Volume 3 (1) 2009


Anna Marchi and Charlotte Taylor

Download Full Text

  • This paper reports on a quasi-experiment into triangulation, which is increasingly frequently cited as a guarantor of validity and reliability of findings. The methodology that we are exploring is the increasingly widely employed combination of corpus linguistics and (critical) discourse analysis. It has been argued that corpus approaches can offer greater objectivity because they are data-driven (or at least data-supported), more generalisable as they are based on larger samples, and more transparent given the research may be replicated on the same data. In order to explore the extent to which integrating corpus approaches may contribute to the stability of interpretations the authors set up an exploratory experiment. We attempt to answer the question: would two researchers starting with the same corpus and research question and (broadly) theoretical / methodological framework come to the same/similar conclusions?
    1. Aldridge, M. and Evetts, J. (2003) Rethinking the concept of professionalism: the case of journalism. British Journal of Sociology 54 (4): 547-64.
    2. Baker, P. (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    3. Baker, J.P. (2007) Discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996-2006: Full Research Report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-1381. Swindon: ESRC.
    4. Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T. and Wodak, R. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19 (3): 273-305.
    5. Bowker, L. and Pearson, J. (2002). Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London: Routledge.
    6. Bryman, A. (2006) Editor’s introduction: Mixed methods research. In A. Bryman (ed.), Mixed Methods. London: Sage, pp. XXV-LII
    7. Bryman, A. (2003) Triangulation. In Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. London: Sage.
    8. Dahlgren, P. and Sparks, C. (1992) Journalism and Popular Culture. London: Sage.
    9. Davies, N. (2008) Flat Earth News. London: Random House.
    10. Denzin, N. K. (1970) The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
    11. Deuze, M. (2005) What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism 6 (4): 442-64.
    12. Erzberger, C. and Prein, G. (1997) Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis construction. Quality & Quantity 31: 141-154.
    13. Farmer, T., Robinson, K., Elliott, S.J. and Eyles, J. (2006) Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research16: 377-394.
    14. Frank, R. (2003) ‘These crowded circumstances’. When pack journalists bash pack journalism. Journalism 4 (4): 441-58.
    15. Fowler, R. (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
    16. Hartley, J. (1982) Understanding News. London: Methuen.
    17. Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995) ‘Only Connect': Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. UCREL Technical Paper 6. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.
    18. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24 (4): 602-611.
    19. KhosraviNik, M. (2008). Actors, actions, argumentations: Towards an amalgamation of CDA methodological categories in representations of social actors. Paper presented at CADAAD 08. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
    20. Koller, V. (2008) Lesbian Discourses: Images of a Community. New York and London: Routledge.
    21. Leech, J. (2001) The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In K. Ajmer and B. Altenbeg (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. pp. 8-29.
    22. Matheson, D. (2003) Scowling at their notebooks. How British journalists understand their writing. Journalism 4(2): 165-83.
    23. Mautner, G. (forthcoming) Corpora and critical discourse analysis. In P. Baker (ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum.
