Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Shutdown Narratives: A Case Study of Progressive Democrats' Town Hall Coverage

Abstract

Political discourse during government shutdowns reveals ideological positioning and strategic communication patterns that shape public perception. This study employs corpus-based critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine linguistic features and rhetorical strategies in media coverage of progressive Democrats' stance during a hypothetical government shutdown. Using CNN's town hall coverage as a case study, this research analyzes reporting verbs, quotation patterns, lexical choices, and discourse prosody to uncover how political actors construct narratives of accountability, legitimacy, and urgency. A specialized corpus of 1,847 words was compiled from CNN political reporting, with analysis conducted using concordance analysis and collocation examination. Findings reveal three dominant discourse strategies: (1) adversarial framing through contrastive rhetoric, (2) legitimation through policy-focused discourse, and (3) de-legitimation of opposing positions through characterization. The study identifies systematic patterns in reporting practices, including neutral reporting verbs ("said," "asked") contrasted with evaluative language in quoted speech ("inane and silly," "refuse to work"). Results demonstrate how corpus-based CDA illuminates power dynamics and ideological positions embedded in political news discourse, contributing methodological insights for analyzing contemporary political communication