Volume 4 (1) 2010

“IT’S NOT RACIST TO IMPOSE LIMITS ON IMMIGRATION”: CONSTRUCTING THE BOUNDARIES OF RACISM IN THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION DEBATE  Pages 1-17

Simon Goodman

Download Full Text

  • This paper addresses how members who argue for limiting asylum and immigration in the UK construct and deal with accusations that they are racist. An action orientation focussed discourse analysis is conducted on public sphere data gathered primarily from the British general election campaign of 2005. Opponents of immigration and asylum are shown constructing accusations of racism as a way of stifling a ‘proper’ debate about asylum and immigration. As a result of this, supporters of asylum and immigration are seen using rhetorical delicacy when attempting to make accusations of racism in anticipation of, and in order to deflect, such criticism. It is suggested that in debates about asylum there appears to be an additional disclaimer so that as well as ‘I’m not racist…but’ participants are seen claiming that ‘I’m not calling you racist…but’. The implications of this analysis for discursive psychologists interested in the construction of racism and wider debates about asylum and immigration are discussed.

    1. Antaki, C and Wetherell, M. (1999). Show concessions. Discourse Studies 1 (1): 7-27.
    2. Atkinson, J. (1984) Public speaking and audience responses: Some techniques for inviting applause.  In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Presspp. 370-409.
    3. Augoustinos, M., Tuffin, K. and Every, D. (2005). New racism, meritocracy and individualism: Constraining affirmative action in education. Discourse & Society 16 (3): 315-340.
    4. Bakhtin, M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics Ann Arbor, MI, Ardis.
    5. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas.
    6. Barnes, R., Auburn, T. and Lea, S. (2004). Citizenship in practice. British Journal of Social Psychology 43: 187-206.
    7. Billig, M. (1988). The notion of ‘prejudice': Some rhetorical and ideological aspects. Text 8 (1-2): 91-110.
    8. Billig, M. (2001). Humour and hatred: The racist jokes of the Ku Klux Klan. Discourse & Society 12 (3): 267-289.
    9. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., and Radley, A. (1988). Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London, Sage.
    10. Capdevila, R. and Callaghan, J. (2008). ‘It’s not Racist. It’s Common Sense’. A critical analysis of political discourse around asylum and immigration in the UK. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 18: 1-16.
    11. Clarke, V., Kitzinger, J. and Potter, J. (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway': Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology 43 (4): 531-550.
    12. Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    13. Edwards, D. (2003). Analyzing racial discourse: The discursive psychology of mind-world relationships. In H. van den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.),Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 31-48.
    14. Edwards, D. and J. Potter. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London, Sage.
    15. Every, D and Augoustinos, M. (2007). Constructions of racism in the Australian parliamentary debates on Asylum Seekers. Discourse & Society 18 (4): 411-436
    16. Fairclough, N. (2003). Political correctness': The politics of culture and language. Discourse & Society 14 (1): 17-28.
    17. Figgou, L and Condor, S. (2006). Irrational categorization, natural intolerance and reasonable discrimination: Lay representations of prejudice and racism. British Journal of Social Psychology 45: 219-243.
    18. Fiske, S. T. and Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Random House.  pp. 1-74.
    19. Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford, Blackwell.
    20. Goodman, S. (2007). Constructing asylum seeking families. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1 (1): 35-49.
    21. Goodman, S. (2008a). Justifying the harsh treatment of asylum seekers on the grounds of social cohesion. The Annual Review of Critical Psychology 6: 110-124.
    22. Goodman, S. (2008b). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology 5(4): 265-275
    23. Goodman, S and Speer, S.A. (2007). Category use in the construction of asylum seekers. Critical Discourse Studies 4 (2): 165-186.
    24. Hewitt, J.P. and Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 40: 1-11.
    25. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) (2003). Asylum in the UK, an IPPR factfile. http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/ippr_asylumintheUK.pdf
    26. Korobov, N. (2004). Inoculating against prejudice: A discursive approach to homophobia and sexism in adolescent male talk. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 5 (2): 178-189.
    27. Leudar, I., Marsland, V. and Nekvapil, J. (2004). On membership categorisation: ‘Us’, ‘them’ and ‘doing violence’ in political discourse. Discourse & Society 15 (2-3): 243-266.
    28. Leudar, I. and Nekvapil, J. (2004). Media dialogical networks and political argumentation. Journal of Language and Politics 3: 247-266.
