Volume 3 (2) 2009

PRACTISING GOVERNANCE: MULTI-PARTY DECISION MAKING IN A MULTI-SCALAR CONTEXT  Pages 92-117

Diana MacCallum

Download Full Text

  • The much vaunted shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’ in recent years involves (among other things) increased attention to the participation of ‘stakeholders’ in policy making, a trend affecting not only the actions of politicians but also the day-to-day practice of public servants.  In my field, urban/regional planning, this attention has led to a ‘communicative turn’ in the academy; planning practice is increasingly seen as discursive rather than technical.  This reframing leads to some significant tensions: between interactive processes and traditional forms of rationalist legitimacy; and between local aspirations and strategic concerns at other geo-political scales.  In this paper, I examine how these tensions were negotiated in one case of participatory planning, a meeting of a committee charged with recommending strategies to solve a perceived shortage of industrial land in a remote Australian town.  Using discourse-analytical methods derived from systemic functional linguistics, I describe the committee’s construction of a ‘common interest’ between the local and state levels, placing the discursive practices underlying this construction in a context of multi-scalar governance and power relations.

    1. Baxter, J. (2002) Competing discourses in the classroom: A Poststructuralist discourse analysis of girls’ and boys’ speech in public contexts. Discourse & Society 13(6): 827-842.
    2. Berger, G. (2003) Reflections on Governance: Power relations and policy making in regional sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 5(3): 219-234.
    3. Bergvall, V. and Remlinger, K. (1996) Reproduction, resistance, and gender in educational discourse: The role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 7(4): 453-479.
    4. Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1991) Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    5. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    6. Bourdieu, P. (1994) Rethinking the State: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field. Sociological Theory 12(1): 1-18.
    7. Brennan, F. (1998) The Wik Debate: Its Impact on Aborigines, Pastoralists and Miners. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
    8. Brenner, N., Jessop, B., Jones, M. and MacLeod, G. (2003) State/Space: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
    9. Burns, D. (2000) Can local democracy survive governance? Urban Studies 36 (5-6): 963-973.
    10. Campbell, H. and Marshall, R. (2000) Public involvement and planning: Looking beyond the one to the many. International Planning Studies 5 (3): 321-344.
    11. Christie, F. (2002) Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. New York: Continuum Press.
    12. Cowlishaw, G. (1995) Did the earth move for you?: The anti Mabo debate.  Australian Journal of Antrhopology 6 (1): 43-63.
    13. de Souza, D.C. and Novy, A. (2007) New regions and new modes of regional governance in central Europe and in Brazil. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik XXIII(1): 51-74.
    14. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    15. Eggins, S. (1990) Conversational Structure: A Systemic-functional Analysis of Interpersonal and Logical Meaning in Multiparty Sustained Talk. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
    16. Eggins, S. (1994) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter.
    17. Eggins, S. and Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell.
    18. Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
    19. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Polity Press.
    20. Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Text Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    21. Forester, J. (2007) Challenges of Deliberation and Participation. Les ateliers de l’éthique 1 (2): 20-25.
    22. Forester, J. (2008) Editorial: Are collaboration and participation more trouble that they’re worth? Planning Theory and Practice 9 (3): 299-304.
    23. Gallent, N. (2008) Strategic-local tensions and the spatial planning approach in England. Planning Theory and Practice 9 (3): 307-323.
    24. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    25. González, S. (2008) (Dis)conecting Milan(ese): Deterritorialised urbanism and disempowering politics in globalising cities. Environment and Planning A 40, advance online publication.
    26. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    27. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    28. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1985) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University.
    29. Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R. (1993) Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.
    30. Hanrahan, M. U. (2005) Highlighting hybridity: A critical discourse analysis of teacher talk in science classrooms. Science Education 90 (1): 8-43.
    31. Hay, C. and Marsh, D. (2000) Demystifying Globalization. Houndmills: MacMillan.
