic tools strategically to align with their communicative objectives and situational context (Holmes, 2012; Kuzhevskaya, 2019; Schmidt, 2020).
Different language studies employ various frameworks, such as pedagogical, textual, and discourse strategies (Björkman, 2001; De Pew, 2011; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). In this paper, we adopt the term “communicative strategy” to encompass the system of English language means that embody strategic orientations and communication goals.
In the context of adversarial political communication, communicative strategies become sophisticated speech actions aimed at influencing the audience’s intellect, will, and emotions (Van Dijk, 2006). These strategies vary across contexts and mediums, comprising framing, agenda-setting, rhetoric, and others (Khlopotunov, 2020).
Diverse perspectives on communicative strategies exist, ranging from viewing them as tools for conveying information to instruments of manipulation (Carlo, 2015; Fairclough, 2010). To grasp the intricacies of political communication, a comprehensive functional-linguistic analysis is warranted.
Communicative strategies entail overarching communication plans, while tactics execute these plans through specific speech actions (Malyuga & Tomalin, 2017). These dimensions - planning, execution, and outcomes - guide speaker interactions and adapt to feedback and situational nuances. Preliminary information shapes strategic scenarios of speech acts, aiding speakers in constructing mental representations and thematic plans for speech acts (Radyuk, 2019). However, strategies remain flexible, subject to modification based on interaction dynamics and feedback (Putnam & Wilson, 2012).
The selection of communicative strategies hinges on numerous factors, including the available tactics and their suitability to the situation and goals (Radyuk & Khramchenko, 2014). This cognitive-communicative process involves choosing and performing speech acts, with strategic planning guiding abstract schematics and execution manifesting in concrete linguistic production.
For example, fostering cooperation can be accomplished through both ultimatum constructions and concessions. Ultimatum constructions are basically confrontational speech acts that impose a condition or a demand on the interlocutor, such as 
“We’ll stand up for our allies and our friends and oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technological exploitation or disinformation” (Agarwal, 2021). 
In his address, President Biden is saying that he will not tolerate any attempts by hostile states to dominate weaker ones, and that his administration will take action to defend the allies and friends, listing the various ways that stronger countries can potentially try to dominate weaker ones. The president is also implying that there is no room for negotiation or compromise on this issue, and that everyone has to respect the sovereignty and rights of less powerful states. The juxtaposition of discourse elements “for our allies and our friends” and unnamed “stronger countries” creates a contextually appropriate ‘us vs. them’ dynamics.  This is an example of how ultimatum can be used to convey strength, resolve, and determination in American political discourse.
On the other hand, concessions are cooperative speech acts that express a willingness to compromise or to accommodate the interlocutor, such as 
“This de-escalation area was agreed, it’s well-defined, agreements on who will secure this area. A ceasefire has been entered into. And I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria” (Tillerson, 2017). 
Both ultimatum constructions and concessions can be used to foster cooperation, but they have different effects on the interlocutors and the relationships with the speaker. An ultimatum may elicit compliance, but it may also provoke resistance, resentment, or hostility. Concessions may evoke reciprocity, but they may also imply weakness, uncertainty, or loss of face. Confrontational and cooperative discourse elements are profoundly intertwined in political discourse, but need to be separated to study their functional load for the sake of rhetoric optimization. The communicator needs to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each tactic and technique and to select the most appropriate one for the specific situation and goal.
The analysis of theoretical sources suggests that a communicative strategy is a set of speech actions (or communicative tactics) that the speaker uses to achieve their goals in different communicative situations. The choice of a strategy depends on the speaker’s intentions (implicit or explicit) and their interaction with the addressees. The use of particular speech tactics can be pre-planned in accordance with the speaker’s expectations or can be spontaneous (emotional).  The success of communicative strategies depends on how much they influence the addressee and how well they fulfill the speaker’s objectives.
Analyzing communicative strategies necessitates examining discourse means, communication settings, interlocutors’ motives, and verbal and non-verbal actions (Issers, 2008). This study focuses on the socio-political landscape of American society, highlighting adversarial communicative strategies connected with the effect of polarization and their unique tactical application connected with othering and establishing an overall ‘them vs. us’ pragma-semantic structure of discourse.