    29. Leudar, I. and Nekvapil, J. (unpublished). Islam and the War on Terror: A week in the life of a dialogical network.  Manchester University.
    30. Lynn, N. and Lea, S. (2003). ‘A phantom menace and the new Apartheid': The social construction of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom. Discourse & Society 14 (4): 425-452.
    31. Lynn, N. and Lea, S. (2005). Graffiti and the asylum seeker: Text, context and social comment. Visual Communication 4: 39-63.
    32. Mehan, H. (1997). The discourse of the illegal immigration debate: A case study in the politics of representation. Discourse & Society 8 (2): 249-270.
    33. Oakes, P.J., Haslam, S.A. and Reynolds, K.J. (1999). Social categorization and social context: Is stereotype change a matter of information or of meaning?. In D. Abrams and M. Hogg (eds.), Social Identity and Social CognitionOxford, Blackwell. pp. 55-79
    34. Oaten, M.  (2005). Hansard record of House of Commons debate 7th February 2005. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050207/debtext/50207-08.htm
    35. Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and the constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In J.E. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: BPS books.
    36. Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (2003). ‘I’m a bit Concerned': Early actions and psychological constructions in a child protection helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (3): 197-240.
    37. Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1988). Accomplishing attitudes: Fact and evaluation in racist discourse. Text 8: 51-68.
    38. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L.M. and Malle, B.F. (2001). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. In M. Hogg and D. Abrams (eds.), Intergroup Relations. Hove: Psychology Press. pp. 30-60.
    39. Randall, M. (2003). Guest media alert: Asylum and immigration comparing the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent. Medialens, 8th December. http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html
    40. The Refugee Council. (2005). Tell it like it is: the truth about asylum. A Pocket Guide for the General Election. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/downloads/news/PostElectionguideonlineversionE.pdf
    41. Schuster, L. (2004). The exclusion of asylum seekers in Europe. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society Working Paper No. 1. Oxford: University of Oxford.
    42. Speer, SA. (2002) Sexist talk: Gender categories, participants’ orientation and irony. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6 (3): 347-377.
    43. Speer, S.A. and Potter, J. (2000). The management of heterosexist talk: Conversational resources and prejudiced claims. Discourse & Society 11 (4): 543-572.
    44. Steiner, N. (2000). Arguing about Asylum. New York: St. Martins Press.
    45. Tajfel, H. and Turner J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelso-Hall.  pp.  7-24.
    46. van den Berg, H., Wetherell, M. and Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.(eds.) (2003).  Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    47. van den Berg, H. (2003). Contradictions in interview discourse. In H. van den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  pp. 119-137.
    48. van der Valk, I. (2001). Political discourse on ethnic issues: A comparison of the right and the extreme-right in the Netherlands and France (1990- 1997).  Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research. Grenoble,  5-11 April..
    49. van Der Valk, I. (2003). Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France. Discourse & Society 14 (3): 309-348.
    50. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.
    51. van Dijk, T. A. (1997).  Political discourse and racism: Describing others in Western parliaments. In S.H. Riggins (ed.), The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. London: Sage.  pp. 32-64.
    52. van Dijk, T A. (2000). Ideologies, racism, dscourse: Debates on immigration and ethnic issues. In J. ter Wal and M. Verkuyten (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Racism. Aldershot: Ashgate.  pp. 91-116.
    53. Verkuyten, M. (2001). ‘Abnormalization’ of ethnic minorities in conversation. British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 257-278.
    54. Verkuyten, M. (2003). Racism, happiness, and ideology. In H. van den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  pp. 138-155.
    55. Verkuyten, M. (2005). Immigration discourses and their impact on multiculturalism: A discursive and experimental study. British Journal of Social Psychology 44: 223-241.
    56. Wetherell, M. (2003). Racism and the analysis of cultural resources in interviews. In H. van den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (eds.), Analyzing Race Talk: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 11-30
    57. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society. 9 (3): 387-412.
    58. Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the Language of Racism. London: Harvest Wheatsheaf.