    32. Heckscher, C. (1994) Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. Heckscher and A. Donnellon (eds.), The Post-bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change. Thousand Oaks: Sage. pp. 14-62.
    33. Iedema, R. (1997) Interactional Dynamics and Social Change: Planning as Morphogenesis. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
    34. Iedema, R. (1998) Institutional responsibility and hidden meanings. Discourse & Society 9 (4): 481-500.
    35. Iedema, R. (2003) Discourses of Post-Bureaucratic Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    36. Iedema, R. and Grant, S. (2004) Revisiting Appraisal in the light of public-organisational discourse, or: The institutionalization of emotive meaning. Presented to the annual conference of the Australian Systemic Functional Linguistics Association, SFL Ripples in the 21st Century, Brisbane.
    37. Iedema, R. and Scheeres, H. (2003) From doing work to talking work: Renegotiating knowing, doing, and identity. Applied Linguistics 24 (3): 316-337.
    38. Jessop, B. (2004) Critical semiotic analysis and cultural political economy. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 1-16.
    39. Journal of Pragmatics (2007) Special issue on argumentation and television talk shows. 39 (8).
    40. Krugman, P. (1994) Competitiveness – a dangerous obsession. In Competitiveness: An International Economics Reader. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
    41. Leubolt, B. (2007) On the Different Facets of the Debate on Governance. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik XXIII(1): 4-25.
    42. Leubolt, B., Novy, A. and Beinstein, B. (2007) Governance and Democracy: KATARSIS WP1.5 Survey Paper for European Commission Framework Program 6.  Available: < http://katarsis.ncl.ac.uk/wp/wp1/D15papers/D15.pdf>.
    43. MacCallum, D. (2007) When Experts Disagree: Discourse Dynamics in Participatory Planning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Urban and Regional Planning, Curtin University of Technology, Perth.
    44. Marks, G. and Hooghes, L. (2004) Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. In I. Bache and M. Flinders (eds.), Multi-Level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 15-30.
    45. Martin, J. R. (1985) Process and text: Two aspects of semiosis. In J.D. Benson and W.S. Greaves (eds.), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol. 1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 248-274.
    46. Martin, J.R. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    47. Martin, J.R. (1997) Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie and J.R. Martin (eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School. London: Cassell. pp. 3-39.
    48. Nettheim, G. (2003) Constitutional comparisons: Canadian dimensions of Australia’s experience with native title. Australian Canadian Studies 21 (1): 101-123.
    49. Neuman, M. (2007) Multi-scalar large institutional networks in regional planning. Planning Theory and Practice 8 (3): 319-344.
    50. Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
    51. Pierre, J. and Peters, B.G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
    52. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996) The new governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies XLIV: 652-667.
    53. Sarangi, S. and Slembrouck, S. (1996) Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Longman.
    54. Schegloff, E.A. (1997) Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society 8 (2): 165-187.
    55. Skelcher, C., McCabe, A., Lowndes, V. and Nanton, P. (1996) Community Networks in Urban Regeneration: “It all Depends Who you Know …!”.  Bristol: Policy Press.
    56. Smith, N. (2003) Remaking scale: Competition and cooperation in pre-national and post-national Europe. In N. Brenner, B. Jessop, M. Jones and G. MacLeod (eds.),State/Space: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 227-38.
    57. Stoker, G. (1998) Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal 155: 17-28.
    58. Sum, N.-L. (2000) Globalization and its ‘Other(s)': Three ‘new kinds of orientalism’ and the political economy of trans-border identity. In C. Hay and D. Marsh (eds.),Demystifying Globalization.  Houndmills: MacMillan. pp. 105-126.
    59. Sum, N.-L. (2005) Towards a Cultural Political Economy: Discourses Material Power and (Counter-)Hegemony. DEMOLOGOS Spot Paper for European Commission Framework Program 6. Available: < http://demologos.ncl.ac.uk/wp/wp1/papers/cpe2.pdf>.
    60. Swyngedouw, E. (2000) Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 63-76.
    61. Swyngedouw, E. (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies 42 (11): 1991-2006.
    62. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    63. Wodak, R. and Vetter, E. (1999) Competing professions in times of change: The discursive construction of professional identities in TV talk-shows. In R. Wodak and C. Ludwig (eds.), Challenges in a Changing World: Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis. Wien: Passagen Verlag. pp. 209-237.

