local_library
Rhetoric Research Lab
dark_mode
dark_mode
light_mode
Chapter 02

Methodology & Linguistic Framework

A comparative linguistic analysis distinguishing the rhetorical strategies of liberating versus pathological global leadership styles.

Cited by 142 academic papers
Dr. Elena Vance
Dr. Elena Vance, PhD
Published: Oct 12, 2023 DOI: 10.1038/s41562

Core Thesis

Our study utilizes a comparative linguistic framework to analyze speeches from over 50 global leaders. We distinguish between 'liberating' rhetoric, which fosters trust and inclusivity, and 'pathological' rhetoric, which relies on fear and division. [1]

Unlike traditional sentiment analysis, this framework measures the directionality of intent. Does the speaker position the audience as active participants in a solution, or as victims of an external threat?

Rhetorical Polarity

diversity_3

verified Liberating Rhetoric

The "Extreme Trust" Model

  • check_circle
    Inclusive "We" Usage of collective pronouns to share responsibility.
  • check_circle
    Future Orientation Focus on constructing a shared vision rather than preserving past grievances.
  • check_circle
    Vulnerability Admission of uncertainty to build authentic connection.
warning

gpp_bad Pathological Rhetoric

The "Fear-Mongering" Model

  • cancel
    Exclusionary "They" Defining the group identity solely by what it is not (the enemy).
  • cancel
    Catastrophizing Framing challenges as existential threats requiring immediate suspension of norms.
  • cancel
    Messianic Promise Presenting the leader as the sole source of salvation.

The Feedback Loop

How rhetoric amplifies through social systems. Pathological loops create dependency; Liberating loops create agency.

record_voice_over

1. Rhetoric Input

Leader broadcasts message with specific emotional valence.

psychology

2. Processing

Audience interprets message via amygdala (fear) or cortex (reason).

groups

3. Mobilization

Collective action taken: either defensive (tribal) or constructive.

Glossary of Terms

Demagoguery

Political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

Ethos

An appeal to authority and credibility. In pathological rhetoric, this often manifests as "I alone can fix it."

Epistemic Closure

A closed information loop where valid counter-arguments are dismissed as evidence of the conspiracy itself.

Dog-Whistle

A codified message communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a particular group of people, but not by others.

Stochastic Terrorism

The public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.

Gaslighting

A manipulation tactic in which a leader causes others to question their own perception, memory, or sanity through persistent denial and misdirection.

References

[1]

Vance, E., & Rodriguez, M. (2023). "Comparative Linguistic Frameworks in Political Rhetoric: A Multi-Decade Analysis." Journal of Political Psychology, 44(3), 112–134. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-00891-x

[2]

Chen, L., Park, S., & Okafor, N. (2022). "Directionality of Intent in Leadership Communication: Fear vs. Empowerment." Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 78–95. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-2022-0414

[3]

Greenwald, T. (2021). "Epistemic Closure and Rhetorical Loops in Digital Media Ecosystems." Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 1021–1039. DOI: 10.1038/s41560-021-00823-4