JURGEN HABERMAS’ LANGUAGE-PHILOSOPHY AND THE CRITICAL STUDY OF LANGUAGE  Pages 18-37

Bernhard Forchtner

Download Full Text

  • Why is critical discourse analysis (CDA) critical? CDA takes the position of those being excluded or suffering and, thereby, reminds the audience of modernity’s unredeemed promises.  However, it seems as if critical discourse analysts have understood critique mainly against the background of their progressive consensus.  That is: critical standards have been based on a conventionalist understanding of what is right or wrong.  But this provides neither a theoretical- nor a grounded notion of critique which has led to accusations of CDA being unprincipled.  In this paper, I argue that especially Ruth Wodak’s discourse-historical approach (DHA), which draws on the Frankfurt School, could avoid this by referring in even more detailed ways to Jürgen Habermas’ language-philosophy.  For this, the paper introduces and relates his categories to those of the DHA in order to explicitly outline an emancipatory and grounded concept of critique. 

    1. Adorno, T.W. (1997).  Negative Dialectics.  London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    2. Austin, J.L.  (1975).  How to do things with Words.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    3. Billig, M. (2003).  Critical discourse analysis and the rhetoric of critique.  In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.),  Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinary.  London: Palgrave.  pp. 35-46. 
    4. Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C.  (2000).  Critical discourse analysis.  Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447-466.
    5. Chilton, P. (2003).  Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice.  London: Routledge.
    6. Chouliaraki, L.  and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity:  Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    7. Döbert, R.  (1973).  Zur Logik des Übergangs von archaischen zu hochkulturellen Religionssystemen.  In K. Eder (ed.),  Die Entstehung von Klassengesellschaften. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.  pp. 330-363.
    8. Eder, K.  (1973). Die reorganisation der legitimationsformen in klassengesellschaften.  In K. Eder (ed.), Die Entstehung von Klassengesellschaften.  Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.  pp.288-299. 
    9. Eder, K. (1988).  Die Vergesellschaftung der Natur:  Studien zur sozialen Evolution der Vernunft.  Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
    10. Eder, K. (1999). Societies learn and yet the world is hard to change.  European Journal of Social Theory 2 (2): 195-215.
    11. Fairclough, N.  (1989).  Language and Power.  London: Longman.
    12. Fairclough, N.  (1995).  Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language.  London: Longman.
    13. Fairclough, N.  (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.),  Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis,  2nd edn.  London: Sage.  pp. 162-186.
    14. Fairclough, N.  and Wodak R.  (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis.  In T.A. van Dijk (ed.),  Discourse as Social Interaction.  London: Sage.  pp. 258-284. 
    15. Forchtner, B. (forthcoming a).  Nazi-collaboration, acknowledgements of wrongdoing and the legitimation of the Iraq war in Denmark: a judge-penitent perspective.
    16. Forchtner, B. (forthcoming b).  Pride and prejudice in post-heroic public spheres: The rhetoric of judge-penitence.
    17. Foucault, M.  (1981).  The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1.  Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    18. Foucault, M.  (1983).  On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress.  In P Rabinow (ed.) (2000), Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984.  Vol.  1.  London: Penguin.  pp.  253-280.
    19. Foucault, M.  (1984):  The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In P. Rabinow (ed.).  (2000).  Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984.  Vol.  1.  London: Penguin. pp. 281-301.
    20. Goffman, E. (1971).  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.  Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    21. Habermas, J.  (1971).  Reflections on the linguistic foundation of sociology: The Christian Gauss lecture.  In J. Habermas (ed.) (2001), On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction:  Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.  pp. 3-103. 
    22. Habermas, J. (1972).  Wahrheitstheorien.  In J. Habermas (ed.) (1984), Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns.  Frankfurt/Main:                Suhrkamp.  pp.  27-183.
    23. Habermas, J. (1974a).  Reflections on communicative pathology.  In J. Habermas (ed.) (2001),  On the Pragmatics of  Social Interaction: Preliminary Studies in the Theory of Communicative Action.  Cambridge: Polity Press.  pp. 131-170. 
    24. Habermas, J.(1974b).  Können komplexe Gesellschaften eine vernünftige Identität ausbilden?, In J. Habermas (ed.) (1976),  Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus.  Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.  pp.  92-126.
    25. Habermas, J. (1974c).  Introduction: Some difficulties in the attempt to link theory and praxis. In J. Habermas (ed.), Theory and Practice.  London: Heinemann.  pp.  1-40. 
    26. Habermas, J. (1975).  Towards a reconstruction of historical materialism.  In J. Habermas (ed.) (1979), Communication and the Evolution of Society.  Heinemann: London.  pp. 130-177.
    27. Habermas, J.  (1976a).  Überlegungen zum evolutionären Stellenwert des Rechts.  In J. Habermas (ed.),  Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus.  Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.  pp. 260-267.
    28. Habermas, J. (1976b). What is Universal Pragmatics?  In J. Habermas (ed.) (1979),  Communication and the Evolution of Society.  London: Heinemann.  pp. 1-68.
    29. Habermas, J.  (1982).  A reply to my critics.  In J.B. Thompson and D. Held (eds.), Habermas:  Critical Debates.  London/Basingstoke: MacMillan Press.  pp. 219-283.