3. Material & Methods


4. Results & Discussion

Political discourse is a form of social interaction that involves the use of language to communicate ideas, opinions, values, and interests related to political issues and actors. Political discourse can be characterized by its confrontational nature, as it often involves the expression of disagreement, criticism, challenge, or opposition to other political actors or groups. Confrontational political discourse can be seen as a strategic activity that aims to achieve certain goals, such as persuading, influencing, or mobilizing the audience, defending or promoting one's own position or image, or attacking or undermining the opponent's position or image.

In order to achieve these goals, political actors employ various communicative strategies and tactics that shape the content, structure, and style of their discourse. Communicative strategies are the general plans or intentions that guide the selection and organization of linguistic means to achieve a desired communicative effect. Communicative tactics are the specific linguistic devices or techniques that implement the communicative strategies and create the pragmatic impact on the recipients. Communicative strategies and tactics can be classified according to different criteria, such as the type of discourse (e.g., argumentative, narrative, descriptive, etc.), the function of discourse (e.g., informative, expressive, directive, etc.), the mode of discourse (e.g., verbal, non-verbal, multimodal, etc.), or the context of discourse (e.g., institutional, media, interpersonal, etc.).

One of the most prominent and pervasive communicative strategies in American political discourse is the confrontation strategy, which involves the use of linguistic means to create a contrast or opposition between oneself and others, or between different groups or positions. The confrontation strategy can be realized through various communicative tactics, such as:

- Negative evaluation: The use of linguistic means to express a negative attitude or judgment towards the object of discourse, such as the opponent, their policies, actions, or supporters. Negative evaluation can be achieved by using explicit or implicit linguistic devices, such as modified proper names (e.g., Sleepy Joe, Crooked Hillary, etc.), contextual metaphors (e.g., swamp, witch hunt, etc.), linguistic puns (e.g., Obamagate, Bidencare, etc.), indexical phrases (e.g., radical left, fake news, etc.), and others. Negative evaluation can serve various functions, such as discrediting, exposing, accusing, or provoking the opponent, or creating a negative image or impression of them in the minds of the audience.
- Mockery: The use of linguistic means to ridicule, insult, or humiliate the object of discourse, such as the opponent, their personal or professional qualities, or their supporters. Mockery can be achieved by using various linguistic devices, such as invectives (e.g., loser, clown, etc.), dysphemisms (e.g., virus, disaster, etc.), negative epithets (e.g., incompetent, corrupt, etc.), sarcastic statements (e.g., "You're the big man, I think", "You're very stable genius", etc.), pejoratives (e.g., socialist, fascist, etc.), and others. Mockery can serve various functions, such as offending, belittling, or intimidating the opponent, or eliciting laughter or contempt from the audience.
- Manipulative pragmatic influence: The use of linguistic means to influence the consciousness or behavior of the recipients, such as the opponent, the audience, or the media. Manipulative pragmatic influence can be achieved by using various linguistic devices, such as heightened expressiveness (e.g., "We will make America great again", "This is the most important election of our lifetime", etc.), language for emphasis (e.g., "Believe me", "Trust me", etc.), negative pragmatics (e.g., "Don't let them take your rights away", "Don't be fooled by their lies", etc.), pragma-semantic field (e.g., "We are the people", "They are the enemy", etc.), stylistically reduced vocabulary (e.g., "bad", "good", "big", "small", etc.), repetition (e.g., "No collusion, no obstruction", "Build the wall, build the wall", etc.), syntactic parallelism (e.g., "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", "Yes we can, yes we did, yes we can", etc.), variation in the length of utterances (e.g., "I have a dream", "Make America great again", etc.), intertextual and interdiscursive elements (e.g., quotations, references, allusions, etc.), and others. Manipulative pragmatic influence can serve various functions, such as provoking, creating discomfort, persuading, building a positive self-image, deflecting negative criticism, or mobilizing the audience.