    24. McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. (1996) Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    25. Myrdal, G. (1970) Objectivity in Social Research. London: Gerald Duckworth & Company Ltd.
    26. O’Halloran, K. and Coffin, C. (2004) Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings, and K.A. O’Halloran, (eds.), Applying English Grammar: Functional and Corpus Approaches. London: Hodder Arnold. pp. 275-297.
    27. Orpin, D. (2005) Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. Examining the ideology of sleaze. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10 (1): 37-6.
    28. Partington, A. (2004) Corpora and discourse: A most congruous beast. In A. Partington, J. Morley and L. Haarman (eds.), Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang. pp. 11-20.
    29. Partington, A. (2006) Metaphors, motifs and similes across discourse types: Corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS) at work. In A. Stefanowitsch and S. Th. Gries (eds.),Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 267-304.
    30. Partington, A. (2009) Evaluating evaluation and some concluding thoughts on CADS. In J. Morley and P. Bayley (eds.), Wordings of War. Corpus Assisted Discourse Studies on the War in Iraq. London: Routledge.
    31. Perlesz, A. and Lindsay J. (2003) Methodological triangulation in researching families: Making sense of dissonant data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology6: 25-40.
    32. Rossman, G.B. And Wilson, B.L. (1994) Numbers and words revisited: Being ‘shamelessly eclectic’. Quality and Quantity 28(3): 315-27.
    33. Scott, M. (2008) WordSmith Tools version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    34. Scott, M. and Tribble, C. (2006) Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    35. Shudson, M. (1997) The sociology of news production. In D.A. Berkowitz (ed.), Social Meanings of News: A Text-reader. London: Sage.
    36. Sinclair, J.M. (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    37. Sinclair, J.M. (1999) A way with common words. In H. Hasselgård and S. Oksefjell (eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 157-179.
    38. Sinclair, J.M. (2004) Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.
    39. Stubbe, M., Lane, C., Hilder, J., Vine, E., Vine, B., Marra, M., Holmes, J. and Weatherall, A. (2003) Multiple discourse analyses of a workplace interaction. Discourse Studies5: 351-388.
    40. Stubbs, M. and Gerbig, A. (1993) Human and inhuman geography: On the computer-assisted analysis of long texts. In M. Hoey (ed), Data, Description, Discourse. Papers on the English Language in honour of John McH Sinclair on his Sixtieth Birthday. London: Harper Collins. pp. 64-85.
    41. Stubbs, M. (1995) Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2 (1): 23-55.
    42. Stubbs, M. (1997) Whorf’s children: critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In A. Wray and A. Ryan (eds.), Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 100-16 [Reprinted in M. Toolan (ed.) (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 202-18].
    43. Stubbs, M. (2006) Corpus analysis: The state of the art and three types of unanswered questions. In G. Thompson and S. Hunston (eds.), Style and Corpus: Exploring Connections. London: Equinox, pp. 15-36.
    44. Thurmond, V.A. (2001) The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 33 (3): 253-258.
    45. Titsher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. and Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    46. Van de Mieroop, D. (2005) An integrated approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the study of identity in speeches. Discourse & Society 16: 107-30.
    47. Wodak, R. (2006) Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis. In J. Verschueren and J. Östman (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 1-24.