THIS IS TO SAY YOU’RE EITHER IN OR OUT: SOME REMARKS ON CLUSIVITY  Pages 118-129

Anna Ewa Wieczorek

Download Full Text

  • This paper aims at contributing to the general understanding of the way linguistic indicators of inclusion and exclusion operate in political discourse. Clusivity, a fairly recent phenomenon comprising various linguistic means of expressing inclusionary and exclusionary reference to the actors presented in a discursive representation of reality, rests on at least two conceptualisation schemata: a) that of a container, with its elements inside, outside, and somewhere near the borderline, and b) centre-periphery, with the elements being manoeuvred inwards and outwards (Wieczorek 2009). Social groups themselves are structured in terms of the container metaphor, having a boundary, a centre, and areas inside and outside. The speaker may intentionally impose boundaries demarcating ‘us’ and ‘them’ territories along three complementary and overarching dimensions (i.e. spatial, temporal and axiological), all of which are metaphorically conceptualised in terms of space. Time bears spatial properties of length and front-back orientation and axiological relations closeness and remoteness (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Cognitive processes involved in clusivity comprehension induce the addressee to locate various discourse elements inside and outside the deictic centre. This anchor point for conceptualisations, from its very nature, is largely dependent on ‘cognitive frames that embody conventional shared understandings of the structure of society, groups and relations with other societies’ (Chilton 2004: 56). Therefore metaphors are employed as both devices of intrinsic reason about the location of actors with relation to the deictic centre and underlying frames for the speaker’s linguistic choices.

    1. Adetunji, A. (2006). Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: Deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo’s speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics 5(2): 177-191.
    2. Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
    3. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Cameron, R. (2007). Three approaches to finding the social in the linguistic. In J. Holmquist, A. Lorenzino and L. Sayahi (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.  pp. 1-22.
    5. Cap, P (2006). Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    6. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    7. Cysouw, M. (2005a). A typology of honorific uses of clusivity. Typological Studies in Language 63: 213-230.
    8. -. (2005b). Syncretisms involving clusivity. In E. Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. pp. 73-111,
    9. -. (2005c). What it means to be rare: The variability of person marking. In Z. Frajzyngier, D.S. Rood and A. Hodges (eds.), Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 235-258.
    10. Dobrushina, N.and Goussev, V. (2005). Inclusive imperative. In E. Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 179-211.
    11. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London/New York: Routledge.
    12. Filimonova, E. (ed.) (2005). Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    13. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    14. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    15. Rapaport, W.J., Segal, E.M., Shapiro, S.C., Zubin, D.A., Bruder, G.A., Duchan, J.F., Almeida, M.J., Daniels, J.H.,  Galbraith, M., Wiebe, J.M. and Hanyong Yuhan, A. (1994). Deictic centres and the cognitive structure of narrative comprehension. Technical Report 89-01, SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/DC.knuf.pdf
    16. Simon, H.J. (2005). Only you – Philological investigations into the alleged inclusive-exclusive distinction in the second person plural. In E. Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 113-150
    17. Wieczorek, A. E. (2009). In-group and out-group markers in the service of political legitimisation: A critical-methodological account. In P. Cap (ed.), Advances in Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

COGNITIVE BASES OF THE NEW NATIVE AMERICAN FEMININITY: THE ROLE OF BLENDING THEORY IN IN SISTER NATION’S COLLECTIVE IDENTITY  Pages 130-150

Carmen Sancho Guinda

Download Full Text

  • Within the framework of social constructivism, this article seeks to explore the role played by conceptual integration in the collective identification of an oppressed ethnic minority, Sister Nations, a gendered contemporary version of the traditional North-Amerindian extended family. To this end it examines significant examples from their poetic production-a repository of tribal storytelling agreed as a lingua franca of de-colonization by in-group members-and  focuses on its semantic impact at the ideational, interpersonal and textual levels, both from a propositional and procedural standpoint. Findings reveal two major types of blended spaces: spatio-temporal and personal, as well as the existence of a dual pragmatics of reconciliation and resistance acting as a pedagogical and vindicating strategy that maintains in-group cohesion and mediates between this Native collectivity and the domineering Euroamerican societies. Thus, blending contributes to poetic meaning, through which identities are constructed and disseminated, and proves to be an active agent of social change.