    30. Habermas, J. (1984).  The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. I:  Reason and the Rationalization of Society.  London: Heinemann. 
    31. Habermas, J. (1987).  The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. II: Lifeworld and System.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    32. Habermas, J. (1990).  The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    33. Habermas, J.  (1993). The Gulf War: Catalyst for a new German normalcy.  In M. Pensky (ed.),  The Past as Future.  University of Nebraska Press.  pp. 5-31. 
    34. Habermas, J. (1995).  Individuation through socialization: George Herbert Mead’s theory of subjectivity.  In J. Habermas (ed.), Postmetapysical Thinking.  Cambridge: Polity Press.  pp. 149-204.
    35. Habermas, J. (1996).  Some further clarifications of the concept of communicative rationality. In J. Habermas (ed.), On the Pragmatics of Communication.  Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.  pp. 307-342.
    36. Habermas, J. (1997).  Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    37. Habermas, J. (2003).  Introduction: Realism after the Linguistic Turn.  In J. Habermas (ed.) (2008), Truth and Justification.  Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.  pp. 1-51. 
    38. Hammersley, M. (1997).  On the foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis.  Language and Communication 17 (3): 237-248.
    39. Horkheimer, M. (1933). Materialism and Morality.  In G.F. Hunter, M.S. Kramer and J. Torpey (trans.) Between Philosophy and Social Science: Selected Early Writings. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.  pp. 15-48.
    40. Jäger, S. (2001): Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of critical discourse and dispositive analysis.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.),Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage.  pp. 32-62. 
    41. Klein, G.  (2003). Glückliche Tage. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.  20.  24/01/2003. p. 33.
    42. Luhmann, N.  (1978). Geschichte als prozess und die theorie soziokultureller evolution.  In C. Meier and K.G. Faber (eds.),  Historische Prozesse.  München: DTV.  pp. 413-440.
    43. Jäger, S. and Maier, F. (2009). Theoretical and methodological aspects in Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.  London: Sage.  pp. 34-61.
    44. Marcuse, H.  (1992). Eros and Civilization: Philosophical Inquiry into Freud.  Boston: Beacon Press.
    45. Martin, J.R. and Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction.  In J.R. Martin and R. Wodak (eds.),  Re/reading the Past: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Time and Value. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 115-138.
    46. McKenna, B. (2004).  Critical Discourse Studies: Where to from here? Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 1-31.
    47. Miller, M. (1986).  Kollektive Lernprozesse:  Studien zur Grundlegung einer Soziologischen Lerntheorie.  Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
    48. Miller, M.  (2002).  Some theoretical aspects of systematic learning. http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de/Isoz/isoz/miller/miller/systemic_learning.pdf Accessed 04.03.2007.
    49. Mouffe, C. (2006).  The Return of the Political.  London: Verso.
    50. Piaget, J. (1970).  Genetic Epistemology.  New York: Columbia University Press.
    51. Piaget, J. (1977).  The Moral Judgement of the Child.  London: Penguin.
    52. Reisigl, M.  and Wodak, R.  (2001).  Discourse and Discrimination:  Rethorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism.  London: Routledge. 
    53. Reisigl, M.  and Wodak, R.  (2009): The discourse-historical approach, in: Wodak, R.  and Meyer, M.  (eds.).  Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  Second Edition.  London: Sage.  pp.  87-121.
    54. Schmid, M. (1987). Collective action and the selection of rules: Some notes on the evolutionary paradigm in social theory.  In M. Schmid and F.M. Wuketits (eds.), Evolutionary Theory in Social Science.  Dodrecht: D. Reidel.  pp.  79-100. 
    55. Strydom, P. (1992).  The ontogenetic fallacy: The immanent critique of Habermas’s developmental logical theory of evolution.  Theory, Culture and Society 9: 65-93.
    56. Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA).  In A. Ryan and A. Wray (eds.),  Evolving Models of Language. Clevedon: British Association for Applied Linguistics. pp. 100-116.
    57. van Dijk, T.A. (1991).  Racism and the Press.  London: Routledge.
    58. van Dijk, T.A. (1993).  Elite Discourse and Racism.  London: Sage. 
    59. van Dijk, T.A. (2001).  Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer  (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage.  pp. 95-120.
    60. van Dijk, T.A.  (2006). Discourse and manipulation.  Discourse & Society 17 (3): 359-383.
    61. van Dijk, T.A.  (2008). Critical discourse analysis and nominalization. Discourse & Society  19 (6): 821-828.
    62. van Dijk, T.A. (2009).  Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.),  Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis,  2nd edn.  London: Sage.  pp.62-86.
    63. Widdowson, H.G. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis.  Applied Linguistics 19 (1): 136-151.
    64. Widdowson, H.G. (2004).  Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.  Oxford: Blackwell.
    65. Wittgenstein, L. (1968).  Philosophical Investigations.  Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    66. Wodak, R. (1996).  Disorders of Discourse.  London: Longman.
    67. 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.
    68. Wodak, R. (2001b).  The discourse-historical approach.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.),  Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage.  pp. 63-94.
    69. Wodak, R.  and Meyer, M.  (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.),  Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis,  2nd edn.  London: Sage.  pp. 1-33.
    70. Wodak, R.  and Weiss, G.  (2005): Analyzing European Union discourses: Theories and applications.  In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.),  A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 121-135.

