Legitimization Strategies used by Family Members in the ''Vikings'' TV Series

Received: 10 October 2021 Accepted: 15 November 2021 Published: 20 December 2021 DOI: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.12.13 Vikings TV series is a historical drama centred around family members and their different political aspirations, implying different political ideologies. This article intends to investigate the legitimization strategies used by four family members of the Vikings TV Series, including Ragnar, Lagertha, Rollo, and Bjorn, to reveal their political ideologies. The data involve the analysis of four excerpts from season 4 that are analyzed qualitatively through an eclectic model involving Fairclough's critical discourse approach and Van Leeuwen's discursive legitimization strategies (2007). The article concluded that the four characters rely heavily on two types of strategies to achieve their political goals: the authorization strategy, including (personal and expert authorities) and rationalization strategy, basically the (goal-orientation and explanation ones). KEYWORDS


Introduction 1
The VTVS is a well-known series written by Michael Hirst. According to Puchalska (2015), the VTVS has received a favourable rating from critics and viewers. The used language is clear, simple and involves certain legitimization strategies; these strategies lead to certain ideologies, and this article intends to explore how the legitimation strategies practised by the selected characters determine family political aspirations. For purposes of achieving the above objective, the study is built upon two questions: 1. How do the types of legitimation Strategies determine family political aspirations in the VTVS? 2. What ideologies are represented by these strategies through the CDA approach?

Media
Media's importance cannot be denied in our daily life since it is considered as a source of information and entertainment for viewers on the one hand and a source of political power on the other hand (Alison & Hanson,1999; Ali & Batool,2015:692). Media is a term that refers to the communication means that accumulate/ transport data and information. BrPain (2019) states: ''Media as a term refers to elements of mass media communications such as print media, news media, photography, cinema, broadcasting (radio and television), digital media, and advertising''.TV, in turn, has various genres (drama, documentaries, news, comedy and sitcoms, game shows, talk shows) (Wikipedia,2021). Currently, historical dramas on TV have flourished to be highly rated among various viewers (Puchalska,2015:90).

Television
Television, as a powerful form of media, has various genres. According to McQueen (2003), genre refers to classifications of media products such as series, quizzes shows, and news programs. Genre is the selection of elements helping to classify genres involves character types, narrative, setting and style. It is a bridge between producers and addressees (Neale, 2008). Forman (2003) said, "TV has been made as both an industry and a cultural force. Producers' efforts meet their desire to set standards to realize the genres". The audience usually knows what would happen in a certain genre since they know the conventions, which connect the producer and viewers (McQueen, 2003). TV genres include: "drama, news, game shows, talk shows and other various shows" (Butler, 2007). Also, they could be classified according to the structure of the narrating. Turner mentioned non-narrative genres, like sports programs, newscasts, scientific programs (Turner, 2008).

Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis
The critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach addresses power issues in linguistic interactions between individuals/ groups. CDA examines how it is created, reproduced, questioned or deconstructed (Giorgis, 2015). The key concepts of ideology and power affected the family members' aspirations that are structured. CDA is used to analyze the discourse -social practice relations, especially how power is expressed in discourse. Blommaert and Bulcaen (2002) believe that discourse consists of a powerful entity that becomes more observable by the CDA approach. Accordingly, it has become a significant research tool that takes us beyond the surface structure of speech to the hidden deep structure that links power and society with utterances. According to Fairclough, CDA indicates "to systematically explore often relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony" (1993: 135). Fairclough and Wodak (1997) set many principles of CDA: A-CDA addresses social problems, B-power relation is discursive, C-discourse is about culture and society.
Add only details of Fairclough's models

Van Leeuwen's Legitimization Strategies (2007)
Legitimation is seen as the important objective of a political actor who needs to justify a series of actions intended to be achieved within the range of interests of the target (Cap, 2006). Legitimation presupposes values implicitly and explicitly and states that some actions or decisions are acceptable within a given legal/political system (van Dijk, 1998). The most noticeable performance of legitimation is to discursively construct and justify certain facts /orders/values (Fairclough, 2003b;van Dijk, 2008;van Leeuwen, 2007). Legitimization is a discourse process that involves conscious use of language to justify a decision, an idea, an action, process or behaviour while seeking approval or support from the audience (Cap, 2008;Reyes, 2011). The legitimation process is achieved through argumentation, whereby a powerful person or group presents an argument to explain their actions or seek approval for their actions (Rojo & van Dijk: 1997).
Through Discursive Construction of Legitimation, Van Leeuwen (2008) explains that legitimation is a linguistic model that investigates how speakers construct their discourses, specifically arguments, to 'explain why social practices exist, and why they take the forms they do'. In contrast, legitimation sanctions speakers' actions or behaviour as credible, logical and acceptable to an audience. On the other hand, De-legitimation analyses the supposed opponent's actions/social practice through authorization, moralization, rationalization and Mythopoesis strategies (van Leeuwen, 2008). Legitimation answers the "why?" questions in many different ways; why does X do this? Why is this strategy followed? In sum, these strategies play a very important role in exploring the VTVS and how they use different legitimation strategies to achieve different political goals.