    1. Anderson, B. (1983/2006). Comunidades imaginadas. Reflexiones sobre el origen y la difusión del nacionalismo. México D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Trans. Eduardo L. Suárez.
    2. Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Culture Difference. Oslo-London: Universitetsforlaget, 9-38.
    3. Barth, F. (1981). Process and Form in Social Life: Selected Essays by Fredrik Barth, vol.1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    4. Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
    5. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Trans. V.W. McGee.
    6. Bloor, M. and T. Bloor (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold.
    7. Brant, B. (ed.) (1984/1988). A Gathering of Spirit. A Collection by North American Indian Women. Toronto: The Women’s Press.
    8. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    9. Cáliz-Montoro, C. (2000). Writing from the Borderlands. A Study of Chicano, Afro-Caribbean and Native Literatures in North America. Toronto: TSAR.
    10. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
    11. Charteris-Black, J. (2008). Rogue states and rampant bodies: Metaphors of control in public and private worlds. Plenary lecture delivered at the CADAAD 08.  Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
    12. Chilton, P. (2005a). Manipulation, memes and metaphors. The case of Mein Kampf. In L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  p. 5-45.
    13. Chilton, P. (2005b). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  pp. 19-51.
    14. Cohen, A.P. (1985). The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock. 
    15. Cooley, R. and Ballenger, R. (1981). Cultural retention programs and their impact on Native American Indians. In R.N. St. Clair and W. Leap, (eds.), Language Renewal among Native American Indian Tribes. Rosslyn, Virginia: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. pp. 91-102.
    16. Dunn, Y. (2008). Trends in UK political discourses around `bad behaviour´ in schools. Paper presented at CADAAD 08.  Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
    17. Duranti, A. (1997/2000). Antropología Lingüística. Trans. Pedro Tena.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    18. Eliade, M. (1955/1999). Imágenes y Símbolos. Trans. Carmen Castro.  Madrid: Taurus.
    19. Erdrich. H.E. and Tohe, L. (2002). Sister Nations: Native American Women Writers on Community. St. Paul, Minnesotta: Minnesotta Historical Society Press.
    20. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    21. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London/New York: Routledge.
    22. Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    23. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    24. Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
    25. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain-Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    26. Gold, P. (1994). Navajo & Tibetan Sacred Wisdom. The Circle of the Spirit. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions.
    27. Grad, H. and Martín Rojo, L. (2008). Identities in discourse: an integrative view. In R. Dolón and J. Todolí (eds.), Analysing Identities in Discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 3-28.
    28. Gumperz, J. (1962). Types of linguistic communities. Anthropological Linguistics 4 (1): 28-40.
    29. Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    30. Halliday. M.A.K. (1978/1987). Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    31. Harjo, J. and Bird, G. (1997). Reinventing the Enemy’s Language. Contemporary Women’s Writings of North America. New York/London: W.W. Norton.
    32. Harris, M. (1980/1990). Antropología Cultural. Trans. Vicente Bordoy and Francisco Revuelta.  Madrid: Alianza.
    33. Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1979/1993). Language as Ideology. London/New York: Routledge.
    34. Howard, J. (2000). Social Psychology of Identities. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 367-393.
    35. Hoy, H. (2001). How Should I Read These? Native Women Writers in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    36. Hymes. D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Blackwell. pp. 35-71.
    37. Jenkins, R. (1996/2008). Social Identity. London/New York: Routledge.
    38. Jung, C. , von Franz, L.L., Henderson, J.L., Jacobi, J. and  Jaffé, A. (1964/1966). El Hombre y sus Símbolos. Trans. Luis Escolar Bareño.  Madrid. Aguilar.
    39. Katz, S. (2008). ‘I paid for this class so I deserve a better grade': The development of a conceptual blend. Poster presented at CADAAD 08.  Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
    40. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press.
    41. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    42. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980/1986). Metáforas de la Vida Cotidiana. Trans. Carmen González Marín.  Madrid: Cátedra.
    43. Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
    44. Lemke, J.L. (2008). Identity, development, and desire: Critical questions. In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard and R. Iedema (eds.), Identity Trouble: Critical Discourse and Contested Identities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 17-42.
    45. Loomba, A. (1998). Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London/New York: Routledge.
    46. Musolff, A. (2008). What can Critical Metaphor Analysis add to the understanding of racist ideology? Recent studies of Hitler’s anti-Semitic metaphors. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 2 (2): 1-10.
    47. Rader, D. (2003). The epic lyric. Genre and contemporary American Indian poetry. In D. Rader and J. Gould (eds.), Speak to Me Words. Essays on Contemporary American Indian Poetry. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.  pp. 123-142.
    48. Radden, G. and Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    49. Ramírez,  M. and A. Castañeda (1974). Cultural Democracy, Bicognitive Development and Education. Nueva York: Academic.
    50. Sancho Guinda, C. (2008). El Viaje de las Nativas Norteamericanas como Contradiscurso de Reconciliación y Resistencia (una Visión Interdisciplinar). Doctoral thesis.  Universidad Complutense de Madrid.  Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Complutense de Madrid. http://eprints.ucm.es/7885/1/T30255.pdf
    51. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (1981). Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
    52. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis and R.K.S. Macaulay (eds.), The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.  pp. 284-306. 
    53. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    54. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    55. Tedlock, D. (2003). Sobre la representación del discurso en el discurso. In C. Reynoso (ed.), El Surgimiento de la Antropología Postmoderna. Barcelona: Gedisa. pp. 295-296.
    56. van Dijk, T.A. (1998/2006). Ideología: Una Aproximación Multidisciplinaria.  Barcelona: Gedisa.
    57. van Dijk, T.A. (2003). Ideología y Discurso. Barcelona: Ariel.
    58. Versluis, A. (1993). The Elements of Native American Traditions. Longmead: Elements Books.