Agnieszka Sowinska

Download Full Text

  • The aim of the article is to investigate the construction of Europe as illustrated by the coverage of the Lisbon Summit (18-19 October 2007) and signing of the Lisbon Treaty (13 December 2007) in quality newspapers in Britain and Poland, the two countries on the EU’s periphery, whose leaders (the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Polish President Lech Kaczyński) seem to be notorious for displaying their semi-detached attitude towards Europe. The corpus for the analysis comes from quality newspapers of both right-wing, conservative (Rzeczpospolita, The Daily Telegraph) and left-wing, liberal orientation (Gazeta Wyborcza, The Guardian).  Drawing on the strengths of the discourse-historical tradition of CDA in particular (Reisigl and Wodak 2001), the article will focus on answering the following questions: 1) How is the Lisbon Summit represented in both Polish and British newspapers and how is it situated in the broader political and historical context of European integration? 2) Which actors are selected in the coverage, which roles are ascribed to them, and how are they evaluated? 3) What metaphors and topoi are applied for legitimising or delegitimising the European Union as a political space?
    1. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
    2. Althusser, L. (1971) Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In L. Althusser (ed.), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books. pp. 123-173.
    3. Beetham, D. & Lord, C. (1998). Legitimacy and the EU. London: Addison, Wesley and Longman.
    4. Bärenreuter, Ch. (2005) “It is not sufficient to have a moral basis, it has to be democratic too.” Constructing ‘Europe’ in Swedish media reports on the Austrian political situation in 2000. In R. Wodak and G. Weiss (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 189-211.
    5. Breakwell, G. M. (2004) Identity change in the context of the growing influence of European Union institutions. In R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.),Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 25-39.
    6. Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F. (2000) Beyond “identity”. Theory and Society 29 (1): 1: 47.
    7. CBOS (2008) Opinie o Traktacie Lizbońskim. [Opinions of the Lisbon Treaty.] http://www.cbos.pl?SPISKOM.POL/2008/K_074_08.PDF (accessed on December 15, 2008).
    8. CBOS (2007) O modelu integracji europejskiej i eurokonstytucji [On the model of European integration and Euro-constitution.] http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2007/K_099_07.PDF (accessed on December 15, 2008).
    9. Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse:  Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    10. Chilton, P. (2006) Metaphors in Political Discourse. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 63-65.
    11. Deutsch, K. (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    12. Eurobarometer (2008) Attitudes towards the EU in the United Kingdom. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_231_en.pdf (accessed on December 15, 2008).
    13. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London and New York: Longman.
    14. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis: An overview. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse and Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 67-97.
    15. Fairclough, N.(1999) Language and Power. London: Longman.
    16. Fowler, R. (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the British Press. London: Routledge.
    17. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979) Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    18. Foucault, M. (1982) The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. pp 208-226.
    19. García, S. (1993) Europe’s fragmented identities and the frontiers of citizenship. In S. García (ed.), European Identity and the Search for Legitimacy. London: Pinter Publishers. pp. 1-29.
    20. Global Vision/ICM European Union Survey (2008), Poll on British Attitudes to the EU. http://www.global-vision.net/Global1839.htm  (accessed on December 15, 2008).
    21. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.
    22. Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol.2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. London: Heinemann.
    23. Kress, G. and Hodge, R. (1993) Language as Ideology. London and New York: Routledge.
    24. Krzyżanowski, M. (2005) ‘European identity wanted!’ On discursive dimensions of the European Convention. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Theory, Methodology, and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 137-163.
    25. Krzyżanowski, M. (2008) Konstrukcja tożsamości narodowych i europejskich w polskim dyskursie politycznym po roku 1989: analiza dyskursywno-historyczna. [Construction of national and European identities in Polish political discourse after 1989]. In A. Duszak and N. Fairclough (eds.), Krytyczna Analiza Dyskursu. Kraków: Universitas. pp. 267-303.
    26. Laffan, B. (2004) The European Union and its institutions as “identity builders”. In R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.), Transnational Identities. Becoming European in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 75-96.
    27. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    28. Magistro, E. (2007) Promoting the European identity: Politeness strategies in the discourse of the European Union. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines  1 (2): 51-73.
    29. McHoul, A. (2001) Discourse. In R. Mesthire (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 133-145.
    30. Oberhuber, F. (2005) Deliberation of ‘mainstreaming’? In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Theory, Methodology, and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 165-187.
    31. Oberhuber, F., Bärenreuter, C., Krzyżanowski, M., Schönbauer, H. and Wodak, R. (2005) Debating the European Constitution. On representation of Europe/the EU in the press. Journal of Language and Politics 4 (2): 227-271.
    32. Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
    33. Retzlaff, S. and Gänzle, S. (2008) Constructing the European Union in Canadian news. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2 (2): 67-89.
    34. Risse, T. (2004) European institutions and identity change: What have we learned? In R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.), Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 247-271.
    35. Siapera, E. (2004) EU Correspondents in Brussels: Between Europe and the Nation-State. In R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.), Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 129-157.
    36. Stråth, B. (2002) A European identity: To the historical limits of a concept. European Journal of Social Theory 5 (4): 387-401.
    37. Wallace, H. (1993) Deepening and widening: Problems of legitimacy for the EC. In S. García (ed.), European Identity and the Search for Legitimacy. London: Pinter Publishers. pp. 95-105.
    38. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    39. Wodak, R. (2001a) What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage. pp. 1-13.
    40. Wodak, R. (2001b) The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 63-94.
    41. Wodak, R. (2004) National and transnational identities: European and other identities constructed in interviews with EU officials. In R.K. Herrmann, T. Risse and M.B. Brewer (eds.), Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 97-127.
    42. Wodak, R. and Weiss, B. (2005) Analysing European Union discourses: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 121-135.
    43. Wodak, R. and Wright, S. (2006) The European Union in cyberspace.  Multilingual democratic participation in a virtual public sphere? Journal of Language and Politics 5 (2): 251-275.
    44. Żygulski, W. (2007) Deal on New Treaty. The Warsaw Voice online, October 24, http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/16258/ (accessed on  October 24, 2007). 