Types of Legitimization Strategies 2.5.1 Authorization
Authorization here could be defined as the authority stated by law and society (traditions and costumes), and this involves the persons with the institutional authority. This discursive strategy is subdivided into sub-categories. According to Van Leeuwen, the sub-categories are authority (includes the personal and impersonal types), commendation (involves the expert and the role model authorities) Then custom (involves tradition authority and conformity authority) (Van der Houwen,2015).
A-personal authority is a kind of authority granted to a person(s) with a role in an institution or their role in a certain context. Such as, ''That's what the mother says'' can reveal personal authority (Van Leeuwen,2008). B-impersonal authority comes under the impersonality of things, matters, or even ideas. This strategy involves laws, traditions, rules, or regulations. Thus the answer to "why?" is "because the rules say so". Often this type makes use of adjectives like obligatory.
C-expert authority is defined by one's expertise and not by status. Also, It could be stated explicitly by providing qualifications, for instance, or implicitly if the individual was well-known. D-role model authority involves many individuals who establish trends such as celebrities and political leaders. In some cases, it requires more justification, for example, positive descriptions.
E-the authority of tradition implies the relationship with tradition, habits, practice, and customs. The answer to the ''why'' question is constructed on what we always do, not because of an obligatory thing.
F-conformity authority does not deal with why something emerges but simply because that is what is always done and everyone does (Van Leeuwen: 2007). It provides an answer to why? As "most people are doing it, and so should you". This type can also be revealed through a comparison form.

Moralization
Moralization is defined as a kind of evaluation that highlights moral outline. It contains the following: evaluation, abstraction, and analogies. According to Davies, evaluation deals with contrasting values centred on concrete qualities for mentioning entities. For example, ''It was surprising to me that you dared to ask her for the return of money'' (2014). It can be expressed through adjectives as ''good'', ''bad'', ''natural'' and ''normal'' (Van Leeuwen, 2007). Abstracting, this sort of legitimation indicates abstract ways 'moralize' practices such as showing going to school by students as an independence matter "the child goes to school for the first time". This type links the practice to discourse as it refers to the practice in an abstract way to moralize it by a quality that links it to the discourse of moral value (Van Leeuwen, 2008). The third is comparison, which has a relation with comparisons in discourse (Davies, 2014) is a sample of analogy. The underlying statement moral legitimation is not the cause of something that needs to be completed or needs a function in particular ways, but the reason is it is like another activity that is associated with positive and negative values. It answers the why? Question by ''it is similar to X that is considered a practice with moral value, positive one''.

Rationalization
Rationalization provides purposes to social and traditional practices. Like the previous strategy, this one has sub-categories that can be found. They are instrumental and theoretical. The first sub-category is instrumental rationalization, which involves goal-, effect-, means-orientations. Such as: a-Goal-Orientation can be expressed through intentions, motives, or goals. The following form can be as '' I do X to do/be/have Y''. b-Mean-Orientation can be realized through reaching higher goals. As it follows the form of '' I achieve doing/being/having Y through X-ing''. c-Effect-Orientation can be realized by concentrating on accomplished activities/practices results.
The second sub-category is a theoretical rationalization; Van der Houwen (2015) states that legitimation is formed on a kind of reality usually subordinated with meaning; it is instituted on a kind of truth rather than on purpose. Theoretical rationalization comes in three types explanation, definition and prediction. As: a-The definition is described in terms of another, moralized practice. These practices usually can be expressed through significative ''mean'' or attributive ''is''. b-Explanation, the followed form here can be expressed as suitable for these actors. The actors are characterized in this type instead of the practices. c-Prediction, this type is constructed on experience, and opposing practice/ action can prove it wrong.