MEANINGS OF DEMOCRACY IN ESTONIA: AN ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS  Pages 38-53

Martin Mölder

Download Full Text

  • The word ‘democracy’ is well disseminated among people all over the world, yet there is little detailed knowledge apart from ungrounded assumptions about how this concept is understood outside academia, how it is meaningful to the general public.  This paper aims to uncover some of this meaning on the basis of focus group discussions on democracy conducted in Estonia at the end of 2006.  First of the two objectives of this paper is to introduce aspects of Cognitive Linguistics to aid in this analysis of meaning.  Relying mostly on the notions of categorization and conceptual frames, the second and main objective of the paper is to outline and introduce four frames of democracy as the four main ways this word can be meaningful: the freedom frame, the responsibility frame, the interaction frame and the rules frame.  It is the contention here that together these four frames cover most of the variation in the meaning of the word ‘democracy’ in Estonia.

    1. Chilton, P. (2005).  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: John Benjamins.  pp. 19-52.
    2. Croft, W. (2006).  The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.  D. Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings.  Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 269-302.
    3. Dalton, R.J., Shin, D.C. and Jou, W. (2007).  Popular conceptions on the meaning of democracy: Democratic understandings in unlikely places.  Center for the Study of Democracy: University of California.
    4. Dirven, R., Frank, R.M. and Pütz, M. (2003).  Introduction: Categories, cognitive models and ideologies.  In R. Dirven, R.M. Frank and M. Pütz (eds.), Cognitive Models in Language and Thought:  Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings.  Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  pp. 1-24.
    5. Dryzek, J.S. and Holmes, L. (2002).  Post-Communist Democratization: Political Discourses Across Thirteen Countries.  Cambridge: Cambride University Press.
    6. Evans, V.,  Bergen, B.K. and Zinken, J. (2006).  The Cognitive Linguistics enterprise: An overview.  In V. Evans, B.K. Bergen and J. Zinken (eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader.  London: Equinox.  pp. 2-36.
    7. Evans, V. and Green, M. (2006).  Cognitive Linguistics.  An Introduction.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    8. Fairclough, N.  (2003).  Analyzing Discourse.  Textual Analysis for Social Research.  London New York: Routledge.
    9. Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. (2002).  The Way We Think.  Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities.  New York: Basic Books.
    10. Fillmore, C.J. (2006 [1982]). Frame semantics.  In D. Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings.  Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  pp. 373-400.
    11. Lakoff, G. (1987).  Women, Fire and Dangerous Things:  What Categories Reveal about the Mind.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    12. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2003 [1980]).  Metaphors We Live By.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    13. Lukeš, D. (2007).  What does it mean when texts ‘really’ mean something?: Types of evidence for conceptual patterns in discourse.  In C. Hart and D.  Lukeš (eds.),Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory.  Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 180-206.
    14. van Dijk, T.A. (1998).  Ideology: A Multidiciplinary Approach.  London: Sage.

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IN THE CANADIAN MEDIA DURING THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE 2007  Pages 54-72

Steffi Retzlaff

Download Full Text

  • This article examines the portrayal of the EU during the height of the climate change debate in 2007 as represented by the Canadian media.  One result of the linguistic analysis is the emergence of two competing discourses about the EU, a Euro-sceptical or anti-EU discourse and a Euro-friendly or pro-EU discourse.  This study provides some preliminary results, which illuminate how the media in a non-EU country perceive the power, importance and leadership role of the EU or lack thereof.

     