CORPUS CONSTRUCTION AND KEYWORD ANALYSIS OF TEXTS PRODUCED IN THE AFTERMATH OF TOKAI VILLAGE’S NUCLEAR FUEL PLANT ACCIDENT  Pages 151-161

Takonori Kawamata

Download Full Text

  • In, 1999 a severe accident happened at a nuclear fuel factory in Tokai Village, 130 km northeast of Tokyo.  The Tokai Village accident is the third most serious accident in the history of nuclear power, after the 1986 Chernobyl accident and the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.  Following this accident, Tokai village held 16 public briefing meetings.  The meetings were intended to reassure villages of the plants’ safety measures.  This analysis indicates that these meetings provided opportunities for corporate and governmental power to be legitimized.  Based on the minutes from three of the meetings and three types of publications after the accident, a critical discourse analysis was conducted.  The identities of victims and company and village officials are expressed in multiple ways.  Moreover an appraisal analysis involving concordancing and referencing to corpora was conducted using keywords in the Tokai Village Corpus.  This corpus is a compilation of various documents concerning the accident.  In this study, the rationale for the corpus construction and the selection of key words will be described together with the results from the keyword concordancing procedure.  These findings will be interpreted in light of the participants’ narratives.

    1. Biber, D.  (1998). Variation in Speech and Writing.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    2. Bloor, M. and Bloor, T. (2007). Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    3. Davis, K.A. (1995). Qualitative Theory and Methods in Applied Linguistics Research.  TESOL Quarterly, 29, (3), 427-453.
    4. Higuchi, K. (2001). KH Corder http://khc.sourceforge.net/ retrieved in  2008/10/19.
    5. Ibaraki Shinbunsha (ed.) (2003). Genshiryoku Mura.  [The nuclear power Village].  Ibaraki: Naka Shobo.
    6. Jacobsen, W.M. (2001). The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese.  Tokyo: Kuroshio.
    7. Japan’s nuclear nightmare (1999, Octorber 11th). TIME Magazine.  23-27.
    8. Kawamata, T. (2006). The aftermath of a nuclear power plant accident; Critical discourse analysis of Tokai Village public briefing meetings.  Annual Bulletin of the Graduate Schools of Humanities and Social Sciences 4: 3-27.  Tokyo: Meisei University.
    9. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyujo (2003). Nihongo Hanashikotoba kopasu no naiyō http://www.kokken.go.jp/katsudo/seika/corpus/releaseinfo/010/ retrieved in 2008/04/30.
    10. O’Halloran, K. and Coffin, C. (2004). Checking overinterpretation and underinterpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics.  In C. Coffin, A. Hewings and K. O’Halloran  (eds.), Applying English Grammar.  London: Edward Arnold.  pp. 275-297.
    11. O’Halloran, K. (2005). The role of appraisal and corpora in analysing dog-whistle journalism. Paper presented at Symposium on Text, Pretext, and Interpretation.  Tokyo: Waseda University.
    12. Stubbs, M. (1996). Human and inhuman geography: A comparative analysis of two long texts and a corpus.  In C. Coffin, A. Hewings and K. O’Halloran (eds.), Applying English Grammar.  London: Edward Arnold.  pp. 245-274.
    13. Migawa, T. (2002). Mienai kyōfu wo koete -Murakami Tatsuya tōkai sonnchō no shōgen [Beyond the invisible terror: Testimony of Tokai Village mayor Tatsuya Murakami].  Ibaraki: Naka Shobo.
    14. Saito, S., Someya, T., Fujita, S., Horiguchi, S. and Mochizuki, T.  (2001). Tokai mura rinkai jiko no machikara- 1999 nen 9 gatsu 30 nichi jikotaiken no shōgen-.  [From Critical Nuclear Accident Town- Tokai Mura: The Testimony of the Accident Experience] .  Tokyo: Shunpousha.