Mythopoesis
The last strategy is Mythopoesis which stresses legitimation achieved through narrative or by relating the investigated practice to the past or future through storytelling and this strategy has main categories come under the following titles (moral and cautionary tales): a-moral tales, where main characters are rewarded for engaging in legitimate practices.
b-cautionary tales, kinds of readings that inform the consequences of not obeying social practices' norms. In other words, it is related to reward and punishment beliefs.

Vikings TV series
VTVS is a Canadian historical series shown in the Middle East on Sundays via the Emirati channel (Dubai One) in 2013 (Al-Bayan, 2020). The series consists of six seasons. Each one of the last three is of two parts. The VTVS is a highly rated TV series that Michael Hirst wrote for History Channel / Canada (Hirst, 2013-2021). The History Channel gives a brief explanation of VTVS: ''Vikings'' follows Ragnar's determination to conquer new places and acquire new lands. What started as a simple desire for adventure became an epic quest for expansion and power? Using innovative shipbuilding and navigational techniques, the Vikings pushed the boundaries of technology, opening up new connections and linking continents. Yet, they also left behind incredible damage and destruction. This series explores the Vikings through the epic tale of one community, showing how and why Vikings continue to fascinate people worldwide (History Channel,2021). Then, it follows the fortunes of Ragnar's sons and their adventures in England, Scandinavia and the Mediterranean. The great king Ragnar is a father of great sons in the TV show. Bjorn (the Ironside) is his eldest son from his first wife, Lagertha. Then there are his other sons from another marriage: Hubba (Ubbe), Sigurd (Snakein-the-Eye), Ivar (the boneless), Hvitserk. He also had a daughter. The characters portrayed in VTVS are the historical figures and the events in VTVS. They may not be a family, as Hirst mentioned them, but still, the data would be analyzed according to the relations in the selected TV series. Four characters are chosen for the data: the hero (Ragnar), a husband, a father, a brother, a female character (Lagertha), the mother, and a wife. And two males (Bjorn) the son, and (Rollo)the brother, uncle.

Family
The concept of family is defined in Collins Dictionary as "a social group consisting of parents and their children". This is clear and short to the point. Nevertheless, the families shape, nowadays, is evolving. Certain factors affect the concept of family and shape it; For instance, marriage/divorce patterns, parental employment, age are taken into consideration and shape family structures. The family tackled in this study is considered from the structure ''d'' due to the fact that the family involved the following members: father, mother, son, and uncle. Labov (1966) mentioned that parental background is central in delimitation and operationalization of the category ''social class''; therefore, the concept of the family holds an important place in the methodical traditions in researches, where the social/ cultural/ geographical background of parents has been used as a selected criterion and as a social variable. In the VTVS family members, it is worth noticing that the son (Bjorn) is affected by his parents (Ragnar) and (Lagertha), his first wife that is liked by the VTVS audience (Puchalska, 2015). Bjorn constructions reveal ambitions towards power and politics which become clearer over time.

Analysis
To explore the legitimization strategies used by the family members (Ragnar, Lagertha, Rollo, Bjorn), four selected excerpts from the Vikings TV Series (season 4) will be analyzed. Through these excerpts, the family members will show how the legitimization strategies determine the family political aspirations. This excerpt is taken from episode 9, season 4. Ragnar disappears for years after his big loss in Paris against his brother Rollo. He finds out that his family and his people do not welcome him as he comes back. He makes this speech to prove that he is the upper authority in Kattegat. The people of Kattegat do not welcome him back. Thus, this makes him feel sorry and angry. Therefore, he gives them his sword and asks them, including his sons, to kill him and take his political position as a king. He wants them to put an end to his misery. Yet, no one dares to fight him or take his place as this place has a great burden.
The lines (1), (2) and (3) employ the use of conformity authority, as Ragnar addresses his people ''majority''. The clause in line (4), "I am your leader'' presents the personal authority that he gains according to his position as a king. It is worth mentioning that the first part legitimizes while the second de-legitimates the personal authority of Ragnar as the clause in line (4) is a compound one. Line (5), which is "what kind of leader does that, huh?" involves a rhetorical question. Line (6) "what kind of king abandon his people?" is an interrogative form expressed rhetorically. Line (7) " what kind of father abandons his son?" is also a rhetorical question; the line conveys a use of expert authority as in their culture, everyone has the right to do so. The previous two lines delegitimate the personal authority of Ragnar as both a king and a father. Line (8) is "So, who wants to be king?" Ragnar asks who would kill him to take his political position, who has the aspiration and courage to take his place as he has hard responsibilities, and he knows for sure no one can handle the burden of being a king and achieves successful raids as he does. Line (9) as it "You know how this works?" there is a use of prediction based on experiences. Line (10) employs the use of impersonal authority as the law states that anyone who Kills the King takes his place. In line (11) that is "Take it", Ragnar gives his sward to the people to kill him. According to the "No? " in line (12) that comes in the interrogative form, it's clear that no one takes it. Furthermore, line (13) continues with the same matter. The line (14) comes with "anyone?" only. This comes in an interrogative form, ensuring that no one takes the sward. Lastly, line (15) is a repetition n of the same question of line (8), and this is a confirmation one can handle the burdens of this position but him. Ragnar, in this excerpt, is trying to improve himself as the king, and that bad fortune of losing battles could happen, and they can't handle it if they were in his shoe. This excerpt relies on the use of conformity as he's addressing his people, besides two kinds of legitimization strategies, the first one is the authorizations where he's using the expert authority, whether he is legitimating or delimitating, the other strategy is rationalization strategy where he's relying on the theoretical legitimization that's founded on some kind of truth. Ragnar is trying to keep his legitimate power as the king; he challenges his people and tells them to end his misery. He always has that ability and quality of persuading people; here, he's trying to convince them with his legitimacy.