    1. Agency France Press (2007).  Chinese taste for shark fins fuels call for European controls.  Vancouver Sun, May 18: E13.
    2. Agreement on Commercial and Economic Cooperation (1976) http://www.delcan.ec.europa.eu/en/eu_and_canada/official_documents/instruments/eu-ca_acec_1976.shtml.  Retrieved May 05, 2008.
    3. Austin, J.L.  (1962). How to Do Things with Eords.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    4. Baird’s green plan is a step forward.  (2007) Montreal Gazette (Editorial), April 30: A16.
    5. Bärenreuter, C.  (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 P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and InterdisciplinarityAmsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 189-211.
    6. Bell, A. (1991).  Language of the News Media.  Oxford: Blackwell.
    7. Boykoff M.T. and Mansfield, M. (2008) Ye Olde Hot Aire: reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press.  Environmental Research Letters (3).  Retrieved on February 10, 2009 from http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/2/024002/erl8_2_024002.pdf?request-id=f2ba6e3b-779e-4b0f-a83a-8931145bd546
    8. Chaban, N., Bain J. and Stats, K. (2007). Under construction: Images of the enlarging EU in the Australasian news media.  Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1 (2): 79-95.
    9. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity:  Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    10. Chouliaraki, L. (1999).  Media discourse and national identity: Death and myth in a news broadcast.  In R. Wodak and C. Ludwig (eds.), Challenges in a Changing World: Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis.  Vienna: Passagen.  pp. 37-62.
    11. Croci, O. and Tossutti, L. (2007). That elusive object of desire: Canadian perceptions of the European Union.  European Foreign Affairs Review 12 (3): 287-310.
    12. Curry, B.  (2007) Meet Kyoto or pay up, Dion tells big industry: Liberals plan stiff fines for polluters that fail to reduce emissions by 2008.  Globe and Mail, March 17: A1.
    13. De Souza, M. (2007). EU raises bar for pollution caps.  Calgary Herald, March 10: A8.
    14. Fairclough, N. (1992).  Discourse and Social Change.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    15. Foucault, M. (1989). The Archeology of Knowledge.  London: Routledge
    16. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison.  Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    17. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News.  London: Routledge.
    18. Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic Criticism.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    19. Gedda, G. (2007). EU urged to take human rights lead.  Chronicle Herald, January 12: A5.
    20. Givón, T. (1993). English Grammar:  A Function-Based IntroductionVol. 1.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    21. Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks.  London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    22. Guerin, S.S. (2008). The mega new-generation deal with Canada.  CEPS Commentary/30 October.  Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
    23. Guerin, S.S.  and Napoli, C. (2008). Canada and the European Union: Prospects for a free trade agreement.  CEPS Working Document No. 298/July 2008.  Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
    24. Gunter, L. (2007). Live from Germany, it’s Kyoto theatre.  National Post, June 5: A12.
    25. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language.  London: Edward Arnold.
    26. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978).  Language as Social Semiotic.  London: Edward Arnold.
    27. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985).  Introduction to Functional Grammar.  London: Edward Arnold.
    28. Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R. (1985). Language, Context and Text.  Oxford: University Press.
    29. Hutcheon, L. (1994). Irony’s Edge:  The Theory and Politics of Irony.  London: Routledge.
    30. Jäger, S. (1996). BrandSätze: Rassismus im Alltag.  Duisburg: DISS.
    31. Koopmans, R.  and Erbe, J. (2003).  Towards a European public sphere?  Vertical and horizontal dimensions of Europeanised political communication.  Discussion Paper SP IV 2003-403.  Berlin: WZB.
    32. Larsen, H. (2004).  Discourse analysis in the study of European foreign Policy.   In B. Tonra and T. Christiansen (eds.), Rethinking European Union Foreign Policy.  Manchester: Manchester University Press.  pp.  62-80.
    33. Leblond, P. (2008).  The economic partnership agreement between Canada and the EU is still on track.  Canada-Europe transatlantic dialogue: Seeking transnational solutions to 21st century problems, Policy Brief November 2008.  Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.carleton.ca/europecluster
    34. Lomborg, B. (2007).  Global warming’s dirty secret.  National Post, March 20: A16.
    35. Malnes, R. (1995). ‘Leader’ and ‘entrepreneur’ in international negotiations: A conceptual analysis.  European Journal of International Relations 1 (1): 87-112.
    36. Mayeda, A.  (2007).  Harper touts green plan in Europe.  Vancouver Sun, June 6: A11.
    37. Mortished, C. (2007).  When it comes to carbon emissions, some prefer the devil they know.  Globe and Mail, March 15: B10.
    38. Oberhuber, F., Bärenreuter, C., Krzyzanowski, M., Schönbauer, H. and Wodak, R. (2005).  Debating the European Constitution: On representations of Europe/the EU in the press.  Journal of Language and Politics 4 (2): 227-271.
    39. Peiser, B. (2007).  Calling China.  National Post, June 9: FP15.
    40. Resnick, P. (2005). The European Roots of Canadian Identity.  Peterborough: Broadview Press.
    41. Retzlaff, S. and Gänzle, S. (2008). Constructing the European Union in Canadian News.  Critical Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2 (2): 67-89.
    42. Pietikäinen, S. (2003).  Indigenous identity in print: Representations of the Sami in news Discourse.  Discourse & Society 14 (5): 581-609.
    43. Saunders, D. (2007). Fear of Russia marks Europe’s green policy.  Globe and Mail, January 11, A1 and A16.
    44. Saunders, D. (2008). Canada-EU trade proposal rivals scope of NAFTA.  Globe and Mail, September 18: A13.
    45. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    46. Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and Meaning.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    47. Simon-Vandenbergen, A-M. (1996). Image-building through modality: The case of political interviews.  Discourse & Society 7 (3): 389-415.
    48. To set attainable greenhouse targets.  (2007) Globe and Mail (Editorial) June 8: A24.
    49. Underdal, A. (1994). Leadership theory: Rediscovering the arts of management.  In I.W.  Zartman (ed.), International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity.  San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.  pp. 178-197.
    50. van Dijk, T.A. (1988). News as Discourse.  Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    51. van Dijk, T.A. (1995). Discourse semantics and ideology.  Discourse & Society 6 (2): 243-289.
    52. van Dijk, T.A. (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach.  London: Sage.
    53. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R. and Reisigl, M. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    54. Wodak, R. and Chilton, P. (eds.) (2005).  A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    55. Wodak, R. and Wright, S. (2006).  The European Union in cyberspace.  Journal of Language and Politics 5 (2): 251-275.
    56. Young, L. and Harrison, C. (eds.)(2004).  Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis.  London and New York: Continuum.
    57. Young, O. (1991).  Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society.  International Organization 45 (3): 281-309.