An essential component of the cognitive-discursive mechanism in confrontational political discourse is the opposition of "us" and "them", which allows for the verbal demarcation of supporters and opponents of a political actor. This opposition becomes one of the leading discursive categories in American political discourse, aligning with the goal of expanding the circle of "us" and shrinking the circle of "them". This category can be realized at various communicative-discursive levels, such as:

- Phonetic level: The use of phonetic means to create a contrast or distinction between the sounds or pronunciations of different words or names, such as accent, intonation, stress, or rhythm. For example, a political actor may emphasize or mock the foreign or regional accent of their opponent or their supporters, or use different pronunciations of the same word or name to create a positive or negative association (e.g., Iran vs. Eye-ran, Nevada vs. Ne-vah-da, etc.).
- Lexical level: The use of lexical means to create a contrast or distinction between the words or expressions used by different groups or positions, such as labels, terms, slogans, or catchphrases. For example, a political actor may use different labels or terms to refer to the same group or phenomenon, depending on their attitude or perspective (e.g., pro-life vs. anti-choice, undocumented immigrants vs. illegal aliens, etc.), or use different slogans or catchphrases to summarize or promote their policies or values (e.g., "Make America great again" vs. "Build back better", "Black lives matter" vs. "All lives matter", etc.).
- Morphem-morphological level: The use of morphem-morphological means to create a contrast or distinction between the forms or structures of different words or names, such as prefixes, suffixes, or compounds. For example, a political actor may use different prefixes or suffixes to modify the meaning or connotation of a word or name, such as adding a negative prefix (e.g., un-American, anti-Semitic, etc.), or a diminutive suffix (e.g., Bernie, Donnie, etc.), or use different compounds to combine two or more words or names, such as blending (e.g., Obamagate, Bidencare, etc.), or portmanteau (e.g., Brexit, Brangelina, etc.).
- Semantic level: The use of semantic means to create a contrast or distinction between the meanings or connotations of different words or expressions, such as synonyms, antonyms, euphemisms, or metaphors. For example, a political actor may use different synonyms or antonyms to express the same or opposite meaning or attitude, such as using positive or negative words (e.g., freedom vs. tyranny, peace vs. war, etc.), or using euphemisms or metaphors to disguise or embellish the reality or truth, such as using mild or vague words (e.g., enhanced interrogation, collateral damage, etc.), or using figurative or imaginative words (e.g., swamp, witch hunt, etc.).
- Locative level: The use of locative means to create a contrast or distinction between the locations or spaces associated with different groups or positions, such as places, regions, or countries. For example, a political actor may use different places or regions to refer to or represent different groups or phenomena, such as using the names of states or cities to indicate the political affiliation or preference of the voters (e.g., red states vs. blue states, flyover states vs. coastal elites, etc.), or using the names of countries to indicate the origin or influence of the opponents or their policies (e.g., China, Russia, Iran, etc.).
- Situational level: The use of situational means to create a contrast or distinction between the situations or contexts associated with different groups or positions, such as events, issues, or problems. For example, a political actor may use different events or issues to refer to or highlight different aspects or perspectives of the same situation or problem, such as using the names of dates or incidents to indicate the significance or impact of the events (e.g., 9/11, Benghazi, etc.), or using the names of topics or themes to indicate the relevance or importance of the issues (e.g., health care, immigration, economy, etc.).

- Syntactic level: The use of syntactic means to create a contrast or distinction between the structures or patterns of different sentences or clauses, such as word order, coordination, subordination, or parallelism. For example, a political actor may use different word orders to emphasize or de-emphasize different elements or aspects of the sentence (e.g., active vs. passive voice, subject vs. object, etc.), or use different coordination or subordination to indicate the relationship or hierarchy between different clauses or sentences (e.g., and, but, because, etc.), or use parallelism to create a sense of balance or harmony between different parts of the sentence or discourse (e.g., "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country", "Yes we can, yes we did, yes we can", etc.).
- Thematic level: The use of thematic means to create a contrast or distinction between the topics or themes of different parts of the discourse, such as paragraphs, sections, or chapters. For example, a political actor may use different topics or themes to organize or structure their discourse, such as using a chronological order to present the past, present, and future of their policies or actions, or using a problem-solution order to present the challenges and opportunities facing the nation or the world, or using a comparison-contrast order to present the similarities and differences between themselves and their opponents, or their policies or values.