Ubbe:
It was a mistake not to kill us.
After Ragnar's departure to England and Bjorn's raid to Andalusia, Lagertha, the Earl of Hedeby, attacks Kattegat, kills Aslaug and becomes the queen of Kattegat, revenge for what happened in the past. The matter here is that Ragnar and Aslaug's sons come to kill Lagertha, Lagertha got asked by Ragnar's sons about their mother Aslaug, and what happened to her, she frankly tells them that she killed her and she doesn't want to kill them because she believes they have nothing to do with their mother's mistake, it wasn't their fault.
Line (2), where Lagertha admits to killing Aslaug, indicates two things; first, Lagertha is an honest leader as she is not afraid of admitting this fact to Aslaug's sons. The second, she is a strong queen; as a queen, she has the power, and she can deny things, especially her people love her. Yet, she is brave enough to admit this. These two lines contain explanations sub-category use, which is a type from the theoretical part of the rationalization strategy of legitimization. This act is appropriate to Lagertha, the actor. Line (3) answers the question raised by Aslaug's son (Ubbe) why she did that. Line (4) has a clear goal orientation expression, as she kills Aslaug to get Kattegat back. Line (5) comes as another answer; Lagertha explains why she kept them alive. Line (5) and (6) '' you are Ragnar's sons.'' convey the use of explanation sub-categories as she focuses on them, not on the practice.
In line (7), the clause "it was not your fault that" presents a negative form. Line (8), which is "your father was bewitched", along with line (7), make use of the effect orientation. Line (9), the last one that is "that's chance I was prepared to take", consists of a compound clause. This line represents personal authority even though she threatens Aslaug and does Kill her. Lagertha wasn't blinded by hatred and killed Aslaug sons; she killed Aslaug for a good reason. Besides, she justifies her practices to Aslaug's sons.
In addition to the two things (points) that are explained in the second paragraph, another point will be added. That is, she can lead wisely, and she has a certain political strategy to follow that supports her aspiration. In this excerpt, Lagertha relies on rationalization type of legitimacy. She tries to make them realize everything happened this and she did it for a reason as she's using explanation and effect orientations to justify her deed. Finally, she ends the excerpt with personal authority to clarify that she is the queen and has the legitimate authority, and she has the final word. Though she had the legitimate authority, she didn't use any kind of punishment upon Aslaug's sons as they are coming here to kill her instead; she shows them how fair and merciful she is.