Germana D’Acquisto and Stefania D’Avanzo

Download Full Text

  • The aim of this study is to analyse the language of two international treaties, the United Nations Charter (1945) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).  As a work in progress it investigates the role of SHALL and SHOULD in the institutional language of the United Nations and of the Council of Europe through a comparison between the English versions of the documents and their Italian translations.  It also will take into account the ambiguity and vagueness of some English central modals in legal texts and the difficulty in translating them into a different language (Gotti 2005, Williams 2007, Bybee 1985, Trosborg 1997, Palmer 2004).  The analysis is based on Halliday’s (1994) ideational and interpersonal functions focusing on the concept of tenor, field and mode.  The study will take into account van Dijk’s claim (1993) about the concepts of ‘dominance’ defined as ‘[…] the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups that results in social equality […] directive speech acts such as commands or orders may be used to enact power and hence also to exercise and to reproduce dominance’.  Since translation is a complex process involving two different semiotic systems in a context of diverse cultures it means that we usually have expectations about the way in which language operates in legal contexts although they are not clearly stated anywhere but in legal culture.  Moreover, archaisms and ambiguous verbal forms may create barriers to an effective understanding of legal issues.  Due to all these reasons, a process of modernization in drafting texts is crucial, to make them accessible from one audience to another and from one language to another as well.  Thus, our study will investigate ambiguity originated from verbs and phrases that can be found in international legal texts and consequent difficulties in translating them.  More specifically, our attention will be focused on the modals SHALL and SHOULD, translated into Italian in some very different ways.  In particular, SHALL has been considered ‘ubiquitous’ in legal texts since it expresses a deontic modality intrinsically projected towards situations and behaviour located in the future (Williams 2007: 116).  The contrastive analysis of the documents will provide evidence of difficulties encountered in the interpretation of the value and of the meaning of modal auxiliary verbs in different languages.  Thus, in the translation process, understanding the pragmatic values in the communicative interaction between the legal authority and the addressees is crucial.  As Williams (2007: 11) asserts: ‘Interpreting the intention of the lawmakers and those who drafted a particular law inevitably entails a detailed scrutiny of the language and prolonged interpretative debate’.  A contrastive analysis of the English and the Italian versions of international treaties will also provide evidence of difficulties in mediating between two languages and cultures.
    1. Austin, J.K.  (1962).  How to Do Things with Words.  Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    2. Ballarino, T. (1988). Organizzazione Internazionale Aspetti giuridici. Milano: Celuc Libri. (2nd  edn.).
    3. Butt, P.  and Castle, R. (2001).  Modern legal drafting.  A Guide to using clearer language.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    5. Caliendo, G. (2003). The multilingual voices of Europe: The European Commission Translation Service. In M. Lima (ed.), Language, Culture and Politics: Issues and Debates in Political Science. Napoli: CUEN.  pp. 11-20.
    6. Carcaterra, G.  (1994).  Norme costitutive.  In U. Scarpelli and P. Di Lucia (eds.),  Il Linguaggio del Diritto.  Milano: Led.  pp. 219-231.
    7. Cohen, R.  (2001). Language and Negotiations: A Middle East Lexicon.  In J. Kurbalìja (ed.) Diplomacy and Language. Diplo Malta project.
    8. Conforti, B.  (1988).  Diritto Internazionale.  Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
    9. Di Salvia, M.  (2001).  La Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo.  Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.
    10. Garre, M.  (1999).  Human Rights in Translation.  Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press. 
    11. Gotti, M. (2001). Semantic and pragmatic values of shall and will in early modern English statutes.  In M. Gotti and M. Dossena (eds.), Modality in Specialized Texts.  Bern: Peter Lang.  pp. 89-111.
    12. Halliday, M.A.K.  (1994).  An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn.  London: Edward Arnold.
    13. Hatim, B.L. and  Mason, I.  (1990).  Discourse and the Translator.  London: Longman.
    14. Nord, C.  (1991).  Texts Analysis in Translation.  Amsterdam / Atlanta: Rodopi.
    15. Palmer, F.R.  (2004).  Modality and the English Modals.  London: Longman.
    16. Polese, V.  (2006).  Patterning, regularity and variation in the EUSLEX Corpus On line.  Linguistica e Filologia 23: 91-111.
    17. Searle, J.  (1976).  Speech Acts.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    18. Tessuto, G.  (2005).  Ambiguity and vagueness in human rights discourse.  In V.K. Bhatia, J. Engberg, M. Gotti and D. Heller (eds.).  Vagueness in Normative Texts.  Bern: Peter Lang.
    19. Trosborg, A. (1997).  Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language.  Germany: Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen.
    20. van Dijk, T.A.  (1993).  Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.  Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249-83.
    21. Williams (2007). Tradition and Change in Legal English. Verbal Constructions in Prescriptive Texts. Bern: Peter Lang.
    22. White, J B.  (1982).  The invisible Discourse of the Law.  Reflections on Legal Literacy and General Education.  Michigan Quarterly Review 21 (3): 420-38.