DRAINING OFF TRADE UNION’S ROLE: GORDON BROWN’S SPEECH TO THE TUC CONFERENCE 2007  Pages 162-175

Claudia Ortu

Download Full Text

  • According to Bourdieu and Wacquant (2001) Trade Unions are one of the obstacles to the success of the neo-liberal project carried out by powerful social actors, international institutions and Governments.  Analysis of how Trade Unions are construed (Fairclough et al. 2002) by Governments is thus a necessary step in understanding language in new capitalism.  Because of the change of power in Great Britain from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown both Trade Unions and political commentators expected a change in the relationship between New Labour and the workers’ organisations.  However, analysis of Gordon Brown’s speech to the 2007 TUC annual conference shows that those expectations have not been fully met.  The conceptual framework for this analysis is Fairclough’s most recent one for Critical Discourse Analysis (2003, 2006), coupled with the Discourse Historical Approach (Wodak and Meyer 2001).  Text analysis is carried out using a pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation theory (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992) alongside the tools of systemic-functional grammar (Halliday 2004).  The interconnectedness of the linguistic data with other moments of the social practice is also discussed as the study claims a post-disciplinary (Jessop and Sum 2001) perspective.

    1. Bourdieu, P.  and Wacquant, L.  (2001) New Liberal Speak: Notes on the new planetary vulgate.  Radical Philosophy 105: 2-5.
    2. Fairclough, N.  (2000) New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
    3. Fairclough, N.  (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.  London: Routledge.
    4. Fairclough, N.  (2006) Language and Globalization.  London: Routledge.
    5. Fairclough, N.,  Jessop, B.  and Sayer, A.  (2002) Critical Realism and Semiosis.  Journal of Critical Realism 5 (1): 2-10.
    6. Gordon Brown’s Speech to TUC Conference 10 September 2007, retrieved from http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-13692-f0.cfm
    7. Halliday, M.A.K.  (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn.  London: Arnold.
    8. Jessop, B.  (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity.
    9. Jessop, B.  Sum, N-L.  (2001) Pre-disciplinary and Post-disciplinary Perspectives.  New Political Economy 6 (1): 89-101.
    10. Ortu, C.  (2008). Construing Trade Unions: The Anti-Trade Union Discourse of British Governments (1978-2007).  Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Naples, Federico II, Italy.
    11. Reisigl, M.  and Wodak, R.  (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism.  London: Routledge.
    12. Sayer, A.  (2001) For postdisciplinary studies: Sociology and the curse of disciplinary parochialism/imperialism.  In J. Eldridge et al. (eds.), For Sociology: Legacies and Prospects.  Durham: Sociology Press.  pp.83-91.
    13. Swales, J.M.  (1990) Genre Analysis.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    14. van Eemeren, F.  H.  Grootendorst, R.  (1992) Argumentation Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma dialectic perspective.  New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
    15. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.  and Kruiger, T.  (1987) Handbook of Argumentation Theory.  Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    16. van Leeuwen, T. (1996) The representation of social actors.  In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Routledge.  pp. 32-70.
    17. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) (2001) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