Rollo: (1) All of my life, (2) and all of your lives, (3) have come to this point. (4) There is nowhere else to be but here. (5) Nowhere else to live or die, but here. (6) To be here now is the (7) the only thing that matters. (8) So gather yourselves, (9) gather all of your strength (10) and all of your sweetness (11) into an iron ball. (12) For we will attack again and again. (13) Until we reach and overcome their king, (14) or we die in the attempt! -Attack (15) Attack! Attack! Attack! (16) Blow the horns! (17) Beat the drums and have courage, (18) for there will be no turning back! (19) Only victory or death!
Rollo wants to get out of his brother's shadow. He betrays his brother, leaves the Vikings, and agrees with the emperor of Frankia. Rollo becomes a Duke, get married to princess Gisla and vows to fight against Vikings. The excerpt is about a battle between Frankia's army led by Rollo and the Vikings led by Ragnar. At this point, the French army is about to lose, but Rollo doesn't give up, encouraging them and winning the battle.
In the first three lines, Rollo tries to motivate the soldiers by exploring the importance of this moment, this point in their lives. These lines use conformity authority, according to the mentioning of all the soldiers around him. Meanwhile, line (4) in which is "there is nowhere else to be but here", indicates that they have no choice but to be here and fight for Paris in "nowhere but here". Line (5) completes the idea of line (4) as Rollo continues, "nowhere else to live or die but here". He makes use of a comparison between life and death. No matter what they choose, it will lead to the battlefield. The lines (4) and (5) convey the use of comparison as there is no choice between "life" or "death". Lines (4) and (5) give no choice but to be on the battlefield. Meanwhile, lines (6) and (7) reveal the importance of Being here. Line (8) as it is "so gather yourselves", Rollo notices how they are afraid. Thus, he orders them to gather themselves and not be afraid. In line (9), he says, "gather all of your strength", he wants them to introduce their best. Lines (10) and (11) and "all of your sweetness into an iron ball" start with the conjunction "and" that is followed by "all of your sweetness" and continues "into an iron ball", which means Rollo wants to gather their weak points and strong points, no matter what they have, to make force and power to attack the Vikings with. The lines from (8) to (11) employ the use of conformity authority as he addresses the all. In line (12), Rollo says, " for we will attack again and again" he justifies why they need to use everything they had because they will keep attacking. In line (13), that is "until we reach and overcome their king", The king that Rollo mentions is Ragnar, his brother. The lines (12) and (13) use the goal orientation sub-category as Rollo makes all these to overcome Ragnar.
Line (14) that is " or we die in the attempt!" uses mean orientation. Lines (16), (17) and (18) employ the explanation sub-category where the theoretical type of rationalization explain the way things are. In the last line, Rollo gives two options: victory and death to persuade the soldiers to think of victory. Rollo makes good use of his expert power due to his skills and experiences in battles.
Rollo relies on the conformity authority to include the soldiers rather than another type that may include him only. Since it is a battle, he wants to use all their strength to face the ''Vikings'' army. He uses a comparison between life and death; no matter what they choose, it must be in the battle. The use of an instrumental type of rationalization in lines (6) and (7) explains why such a practice exists and why it matters they are here today in the battle. The conformity authority presented in the lines from (8) to (11) relies on that Rollo addresses the whole. In lines (12) and (13), there is a use of goal orientation that describes Motives aims and intentions. The aim here is to overcome King Ragnar. In line (14), there is a mean orientation that's about reaching a higher goal, where it's honourable to die in a battle while trying to protect Paris. Finally, the excerpt ends with the use of a theoretical type of rationalization, where there is an explanation used. Rollo persuades the army, encourages them, and this works; finally, they win.