Nicci Macleod

Download Full Text

  • The methods used by the UK Police to investigate complaints of rape have unsurprisingly come under much scrutiny in recent times, with a 2007 joint report on behalf of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary concluding that there were many areas where improvements should be made.  The research reported here forms part of a larger project which draws on various discourse analytical tools to identify the processes at work during police interviews with women reporting rape.  Drawing on a corpus of video recorded police interviews with women reporting rape, this study applies a two pronged analysis to reveal the presence of these ideologies.  Firstly, an analysis of the discourse markers ‘well’ and ‘so’ demonstrates the control exerted on the interaction by interviewing officers, as they attach importance to certain facts while omitting much of the information provided by the victim.  Secondly, the interpretative repertoires relied upon by officers to ‘make sense’ of victim’s accounts are subject to scrutiny.  As well as providing micro-level analyses which demonstrate processes of interactional control at the local level, the findings of these analyses can be shown to relate to a wider context – specifically prevailing ideologies about sexual violence in society as a whole. 
    1. Amnesty International UK (2005) Sexual Assault Research Summary Report http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_16619.doc, accessed 30/01/2006.
    2. Burt, M. R. (1980) Cultural myths and supports for rape.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38: 217-230.
    3. Coates, L., Beavin Bavelas, J., and Gibson, J. (1994) Anomalous language in sexual assault trial judgements.  Discourse & Society 5 (2): 189-206.
    4. Edward, K.E, and MacLeod, M. (1999) The reality and myth of rape: Implications for the criminal justice system.  Expert Evidence  7 (1): 37-58
    5. Ehrlich, S. (2001) Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent.  London: Routledge.
    6. Estrich, S. (1987) Real Rape.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    7. Fielding, N. (1994) Cop canteen culture.  In T.A. Newburn and E.A. Stanko (eds.), Just Boys Doing Business?: Men, Masculinities and Crime.  London: Routledge.  pp. 46-63.
    8. HMCPSI /HMIC (2007) Without Consent: Thematic Report. inspectorates.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/inspections/thematic/wc-thematic/them07-wc.pdf , accessed 20/08/2007.
    9. Johnson, A. (2002) So…?: Pragmatic implications of so-prefaced questions in formal police interviews.  In J. Cotterill (ed.), Language in the Legal Process.  Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.  pp. 91-110.
    10. Kelly, L., Lovett, J. and Regan, L. (2005)  A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases:  Home Office Research Study. 293.http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf, accessed 20/01/2006.
    11. Kershaw, C., Nicholas,S. and Walker, A. (2008) Crime in England and Wales 2007/08: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime.    Home Office Statistical Bulletin.          http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf Accessed 04/08.
    12. Matoesian, G. M. (1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    13. Myhill, A. and Allen, J. (2002) Rape and sexual assault of women: Findings from the British Crime Survey.  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf , accessed 13/02/2006.
    14. Page, A. D. (2008) Judging women and defining crime: Police officers’ attitudes toward women and rape.   Sociological Spectrum 28 (4): 389-411.
    15. Pomerantz, A. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.  In J.H. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.),Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  pp. 57-101.
    16. RASASC: Rape & Sexual Abuse Support Centre, North West Wales (2008) Annual Report (Unpublished).
    17. Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    18. van Dijk, T. (2001) Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity.   In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis London: Sage.  pp. 95-120.
    19. Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1988) Discourse Analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires.  In C. Antaki (ed.), Analysing Everyday Explanation.  London: Sage pp.   pp. 168-183.
    20. Wodak, R. (1996) Disorders of Discourse.  London: Longman.


