Pragmatic strategies

This study provides a comparative analysis of the rhetorical, pragmatic, and semantic strategies used by English-speaking and Arabic-speaking politicians to manipulate their audiences. By examining political speeches from both linguistic contexts, the research reveals distinct cultural patterns in manipulation. English-speaking politicians often employ direct, fact-based appeals (logos), while Arabic-speaking politicians rely more on emotional and collective identity appeals (pathos). These strategies reflect the cultural and linguistic norms of each group. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric. Additionally, the study highlights the evolving impact of digital media on political communication, showing how manipulative strategies have adapted to new technological platforms. The findings have important implications for political communication strategists, media professionals, and educators. They underscore the need for culturally nuanced communication strategies in cross-cultural political discourse, offer insights for enhancing public media literacy to combat manipulation, and provide a framework for further research into the role of digital platforms in shaping political rhetoric.

In line with Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (SCT) of mind, digital game-based language learning (DGBL) and dynamic assessment (DA) offer language learning opportunities via sociocultural engagement. This quantitative study explored the role of pragmatic learning strategies (PLSs) and gender in game-based group dynamic assessment. Our participants included thirty upper-intermediate EFL learners (15 males and 15 females) from two intact classes taking an English pragmatic course via game-based group dynamic assessment. Following a pre-test, treatment, and post-test design, the participants filled out a PLS inventory to identify the strategies for tackling L2 conversations in different situations. Besides, all learners were required to write reflective journals following each treatment session. Descriptive statistics and correlational analysis were employed to analyze the data. The findings indicated that the participants most widely used memory strategies, i.e., they relied more on memorizing and storing previous pragmatic knowledge. In addition, compensatory strategies were positive but weak predictors of the learners’ L2 pragmatic performance, and gender did not impact the learners’ use of different PLSs. The study’s limitation and its practical and pedagogical implications for educational policymakers, teacher education programs, and L2 instructors will be discussed in light of the posed research questions.

This study examines the pragmatic strategies employed by Arab and Western politicians in shaping public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By analyzing political speeches and media statements, the research reveals a distinct contrast in rhetorical approaches between the two groups. Arab politicians predominantly use emotionally charged language and accusatory rhetoric, framing Israel as the aggressor and appealing to cultural and ideological sentiments that resonate with their domestic audiences. In contrast, Western politicians adopt a more neutral, diplomatic tone, focusing on cooperation and peaceful negotiations to navigate complex geopolitical interests. The findings confirm that these divergent strategies significantly influence public sentiment, with Arab leaders mobilizing strong support for Palestine, while Western leaders attempt to maintain international alliances by promoting balance and compromise. This study contributes to the fields of political pragmatics, cross-cultural communication, and conflict resolution by highlighting the role of language in shaping public perceptions and policy decisions. The research emphasizes the need for policymakers to consider cultural differences in political communication, offering an understanding to develop more effective communication strategies for international diplomacy. This study examines the pragmatic strategies employed by Arab and Western politicians in shaping public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By analyzing political speeches and media statements, the research reveals a distinct contrast in rhetorical approaches between the two groups.