POLITICAL DISCOURSES, WOMEN’S VOICES: MISMATCHES IN REPRESENTATION  Pages 73-92

Jacinta Ndambuki & Hilary Janks

Download Full Text

  • This paper is part of a larger project whose overall aim is to investigate the representation of women’s issues in Makueni District, a rural district in Kenya, using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).  The study explores the mismatches between the way politicians select and represent these issues and the way women construct these issues in women’s groups.  This paper focuses on representations of women’s agency.  How women construct their agency is contrasted with that of politicians and community leaders.  This social science research is multidisciplinary and crosses the fields of language, gender studies and politics.  Data was collected by use of focus group discussions, political speeches and interviews.  The data for the entire study consisted of eleven focus group discussions with women’s groups, four political speeches and ten interviews with politicians and other community leaders.  This article is based on four focus group discussions, and four interviews.  The analysis focuses on the use of pronouns and modality.  Each of these linguistic features provides a different lens on the data which enables us to understand the construction of agency.  While women, politicians and other community leaders construct women’s agency within deficit discourses, these discourses do not match women’s enacted practices or what political and community leaders say they expect of women.  The contradiction inherent in the study is that everyone constructs women as lacking in agency, yet these women act as agentive subjects. 

    1. Adhiambo-Oduol, J. (2001).  The Socio-cultural Aspects of the Gender Question.  Nairobi: Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC).
    2. Amadiume, I. (1987).  Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society.  London: Zed Books Ltd.
    3. Blommaert, J. (2005).  Discourse: A Critical Introduction.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    5. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power.  Ed.  by J.B.  Thomson.  Oxford: Polity Press.
    6. Brown, G.  and Yule, G. (1983).  Introduction to Discourse Analysis.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    7. Chilton, P.  and Schäffner, C. (1997).  Discourse and politics.  In T.A.  van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction.  Discourse Studies: A Multi Disciplinary Introduction. London: Sage.  pp. 206- 230.     
    8. Chitere, P.O. (1988).  The women’s self-help movement in Kenya: A historical perspective, 1940 – 1980.  Transformational Journal of History (17): 50-68.
    9. Coppock.  D.L., Desta, S.,  Wako, A., Aden, I., Gebru, G., Tezera, S. and Tadecha, C. (2006). Women Groups in Arid Northern Kenya: Origins, Governance and Roles in Poverty Reduction.  Conference documentation: Available Online  at http://www.ilri/research/theme1/
    10. Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK, 2002) Registered Voters per Polling Station (Samuel Kivuitu, Chairman)Nairobi: ECK.
    11. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power.  London: Longman.
    12. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language.  London: Longman.
    13. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.  London: Routledge.
    14. Khasiani, S.A.  (2001) Enhancing women’s participation in fovernance: The case of Kakamega and  Makueni districts, Kenya.  In E.M. Rathgeber and E.O. Adera (eds.),Gender and the Information Revolution in Africa.  Canada: International Research Center. 
    15. Kanogo, T. (2005). African Womanhood in Colonial Kenya 1900-50.  Oxford: James Currey.
    16. Lewa, R.M. (2002). Capacity Building Programmes (CBPs) Amongst Women Groups in Mombasa District Kenya.  Unpublished MA thesis.  Nairobi: University of Nairobi.
    17. Morrison, A. and Love A. (1996). A Discourse of disillusionment: Letters to the Editor in two  Zimbabwean Magazines 10 years after independence.  Discourse & Society 7 (1) : 39-79.
    18. Ndambuki, J.M. (2006).  Foregrounding women’s agency in Africa’s democratization process.  CODESRIA Bulletin.  Special Issue on The African Woman 1-2: 17-19.
    19. Popkewitz, T.S.  (2007) Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform: Science, Education and Making Society by Making the Child.  London: Routledge. 
    20. Schäffner, C. (1996). Editorial: Political speeches and discourse analysis.  Current Issues in Language and Society 3 (3): 201-204.
    21. van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society.  In T.A. van Dijk (ed.),  Discourse as social interaction.  Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, vol. 2.London: Sage. pp. 1-37. 
    22. Verma, R. (2001). Gender and Livelihoods in East Africa: Through Farmers’ Eyes.  Ottawa: International Development Centre. 
    23. Whiteley, W.H. and Muli, G. (1962). A Practical Introduction to Kamba.  London: Oxford University Press.
    24. Wodak, R. (1997).  Some important issues in the research of gender and discourse.  In R.  Wodak (ed.), Gender and Discourse.  London: Sage.  pp. 1-20
    25. Wodak, R.  (2001). What is CDA 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.
    26. Zubair, S. (2003). Literacies across generations: Women’s religious and secular identities in Siraiki villages.  South East Asia Research 23 (2): 135-151. 

