Volume 5 (2) 2012

Special Issue: Ideology, Identity and Interaction



Monika Kopytowska

Download Full Text

    1. Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy. London: New Left Books.
    2. Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7: 335-342.
    3. Bamberg, M. and Georgakopoulou, A. (2008) Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text and Talk 28(3): 377-396.
    4. Bamberg, M., De Fina, A. and Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and Identity Construction. In: S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx and V. L. Vignoles, V. L. (eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 177-199.
    5. Bamberg, M., DeFina, A. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.) (2007). Selves and Identities in Narrative and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    6. Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
    7. Blommaert, J. (ed.) (1999). Language Ideological Debates. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    8. Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    9. Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (2003). Cross-Cultural Representation of ‘Otherness’ in Media Discourse. In: G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity in Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Palgrave. pp. 272-296.
    10. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Charteris-Black, J.  (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmilan.
    12. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, London: Routledge.
    13. Chilton, P. (2011). Language Structure and Geometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    14. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity. Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    15. Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatized Conflict: Understanding Media and Conflicts in the Contemporary World. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    16. De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. and Bamberg, M. (eds). (2006). Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    17. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology. London: Verso.
    18. Engels, F.  (1893). Engels to F. Mehring, July 14, 1893. Translated from German and reprinted in K. Marx and F. Engels (1968). Selected Works In One Volume. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    19. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
    20. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity Press.
    21. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse. Discourse and Society 4(2): 133-168.
    22. Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
    23. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse and Text: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    24. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk (T.). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 14-31.
    25. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
    26. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and Power.  In: Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Trans. Colin Gordon et al. Ed. Colin Gordon. Brighton. Sussex: The Harvester Press. pp. 107-133.
    27. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. (L.H.Martin, H. Gutman, P.H. Hutton, Eds.). Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press.
    28. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
    29. Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress and Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    30. Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and Method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 
    31. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
    32. Gramsci, A. (1977). Selections from the Political Writing, 1910-1920. New York: International Publishers. 
    33. Gramsci, A. (1978). Selections from the Political Writing, 1921-1926. New York: International Publishers.
    34. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon.
    35. Habermas, J. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
    36. Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    37. Hall, S. (1996). The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees. In: D. Morley and K-H Chen (eds.). Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge. pp.25-46.
    38. Harris, Z.S. (1952). Discourse Analysis. Language 28: 1-30. 
    39. Hart, C. (2010).  Critical Discourse and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse.  Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    40. Ivie, R. (1980). Images of savagery in American justifications of war. Communications Monographs 47: 279-291.
    41. Koller, V. (2004). Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
    42. Kopytowska, M. (2009). Corpus linguistics and an eclectic approach to the study of news – the mechanism of framing. In: B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and K.  Dziwirek (eds.),  Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics. Frankfurt am. Main: Peter Lang. pp. 83-109.
    43. Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition. 22(1): 5-22.
    44. Kress, G. and Hodge, R. (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
    45. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Multimodal Analysis. London: Arnold.
    46. Krzyzanowski, M. and Wodak, R. (2008). The Politics of Exclusion. The Austrian Case. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 
    47. Larrain, J. (1979). The Concept of Ideology. London: Hutchinson.
    48. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1970). The German Ideology. Part I. New York: International Publishers.
    49. Mazzoleni, G. and Schulz, W. (1999). Mediatization of Politics: a challenge for democracy?  Political Communication 16(3): 247-61.
    50. McAdams, D. P., Josselson, R. and Lieblich, A. (eds.). (2006). Identity and story: Creating self in narrative. Washington, DC: APA Book, pp. 1-11.
    51. Mumby, D. K. (2004). Discourse, Power and Ideology: Unpacking the Critical Approach. In D. Grant et al. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: Sage. pp. 237-258.
    52. Reisigl, M.  and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
    53. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell
    54. Thompson, J. (1984). Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    55. Thompson, J. (1995). The Media and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    56. van Dijk, T. (1987). Communicating Racism. London: Sage.
    57. van Dijk, T. (1991). Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
    58. van Dijk, T. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. London: Sage.
    59. van Dijk, T. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schäffner and A. Wenden (eds.), Language and Peace. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing. pp. 17-33.
    60. van Dijk, T. (1998a). Ideology. London: Sage.
    61. van Dijk, T. (1998b). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell and P. Garrett (eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 21-63.
    62. Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. London: Palgrave.
    63. Wodak, R. (2011). Critical Linguistics and Discourse Analysis. In: J. Zienkowski, J. O. Ostman and J. Verschueren (eds.), Discursive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 50-70.
    64. Youngs,  G. (2009). Blogging and globalization: the blurring of the public/private spheres. Aslib Proceedings: New Information. Perspectives 61(2): 127-138.