Gerard O’Grady

Download Full Text

  • This study examines the representation of three prisoners held at Guantanamo in the online editions of four newspapers; The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian and The Independent.  It does this: by examining the verbal processes and the Participant Roles in which the three detainees were represented in the four titles over a four year period; by explicating the attributed voices used in each title’s reported discourse; and by contrasting the construals of the three detainees in reported clauses with the construals of the detainees in a small human rights corpus from the same period.  The study found that despite the newspapers’ overt claims to be opposed to the extra-judicial imprisonment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo the representations of the three detainees suggested that the two American titles positioned themselves vis-a-vis the three prisoners ideologically as implicit promoters of a ‘national security’ discourse while the British papers managed to ideologically position themselves at times as supportive of the national security argument and at other times as supportive of the human rights discourse.
    1. Bartlett, T. (2004).  Mapping distinction: Towards a systemic representation of power in a language.  In L. Young and C. Harrison (eds.) Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Continuum.  pp. 68-84.
    2. Davidson, G. (ed.) (2004).  Roget’s Thesaurus.  London: Penguin.
    3. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power.  London: Longman.
    4. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change.  Cambridge: Polity Press. 
    5. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Longman.
    6. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.I.M. (1999).  Construing Experience Through Meaning: A language based Approach to Cognition.  London: Continuum.
    7. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar.  3rd edn.  London: Edward Arnold.
    8. Hasan, R. (1996). Ways of saying: Ways of meaning’.  In C. Cloran, D. Butt and G. Williams (eds.), Ways of Meaning: Ways of Saying. Selected Papers of Ruqaiya Hasan.  London: Cassell.  pp. 191-242. 
    9. Mori (2005) Voting Intention by Newspaper Readership 03-09-2005.  http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2005/voting-by-readership-q1.shtml, last accessed 29.09.07
    10. ‘Rushing off a Cliff’ The New York Times.  September 28, 2006.  Available online at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3ba3410944ff9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Accessed Dec 29 2008
    11. O’Halloran, K. (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
    12. Philo, G., Berry, M.,  Gilmour, M., Gilmour, A., West, L. and Rust, S. (2004). Bad News from Israel.  London: Pluto.
    13. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartik, J. (1985).  A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.  Longman: London.
    14. Sands, P. (2008).  Torture Team:  Deception, Cruelty and the Compromise of Law.  London: Allen Lane.
    15. Seaton, J.  (1988).  The Sociology of the Mass Media.  In J. Curran and J. Seaton (eds.), Power without Responsibility.  3rd Edition.   London: Routledge.  pp. 222-245. 
    16. Stafford Smith, C.  (2007). Bad Men: Guantanamo Bay and the Secret Prisons.  London: Weidenfield & Nicolson. 
    17. van Dijk, T.A. (2005).  Contextual knowledge management in discourse production: A CDA perspective.  In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse  Analysis.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 71-100.
    18. Widdowson, H.G. (2000).  On the limitations of linguistics applied.  Applied Linguistics 21 (1): 3-25.
    19. Wodak,  R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage.  pp. 63-94.
    20. Worthington, A. (2007).  The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison. London: Pluto Books.