OPTING OUT OR PLAYING THE ‘ACADEMIC GAME’? PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION BY OFF-CENTER ACADEMICS  Pages 93-105

Esmat Babaii

Download Full Text

  • Bio-data is a short genre, highly constrained in terms of length and conventional style, through which a contributor to an academic journal or a conference provides a sketch of one’s major academic achievements in a third-person narrative.  To examine the possibility and the extent of professional expertise construction in this genre, 512 bio-data provided by the off-networked participants at the 4th Asia TEFL Conference were analyzed.  The results revealed that within this restricted space and style, some off-Center academics, influenced by their awareness of Center-Periphery relations in the academia, strategically manipulated information about self and their accomplishments to increase their chance of inclusion and visibility in the field.  In short, they tended to foreground and highlight their relationship with Western academic institutions and figures, on the one hand, and background or even suppress their local experience, on the other. 

    1. Baxter, J. and Wallace, K.  (2009). Outside In-group and Out-group Identities? Constructing male solidarity and female exclusion in UK builders’ Talk.  Discourse & Society20: 411-429. 
    2. Belcher, D. (2007).  Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world.  Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 1-22.
    3. Blackledge, A. (2005).  Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    4. Bourdieu, P. (2000).  Pascalian Meditations.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    5. Campbell, S. and Roberts, C. (2007).  Migration, ethnicity and competing discourses in the job interview: synthesizing the institutional and personal.  Discourse & Society18: 243-271. 
    6. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002).  A geopolitics of academic writing.  Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    7. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007).  Research Methods in Education (6th edn.).  London: Routledge. 
    8. Dyer, J. and Keller-Cohen, D. (2000).  The discursive construction of professional Self through narratives of personal experience.  Discourse Studies 2 (3): 283-304.
    9. Fairclough, N. (2003).  Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.  London: Routledge. 
    10. Harrison, J. (2000).  Multiple imaginings of institutional identity: A case study of a large psychiatric research hospital.  Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36: 425-455. 
    11. Holliday, A. (2008).  Standards of English and politics of inclusion.  Language Teaching 41 (1): 119-130. 
    12. Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered Talk at Work.  Malden: Blackwell Publishing. 
    13. Hyland, K. (2006). English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book.  London: Routledge. 
    14. Koutsantoni, D. (2006).  Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power.  Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 19-36. 
    15. Kunda, G. (1992).  Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-tech Corporation.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    16. Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. (1967).  Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience.  In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Verbal Visual Arts.  Seattle: University of Washington Press.  pp. 12-44.
    17. Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J. (2006).  Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication 23: 3-35.
    18. Macdonald, S. and Kam, J. (2007a).  Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies.  Journal of Management Studies 44 (4): 640-55.
    19. Macdonald, S. and Kam, J. (2007b).  Aardvark et al.: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies.  Journal of Information Science 33: 702-717. 
    20. Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., and Davies, A. (2008).  Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery.  Organization 15 (4): 584-597. 
    21. Salager-Meyer, F. (2001).  From Self-highlightedness to Self-effacement: A genre-based study of the socio-pragmatic function of criticism in medical discourse.  LSP & Professional Communication 1 (2): 63-84. 
    22. Salager-Meyer, F. (2008).  Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future.  Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 121-132. 
    23. Seligman, M.E.P. (1975).  Helplessness: On depression, development, and death.  San Francisco: Freeman.
    24. Swales, J. (1998).  Language, science and scholarship.  Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 8: 1-18. 
    25. van Leeuwen, T.J. (1996).  The representation of social actors.  In C. Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis.  Routledge: London. pp.31-72.
    26. Vásquez, C. (2007).  Moral stance in the workplace narratives of novices.  Discourse Studies 9: 653-675. 
    27. von Busekist, A. (2004). Uses and misuses of the concept of identity.  Security Dialogue 35: 81-98
    28. Zaman, A. and Moazam Zaman, R. (1994).  Psychology and development: A conceptual itinerary.  Psychology and Developing Societies  6: 1-19. 
    29. Zibakalam, S. (2009).  We are overwhelmed by the West’ [maghhur-e Gharb Shodeim] Interview.  Hamshahri 17 (4885), July 16, 2009.