The opposition of "us" and "them" is not only a cognitive-discursive category, but also a social-psychological phenomenon that reflects the identity and attitude of political actors and their supporters. The "us" group is usually associated with positive attributes, such as loyalty, patriotism, morality, competence, etc., while the "them" group is usually associated with negative attributes, such as disloyalty, treason, immorality, incompetence, etc. The "us" group is also seen as homogeneous and coherent, while the "them" group is seen as heterogeneous and divided. The "us" group is also seen as the norm and the majority, while the "them" group is seen as the deviation and the minority. The "us" group is also seen as the victim and the hero, while the "them" group is seen as the aggressor and the villain.

The opposition of "us" and "them" can have various effects on the political discourse and behavior of political actors and their supporters. For example, it can create a sense of solidarity and belonging among the members of the "us" group, and a sense of hostility and distrust towards the members of the "them" group. It can also create a sense of pride and confidence in the policies and values of the "us" group, and a sense of fear and resentment towards the policies and values of the "them" group. It can also create a sense of justification and rationalization for the actions and decisions of the "us" group, and a sense of condemnation and criticism for the actions and decisions of the "them" group. It can also create a sense of mobilization and participation among the supporters of the "us" group, and a sense of demobilization and alienation among the supporters of the "them" group.

The opposition of "us" and "them" can also have various implications and challenges for the political discourse and behavior of political actors and their supporters. For example, it can limit the scope and diversity of the political discourse and debate, as it reduces the complexity and nuance of the political issues and actors to a simple and binary opposition. It can also increase the polarization and conflict of the political discourse and behavior, as it creates a sense of antagonism and competition between the two groups, and a reluctance or refusal to cooperate or compromise. It can also undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the political discourse and behavior, as it creates a sense of bias and manipulation of the information and arguments, and a suspicion or rejection of the sources and evidence. It can also endanger the stability and democracy of the political system and society, as it creates a sense of division and fragmentation of the nation and the people, and a threat or challenge to the common values and interests.

Therefore, it is important to understand and analyze the communicative strategies, tactics and the "us vs. them" mentality that shape American political discourse, as they reveal the goals, intentions, and effects of the political actors and their supporters, as well as the opportunities and risks for the political system and society. This paper aims to contribute to this understanding and analysis by applying a functional-linguistic approach to examine how candidates for president in 2020 used various linguistic devices to create us vs. them distinctions with their opponents during their televised debates.









Hamed, D. (2020). Ideologically-based Polarisation and Racism in Discourse. Journal of Law and Social Sciences, 4(1), 1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.53974/unza.jlss.4.1.382.
Wodak, R. (2008). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: Inclusion and exclusion–Discrimination via discourse. Identity, belonging and migration, 17, 54-77. 
Wodak, R. (2008). ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Inclusion and Exclusion – Discrimination via Discourse. In Gerard Delanty, Ruth Wodak, and Paul Jones (eds), Identity, Belonging and Migration, 54-77. https://doi.org/10.5949/liverpool/9781846311185.003.0004
Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265103954
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Leudar, I., Marsland, V., & Nekvapil, J. (2004). On membership categorization:‘us’,‘them’and ‘doing violence’in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 15(2-3), 243-266. DOI: 10.1177/ 0957926504041019
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Friedrichs, G. M., Tama, J. (2022). Polarization and US foreign policy: key debates and new findings. International Politics,  59, 767–785 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-022-00381-0 (можно взять вступление, скачано на компьютер)

Dagnes, A. (2019). Us vs. Them: Political Polarization and the Politicization of Everything. In Super Mad at Everything All the Time. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06131-9_4 (нигде не сослался)

Riggins, S. H. (Ed.). (1997). The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse. Sage Publications, Inc.

Lakoff, G. (2008). The political mind: why you can't understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th-century brain. Penguin.
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of socialidentity: Implications for political psychology. Political psychology, 22(1), 115-125.
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Kinder, D. R., & Kam, C. D. (2009). Us against them: Ethnocentric foundations of American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who counts as an American? The boundaries of national identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080493

Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408-446. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1010098
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802331
Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In Language & peace (pp. 41-58). Routledge.
Allen, W. (2007). Australian political discourse: Pronominal choice in campaign speeches. In M. Laughren & I. Mushin (Eds.), Selected Papers from the 2006 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/14985479.pdf
Yang, Y., Chen, X. (2021). Globalism or Nationalism? The Paradox of Chinese Official Discourse in the Context of the COVID-19 Outbreak. Journal of Chinese political science, 26, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-020-09697-1
Oktar, L. (2001). The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the Presentation of us and them. Discourse & Society, 12(3), 313-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012003003
Wilmot, N. V., Vigier, M., & Humonen, K. (2023). Language as a source of otherness. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958231216936
Berger, P. L., Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books. 
Roberts C (2021) Linguistic Penalties and the Job Interview. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd. 
Śliwa M, Johansson M (2014) How non-native English-speaking staff are evaluated in linguistically diverse organizations: a sociolinguistic perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(9), 1133-1151. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2014.21

Guttormsen, D. (2015). ‘Looking forward by looking back’: a transdisciplinary self/other perspective on intercultural expatriate research. In N. Holden, S. Michailova, S. Tietze (Eds), Routledge Companion to Cross-Cultural Management (pp. 344-354). Abingdon: Routledge. 
 Guttormsen, D. S. A. (2018). Advancing otherness and othering of the cultural other during “intercultural encounters” in cross-cultural management research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 48(3), 314-332. 
Hozhabrossadat, S. (2015). Linguistic identities: how code-switching and/or code-crossing help constructing solidarity or otherness in multilingual societies. International Journal of English Literature and Culture, 3(6): 194-198. DOI: 10.14662/IJELC2015.054
Kassis-Henderson, J., Cohen, L. (2020). The paradoxical consequences of ‘the perfect accent’: a critical approach to cross-cultural interactions. In J. Mahadevan, H. Primecz, L. Romani (Eds.), Cases in Critical Cross-Cultural Management: An Intersectional Approach to Culture (pp. 12-21). New York: Routledge. 
Bakhtin, M. M. (1982). The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press. 
Baxter, L. A. (2004). Dialogues of relating. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies (pp. 107-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Zander, U., Zander, L., Gaffney, S., & Olsson, J. (2010). Intersectionality as a new perspective in international business research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4), 457-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2010.09.011
Agarwal, A. (2021, September 21). Full transcript: Biden addresses 76th General Assembly. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-biden-addresses-76th-general-assembly/story?id=80146170
Agarwal, A. (2021, September 21). Full transcript: Biden addresses 76th General Assembly. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-biden-addresses-76th-general-assembly/story?id=80146170
Alhourani, Alaa Q. (2018). Code Switching as a Communicative Strategy for the Bilingual Saudi Speakers at Jouf University. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 1(4), 10-19. DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2018.1.4.9 

Mirsane, M., & Khabiri, M. (2016). The Effect of Teaching Communicative Strategy on EFL Learners' Willingness to Communicate. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6, 399-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0602.24
Holmes, J. (2012). Politeness in intercultural discourse and communication. The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication, 205-228. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118247273.ch11
Kuzhevskaya, E. B. (2019). Politeness strategies in business English discourse. Training, Language and Culture, 3(4), 36-46. doi: 10.29366/2019tlc.3.4.4
Schmidt, S. (2020). Rapport management in online spoken interaction: A cross-cultural linguistic analysis of communicative strategies (Doctoral dissertation, Birmingham City University).
Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 950-964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.033
DePew, K. E. (2011). Social media at academia's periphery: Studying multilingual developmental writers' Facebook composing strategies. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 11(1), 54-75. 
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. 
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250
Khlopotunov, Y. Y. (2020). Hate speech in American political discourse: functional-linguistic analysis. Professional Discourse & Communication, 2(2), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2020-2-2-20-30
Carlo, G. S. (2015). Pathos as a Communicative Strategy for Online Knowledge Dissemination: The Case of TED Talks. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 21(1), 23-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2015-2101-03
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368
Malyuga, E. N., & Tomalin, B. (2017). Communicative strategies and tactics of speech manipulation in intercultural business discourse. Training, Language and Culture, 1(1), 28-45. doi: 10.29366/2017tlc.1.1.2
Radyuk, A. V. (2019). The tactic of assessment in economic discourse (the concept of single market). Professional Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-1-36-45
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (2012). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In Communication yearbook 6 (pp. 629-652). Routledge.
Radyuk, A., & Khramchenko, D. (2014). Teaching Business English: cooperative discursive strategies and tactics. In INTED2014 Proceedings (pp. 6798-6803). IATED.
Issers, O. S. (1999). Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Omsk State University.