In this paper, we show how discursive psychology can be used to show how ‘facts’ are used rhetorically by politicians. That is, they are more than neutral reflections of an objective reality—these ‘facts’ are highly attuned to the local context of political argumentation. We draw upon examples from two studies that used discursive psychology to analyse two different political contexts: (1) Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack and (2) debates over Great Britain and the European Union. In both contexts, the analysis uncovers how politicians challenge both the context and the relevance of a fact. The context of ‘facts’ is reconstructed to undermine their original argumentative strength, whereas questioning the relevance of a ‘fact’ undermines it both as fact and as a rhetorical tool to be used in a debate. These findings show how discursive psychology can contribute to knowledge about political communication, as well as the benefits of applying discursive psychology to political discourse.

中文翻译：

---

将话语心理学应用于政治话语的“事实”建构

在本文中，我们展示了如何使用话语心理学来说明政客如何用口头上的“事实”。也就是说，它们不只是对客观现实的中立反映，这些“事实”与当地的政治论证高度吻合。我们从两个使用话语心理学分析两个不同政治背景的研究中得出一些例子：（1）查理周刊（Charlie Hebdo）袭击后的伊斯兰恐惧症（2）关于英国和欧盟的辩论。在这两种情况下，分析都揭示了政客如何挑战事实的背景和相关性。重构“事实”的语境以破坏其最初的论辩力，而质疑“事实”的相关性则既破坏事实，又破坏辩论中使用的修辞手段。