Bob Hodge

Download Full Text

  • This article reflects on the condition of CDA, by analyzing key terms in the 2010 CADAAD conference: ideology, identity, interaction. It uses ideological-complex theory to emphasize contradiction as key to ideological effects in a highly complex world, source of both dynamism and vulnerability in theory, analysis and action. It argues for a single diverse and inclusive analytic project, including social, cognitive and linguistic lines, studying all media, including verbal, operating across all scales of space and time. Only an inclusive, contradictory CDA can have the impact it deserves.
    1. American Muslim. (2010). Empowering Muslim women. ashadu.blogspot.com/2010_8_22 (accessed 25/9/2010)
    2. Barnitz, J. (1986). Toward understanding the efffects of cross-cultural schemata and discursive structures on second language reading comprehensions. Journal of Literacy Research 18(2): 95-116.
    3. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
    4. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
    5. Chomsky, N. (1995). Minimalist program.  Cambridge, Mass: MIT press.
    6. Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    7. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
    8. Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992). Critical Language Awareness London, Longman.
    9. Foster, J. and Potts, J. (2009). A micro-meso-macro perspective on the methodology of evolutionary economics. In: Cantner, U., Gafford, J-L., and Nesta, L. (eds.)Schumpeterian perspectives on innovation, competition and growth. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    10. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979 ). Language and control. London: Routledge.
    11. Gilmore, R. (2002). Fatal couplings of power and difference. Professional Geographer 54(1): 15-24.
    12. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In: Hall, S. (ed.), Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson.
    13. Halliday, M. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    14. Hart, C. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: towards a theoretical framework. Critical Discourse Studies 5(2): 91-106.
    15. Hodge, B. and Kress, G. (1974). Transformations, models and processes. Journal of Literary Semantics 3: 5-21
    16. Hodge, B. and Kress, G. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity.
    17. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. London: Routledge.
    18. Kress, G. and Hodge, B. (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
    19. Kress, G. and Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
    20. Marcuse, H. (1972). One-Dimensional Man. London: Abacus.
    21. Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.
    22. Smith, A., and Humphreys, M. (2006). Evaluation of unsupervised mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behavior Research Methods 38(2): 26-79.
    23. Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. London: Sage.
    24. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
    25. Van Dijk, T. (ed.) (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
    26. Williams, R. (1974). Keywords. London: Fontana.