THE HUMAN FACE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: A CRITICAL STUDY  Pages 176-202

Giuditta Caliendo & Elena Magistro

Download Full Text

  • Recent studies on the informative material made available to the general public by the European Union (Caliendo 2007, forthcoming in coll. with Piga; Magistro 2007a, 2007b, forthcoming) have shown that the community institutions and bodies notably draw from a variety of different genres and discursive practices to appeal to their audience. More specifically, the European Union (EU) benefits from orders of discourse that are generally found in communication in the commodity sector. The spread of consumer culture has affected the way public entities present and manage themselves, leading to a more commercial approach in terms of the objects they deal with (i.e. public products), the beneficiaries of these objects (i.e. customers), and the way public entities represent these objects and address such beneficiaries (i.e. the adoption of a promotional style). Hence, the public sector has lately been experiencing a process of commodification of social life, carrying elements of marketisation of public and institutional discourse (Fairclough and Wodak 1997).  Albeit critical research focusing specifically on EU informative documents is still at an early stage, the above-mentioned trends have been documented under many respects, looking at revealing instances of lexicon and grammar, as well as larger-scale discursive and visual elements. This paper intends to broaden investigations on the strategies and genres adopted by the EU to win consensus and promote its institutional structure. Attention is called to alternative tools supplementing the array of discursive devices and structures employed in EU brochures of comparable nature. In particular, focus will be placed on the ‘humanisation’ of the European Union, achieved by means of the incorporation of EU employees’ profiles in the Union’s informative material. The attribution of precise names, faces, roles and objectives to activity carried out at the European Union will be examined along with the social impact of such attribution discussed within the framework of critical discourse analysis.

    1. Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge: Polity.
    2. Caliendo, G.  and Napolitano, A. (2008) Communities, boundaries and new neighbours: The discursive construction of EU enlargement.  Journal of Contemporary European Research 4 (4), Special Issue – Media and Communication in Europe: Babel Revisited: 322-345.
    3. Caliendo, G. (2007) The Role of the New Media in the Promotion of Identity Frameworks.  In M. Bait and M.C. Paganoni (eds.), Discourse and Identity in Specialized Communication. Conference Proceedings. Milano: Lubrina Editore, 32-35.
    4. Caliendo, G. and Piga, A. (forthcoming) Framing identity through the virtual channels of institutional communication.  In P. Evangelisti and E. Ventola (eds.), Issues of Identity in and Across Cultures and Professional Worlds.  Bern: Peter Lang. 
    5. Cap, P. (2005) Language and legitimization: Developments in the proximization model of political discourse analysis.  Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 1: 7-36.
    6. Chilton, P. (2004) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice.  London: Routledge.
    7. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    8. Chilton, P. and Schäffner C. (1997) Discourse and politics.  In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction.  Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.  Vol. 2.  London: Sage.  pp. 206-230.
    9. Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse.  London: Edward Arnold.
    10. Fairclough, N. and Chouliaraki, L. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    11. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) Critical discourse analysis.  In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction.  Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2.  London: Sage.  pp. 258-284.
    12. Magistro, E. (2007a) Promoting the European identity: Politeness strategies in the discourse of the European Union.  Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1 (1): 51-73.
    13. Magistro, E. (2007b) A constitution for Europe: Elements of politeness in informative brochures on the European Constitution.  Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Politeness. Leeds: University of Leeds.
    14. Magistro, E. (forthcoming) The marketization of institutional discourse: The case of the European Union.  In U. Okulska and P. Cap (eds.), Current Directions in Political Discourse Analysis: Methodological and Critical Perspectives.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    15. Rutherford, P. (2000) Endless Propaganda. The Advertising of Public Goods.  Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    16. Van Leeuwen, T.  (1996) The representation of social actors.  In C.R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Routledge.  pp. 32-70.
    17. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005) Three models of interdisciplinarity. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 3-18.
    18. Van Leeuwen, T. and Wodak R. (1999) Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis.  Discourse Studies 1: 83-119.
    19. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.