Corpus analysis of investigating the pragmatic aspects of speech acts within the public discourse on immigration in the United States

Abstract This article investigates the role of immigration discourse in American newspapers on public opinion, using the lens of speech act theory, with references to key studies by Austin (Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words . Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), Searle (Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language . New York: Cambridge University Press; A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1). 1–23), and Bach and Harnish (Bach, K. & R. M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts . Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press). The research analyzes a collection of 20 articles from five major U.S. newspapers: The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, New York Post, and New York Daily News. A mixed-methods approach is utilized, incorporating detailed line-by-line coding alongside comprehensive sentiment analysis. The study categorizes illocutionary acts into constatives, directives, commissives, and acknowledgments to assess how newspapers construct narratives related to immigration. Findings reveal that constatives are often used to establish ideological viewpoints through selective information presentation, directives seek to motivate or influence readers, while commissives and acknowledgments enhance emotional connections or ideological stances. Liberal outlets typically depict immigrants positively and promote inclusive conversations, whereas conservative publications frequently generate feelings of fear and urgency to support stricter immigration measures. These findings underscore the powerful impact of media discourse in shaping perceptions of immigration, highlighting how speech acts operate not only as descriptive components but also as mechanisms for ideological persuasion and public opinion formation.