I’m working on the research paper and here’s what I have already written. In the material and methods section, I want to describe how I recognise linguistic markers of polarisation in discourse. What are these markers? :: ‘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