Excerpt 4 Bjorn: (1) Today, we grieve for our dead (2) but we should all be proud (3) of what we have achieved! (4) This is a lock from the gates of Paris! (5) I hacked it off myself. (6) Paris has made us all rich! (7) But to be rich only means one thing! (8) To satisfy our dreams. (9) Nothing can stop us! (10) Now, Ragnar is dangerously ill. (11) It is true he may die. (12) But who is your king?
Bjorn comes back from a successful raid in Paris, shares war spoils with his people and makes this speech. This speech is necessary to his people after their big loss in Paris and under his father's leadership because people start to think that the gods are not on Ragnar's side anymore. Thus, he wants to compensate them and remind them of Ragnar's virtues.
Bjorn starts the excerpt by honouring the dead warriors. In line (1), there is a use of traditional authority. It can be stated from the start that Bjorn grows up to become the wise man he always wishes. As he grieves their dead people first, he shows society how he cares for their sacrifices and that they come first and have priority, according to Bjorn. The lines (2) that is ''but we should all be proud'' and (3) that is '' of what we have achieved!'' contain the use of conformity authority as Bjorn mentions all people of Kattegat. Line (4) is about the spoils from Paris as in "this is a lock from the gates of Paris", using this type of spoil particularly indicates the fact that Paris gates are breakable. Line (5) is a kind of proof "I hacked it myself", as Bjorn did it directly. This makes people believe him, and at the same time, they get motivated. All these details refer to the explanation sub-category. Being rich after the raid indicates the use of affect orientation, where Bjorn emphasizes the effect of this raid in line (6). Line (7) "but to be rich only means one thing" begins with the conjunction "but" that indicates adding something to what has been previously mentioned. The lines (7) and (8) convey a mean orientation as their higher aim is to satisfy their dreams. The Vikings people used to do many raids, but none were successful as Ragnar's raids. This raid of Frankia made them rich, despite the fact they couldn't occupy the city, but Paris is rich enough as they get all these spoils. Line (9) "Nothing can stop us" involves "nothing", which means it has been negated implicitly. This line refers to Vikings as "unstoppable".
Bjorn explains Ragnar's health condition in line (10). He mentions that he is not well in "Now, Ragnar is dangerously ill", being ill for the king is not a good thing as it may make the society unstable, as ill kings lose their popularity. This may also mean that gods do not support him. Additionally, Bjorn gives further information in line (11), "it is true he may die", where Bjorn prepares people for the worse, which is the king's death. Bjorn hides no information from the people of Kattegat; he wants to keep a stable system and not let them panic. The lines (10) and (11) use the prediction sub-category, and it's based on the fact that Ragnar is ill and can be proven wrong if he gets better.
Bjorn's tone is completely changed from providing people with information to awaken them as he constructed line (2) as "but who is your King". This time the clause comes in an interrogative form; Bjorn said it rhetorically. People of Kattegat answer Bjorn's by "Ragnar". He asks another question in line (13): "and to whom we awe our allegiance", by this rhetorical question, he reveals another virtue of Ragnar. Lines (12) indicates a user definition sub-category. By his rhetorical question, Bjorn shows Ragnar's qualifications and how well-known he is. He legitimates his father's position by reminding them of what he offers as a king. He also uses the reward power to show them the benefits of attacking Paris so he can protect his father's legitimacy.

Discussion
The excerpts of the selected data are analyzed according to Fairclauogh's critical discourse analysis (2003) and Van Leeuwen's model (2007) of legitimization strategies. The study under investigation explored legitimization strategies used to achieve political purposes and investigated the reflected ideologies. The family members employed a variety of discursive strategies of legitimization. Basically, the members used the discursive strategies of personal authority and expert authority when they refer to themselves and de-legitimate when they refer to others mostly. According to the family members' aspirations, the pronouns may refer to their ideologies and who get involved in their plans. As for the pronouns, the family members make no effort in addressing individuals or describing things or events. As for individuals, they are addressed by their pronouns mostly. The family members (de)legitimate everything in the excerpts. Nevertheless, the tense can determine the political plans and ideologies. Through tense, the family members proved that they rarely regret their actions. Instead of that, they make plans to alter their fates. Consequently, the present tense is used in the excerpts mostly. Moreover, the future tense is used as well but not as much as the present tense. The family members' character's reveal leading personalities. In other words, they look forwards, not backwards.

Conclusion
The current study concludes that types of legitimization strategies that are used involve the authorization and rationalization strategies. The most frequent strategies are the personal authority and the expert authority (for authorization strategy) and the goal-orientation and explanation types (as for rationalization strategy). Furthermore, the conclusions reveal the dominance of the family members over others as they depict the use of personal authority, personal pronouns, the present tense. These strategies reflect their ideologies of claiming the political position and power they aspire and show their strong personalities as they decide their fates. As far as the ideological perspectives are concerned, the excerpts presented a clear de-legitimation against the individuals with opposing aspirations. The family members use the same means but attain their aims differently. The following points give more clarification: 1-The analysis indicates that they rely on the same methods as they aspire to something first, then they demand it. After that, they persuade people to follow them by using strategies as the personal authority to prove their right in such aspirations, and rationalization strategy to de-legitimate other people's practices against their ambitions. They use rationalization to show society how their practice is based on truth and fact and make sense. This strategy is utilized to justify the family aspirations; to answer why they take certain actions. This strategy reveals each members' different performances to achieve political aims. Yet, it makes them all logical. Furthermore, the excerpts employ more than one legitimization strategy simultaneously as there are the strategies mentioned in the analysis in addition to another (hidden) one. The hidden strategy is Mythopoesis. This way, the legitimization strategies determine family political aspirations in the VTVS.
2. The discursive structures, including the personal pronoun ''I'', besides the pronoun ''you'', determine the relationship of family members. The members use the pronoun ''I'' to legitimate themselves and appear confident. Besides, the active voice legitimizes family members' actions and show them qualified to hold leaders' positions.