Veronika Koller

Download Full Text

  • This article presents an approach to analysing collective identity in discourse that distinguishes the linguistic and semiotic description of textual features from their socio-cognitive interpretation. Collective identities are theorised as conceptual structures comprising beliefs and knowledge, norms and values, attitudes and expectations as well as emotions, and as being reinforced and negotiated in discourse. A number of linguistic and semiotic features are suggested to ascertain what collective identities are constructed in texts and how. These include social actor representation, process types, evaluation, modality, metaphoric expressions and intertextuality. The findings from such an analysis are then linked to questions about genre and the participants and processes of discourse practice as well as to the social context and the ideologies by which it is dominated. The analytical procedure is exemplified with an excerpt from a retailer’s catalogue that is investigated for the discursive construction and socio-cognitive representation of gender and sexual identity. 
    1. Augoustinos, M., Walker, I. and N. Donaghue (2006).  Social Cognition: An Integrated Introduction.  2nd edn. London: Sage.
    2. Baker, P. (2006).  Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis.  London: Continuum.
    3. Bless, H., Fiedler, K. and F. Strack (2004).  Social Cognition: How Individuals Construct Social Reality.  Hove: Psychology Press.
    4. Boots Heritage. (n.d.)  http://www.boots-uk.com/About_Boots/Boots_Heritage.aspx.  Accessed 27 May 2011.
    5. Caldas-Coulthard, C. and T. van Leeuwen (2002).  Stunning, shimmering, iridescent: Toys as the representation of gendered social actors.  In L. Litosseliti and J. Sunderland (eds.), Gender Identity and Discourse Analysis.  Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 91-108.
    6. Cameron, D. (1997).  Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity.  In S. Johnson and U.H. Meinhof (eds.), Language and Masculinity.  Oxford: Blackwell.  pp. 47-64.
    7. Cameron, D. (2007).  The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages?  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    8. Chilton. P. (2004).  Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice.  London: Routledge.
    9. 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. (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 13).  Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 19-51.
    10. Cook, G. (ed.) (2007).  The Language of Advertising.  4 vols.  London: Routledge.
    11. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    12. Fairclough, N. (2010).  Critical Discourse Analysis.  2nd edn.  London: Longman.
    13. Fine, C. (2010).  Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences. London: Icon Books.
    14. Goffman, E. (1979a).  Footing.  Semiotica 25(1-2): 1-30.
    15. Goffman, E. (1979b).  Gender Advertisements.  London: Macmillan.
    16. Halliday, M.A.K. and C. Matthiessen (2004). Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edn.  London: Arnold.
    17. Hardie, A., Koller, V., Rayson, P. and E. Semino (2007). Exploiting a semantic annotation tool for metaphor analysis. In M. Davies, P. Rayson, S. Hunston and P. Danielsson (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2007 Conference. http://corpus.bham.ac.uk/corplingproceedings07/paper/49_Paper.pdf.
    18. Hart, C. and D. Lukes (eds.) (2007).  Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory.  Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    19. Inoue, M. (2006).  Language and gender in an age of neoliberalism.  Gender and Language 1(1): 79-91.
    20. Koller, V. (2004).  Businesswomen and war metaphors: ‘Possessive, jealous and pugnacious’?.  Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(1): 3-22.
    21. Koller, V. (2005).  Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse.  Discourse & Society 16(2): 199-224.
    22. Koller, V. (2011).  Analysing lesbian identity in discourse: Combining discourse-historical and socio-cognitive approaches.  In C. Hart (ed.), Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition..  Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 97-141.
    23. Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (2002).  Colour as a semiotic order: Notes for a grammar of colour.  Visual Communication 1(3): 343-68.
    24. Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (2006).  Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd edn.  London: Routledge.
    25. Kunda, Z. (1999).  Social Cognition: Making Sense of People.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    26. Lakoff, G. (1999).  Cognitive models and prototype theory.  In E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    27. Lazar, M. (2006). Discover the power of femininity! Analysing global ‘power femininity’ in local advertising.  Feminist Media Studies 6(4): 505-17.
    28. Martin, J. and P. White (2007). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    29. Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    30. Myers, G. (1994).  Words in Ads.  London: Edward Arnold.
    31. O’Halloran, K. (2003).  Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
    32. Philip, G. (2010).  ‘Drugs, traffic, and many other dirty interests': Metaphor and the language learner.  In G. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan and L. Cameron (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World.  Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 63-80.
    33. Shaw, J. (2010).  Shopping: Social and Cultural Perspectives.  Cambridge: Polity Press.
    34. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing Functional Grammar.  2nd edn.  London: Arnold.
    35. van Dijk, T. (2003).  The discourse-knowledge interface.  In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity.  Basingstoke: Palgrave.  pp. 85-109.
    36. van Dijk, T, (2004).  Text and context of parliamentary debates.  In P. Bayley (ed.), Cross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse.  (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 10).  Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 339-72.
    37. van Dijk, T. (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.
    38. van Leeuwen, T. (1996).  The representation of social actors.  In C. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Routledge.  pp. 32-70.
    39. van Leeuwen, T. (1999 [2006]).  Speech, Music, Sound.  Basingstoke: Macmillan.  Chapter 2 reprinted in A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.), The Discourse Reader.  2nded.  London: Routledge.  pp. 179-193.
    40. van Leeuwen., T. (2006).  Towards a semiotics of typography.  Information Design Journal and Document Design 14(2): 139-5.