John E. Ingulsrud and Kate Allen

Download Full Text

  • Practitioners of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and media control discourse view their work as contributing to the social good.   In addition, both share the literacy practices of engaging in the text critically.   However, CDA practitioners would probably resist having their work compared with that of media control discourse.   They would prefer to see their goal as emancipatory, as opposed to defending perceived standards motivated by fear.  This article describes similarities and differences of the two approaches in terms of reading text.   Four general positions are presented to describe ways in which a text can be read.   The article then illustrates how one media control text, Frederic Wertham’s ‘Seduction of the Innocent’, was successful in bringing about social change in the United States as comics were censored and attitudes towards them were profoundly altered.   In contrast, manga in Japan were not suppressed and censored in the same way, providing an example of what developed in the absence of such social critique.  Wertham’s success provides a cautionary note for CDA practitioners as they attempt to effect social change.
    1. Barker, M. (1984).  A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign.  Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
    2. Barker, M. (1999).  Fredric Wertham: The sad case of the unhappy humanist.  In J.A. Lent (ed.), Pulp Demons: International Dimensions of the Postwar Anti-Comics Campaign.  Madison, NJ and London: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press and Associated University Presses.  pp. 215-233.
    3. Barthes, R. (1977).  The death of the author.  In S. Heath (trans.), Image, Music, TextNew York: Hill and Wang.  pp. 142-148.
    4. Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    5. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    6. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Longman.
    7. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.   London: Routledge.
    8. Graff, H.J. (1987). The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture and Society.  Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 
    9. Hajdu, D.  (2008).   The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How it Changed America.  New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    10. Hirsch, E.D. (1976). The Aims of Interpretation.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    11. Ingulsrud, J.E. and Allen, K. (2009).  Reading Japan Cool: Patterns of Manga Literacy and Discourse.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    12. Janks, H. (2002). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool.  In M. Toolan (ed.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics IV.  London: Routledge.  pp. 26-42.
    13. Janks, H. (2005).  Language and the design of texts.  English Teaching: Practice and Critique 4 (3): 97-110.
    14. Kane, B. (1939).  Batman.   New York: Detective Comics.
    15. Kutner, L. and Olson, C. (2008). Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do.  New York: Simon and Schuster.
    16. Marston, W.M. (1944). Wonder Woman.  New York: DC Comics.
    17. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.   New York: McGraw-Hill.
    18. Miller vs.  California.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/ USSC_CR_0413_0015_ZS.html.  (accessed: 6 January  2009).
    19. Nakano, H. (2004). Manga Sangyōron [Theory of manga industry].  Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō.
    20. Richardson, K. (2002). Critical linguistics and textual diagnosis.  In M. Toolan (ed.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics I.  London: Routledge.  pp.  358-374.
    21. Roddenberry, G.  (1966).  Star Trek.  http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/ features/intro/index.html.  (accessed: 6 January 2009).
    22. Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication.  Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    23. Sharrock, W.W. and Anderson, D.C. (1981).  Language, thought and reality again.  Sociology 15: 287-293.
    24. Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice.   Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    25. Surber, J.P. (1998). Culture and Critique: An Introduction to the Critical Discourses of Cultural Studies.  Boulder, CO: Westview.
    26. Suzuki, Kazuko. (1998). Pornography or therapy?  Japanese girls creating the Yaoi phenonenon.   In S. Inness (ed.), Millennium Girls: Today’s Girls around the World.   Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.  pp. 243-267. 
    27. Wertham, F. (1954).  Seduction of the Innocent: The Influence of Comic Books on Today’s Youth.   New York: Rinehart.
    28. Wodak, R. (2008). The Politics of Exclusion.  Debating Migration in Austria.  With M.  Krzyzanowski.  New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    29. Wright, B.W. (2003). Comic Book Nation:  The Transformation of Youth Culture in America.   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.