Modality, Persuasion and Manipulation in Canadian Conservative Discourse

Abstract

Modality as a linguistic device encompasses a variety of forms, including (but not limited to) modal auxiliaries, modal verbs, modal adverbs, and modal adjectives.  The present paper focuses specifically on the use of modal auxiliaries in two political texts.  The first text, Beyond Greed: A Traditional Conservative Confronts Neoconservative Excess, is by Hugh Segal, who might be described as a ‘mainstream’ Canadian conservative, and the second, The War Against the Family, is by William D. Gairdner, who represents a far right neoconservative position in Canadian politics.  Fowler (1985) proposes five categories of modality:  validity, predictability, desirability, obligation, and permission.  Following Fowler, I classify the modals in Segal’s book of approximately 35,000 words and in a representative 35,000 words segment of Gairdner’s book. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming number of clauses in both texts fall into the categories of validity and predictability, which are, to some extent, the default modalities of (quasi) academic non-fiction texts.  Interesting difference arise, however, when one considers the deontic modalities of desirability, permission, and obligation. Using the data obtained through this analysis, I argue that Segal’s writing constitutes persuasion, whereas Gairdner’s constitutes manipulation.