Ian Lamond

Download Full Text

  • In 1992 the cultural theorist Tony Bennett suggested that there may be scope for developing a body of academic research, separate from cultural studies, which was interested in questions concerning policy as it related to culture. The discipline of cultural policy studies that emerged became focused on questions of how and whyorganisations intervened in culture. But the why questions, that form a vital element at the foundation of contemporary cultural policy studies, lacks an empirical core. When asking why organisations intervene in culture it draws on arguments from intellectual history and the philosophical rationales for aesthetic education. In this paper I argue that by adopting a critical approach to the analysis of discourse, concerned with cultural policy, researchers would be able to establish a firm empirical basis for their field and develop more robust tools for the critique of policy as it emerges.
    1. Belfiore, E. (2006). The unacknowledged legacy: Plato, the Republic and cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy 12(2): 229-244.
    2. Belfiore, E. (2009). On bullshit in cultural policy practice and research. International Journal of Cultural Policy 15(3): 343-359.
    3. Belfiore, E. (2010a). Is it really all about the evidence? On the rhetorical aspect of cultural policy. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR), Jyväskylä, 24-27 August 2010.
    4. Belfiore, E. (2010b). Contribution to a conference debate under the heading “Myths & Realities. Labour’s Core Script & Instrumental Measures”. Cultural Trends Conference: November 2010. (The other participants in the debate were: T. Cox; D. O’Brien and S. Jones.
    5. Bennett, O. (1991). British cultural policies: 1970 to 1990. Boekmancahier No.9: 293-301.
    6. Bennett, T. (1992). Putting policy into cultural studies. In Grossberg, L., Nelson, C. and Treichler, P. (eds.) Cultural Studies. Routledge: London p23-37
    7. Bennett, O. (1994). Cultural policy in the UK: An historical perspective. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Cultural Policy and Management in the UK. University of Warwick 16th to 18th September 1994.
    8. Bennett, O. (1995). Cultural policy in the United Kingdom: Collapsing rationales and the end of tradition. European Journal of Cultural Policy 1(2): 199-216.
    9. Bennett, O. (2005). Beyond machinery: The cultural policies of Matthew Arnold. History of Political Economy 37(3): 456-482.
    10. Bennett, O. (2006). Intellectuals, romantics and cultural policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy 12(2): 117-134.
    11. Bennett, O. (2010). On religion and cultural policy: Notes on the Roman Catholic Church. International journal of Cultural Policy 15(2): 155-170
    12. Budge, I. (1994). A new spatial theory of party competition. British Journal of Political Science 24(4): 443-467.
    13. Budge, I., Ezrow, L. and McDonald, M.D. (2010). Ideology, political faction and policy change: An integrated dynamic model. British Journal of Political Science 4(4): 781-804.
    14. Connolly, W. E. (1993). The Terms of Political Discourse (3rd Ed.). Blackwell: Oxford.
    15. Conservative Party. (1992). The Best Future for Britain: The Conservative Party Manifesto. Conservative Central Office, London.
    16. Hoggart, R. (1969). The Uses of Literacy. Penguin: Harmondsworth.
    17. Kavanagh, D. (1996). British Politics: Continuities and Change (3rd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    18. Klemmensen, R., Habolt, S. B. and Hansen, M. E.  (2007). Estimating policy position using political texts: An evaluation of the Wordscore approach. Electoral Studies 26(4): 746-755.
    19. Klingemann, H. D., Hofferbert, R. I. and Budge, I. (1994). Parties, Policies and Democracy. Boulder: Westview Press.
    20. Labour Party. (1997). New Labour, Because Britain Deserves Better: The Labour Party Manifesto. The Labour Party, London.
    21. Minihan, J. (1977). The Nationalization of Culture. New York:  New York University Press.
    22. Mulcahy, K. (2010). The cultural policy of the Counter-Reformation. Paper presented at the 2010 International Conference on Cultural Policy Research (ICCPR), Jyväskylä, 24-27 August 2010.
    23. Mulhern, F. (2006). Culture/ Metaculture. London: Routledge,
    24. Smith, C. A. and Smith, K. B. (2000). A rhetorical perspective on the 1997 British party manifesto. Political Communication 17(4): 457-473
    25. Williams, R. (1961). The Long Revolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    26. Williams, R. (1963). Culture and Society.  Harmondsworth: Penguin.


Jiska Engelbert

Download Full Text

  • By drawing on Norman Fairclough’s seminal study New Labour, new language?, this article sets out to address and overcome a problematic issue in a ‘Faircloughean’ CDA: the premise that discourse’s rhetorical orientation is geared towards the concealment of problematic ‘extra-discursive’ interests. This article proposes that ideological agents’ discourse can also be explored without a priori assigning dubious or concealed commitments and investments to these producers. Problematic interests, in this view, are not only something that discourse producers have and conceal, but also what they might anticipate being accused of having. Considering ‘stake’ and interest as a discursive concern rather than a cause for discourse initially grounds this proposition in a kind of ‘emic’ discourse-analytical endeavour. Yet, this article does not set out to argue against an ‘etic’ CDA, but seeks to provide an alternative to approaching projects for social change as discursive operations and sites of hegemonic struggle.
    1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    2. Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions. Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage.
    3. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking. A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Billig, M. (1999a). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society 10(4): 543-558.
    5. Billig, M. (1999b). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society 10(4): 572-576.
    6. Blair, T. (1998). The Third Way. London: Fabian Society.
    7. Callinicos, A. (2001). Against the Third Way. An anti-capitalist critique. Cambridge: Polity.
    8. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    9. Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
    10. Fairclough, N.(1989). Language and power. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    11. Fairclough, N.(1991). What might we mean by ‘enterprise discourse’? In: R. Keat and N. Abercrombie (eds), Enterprise culture. London: Routledge. pp. 38 – 57.
    12. Fairclough, N.(1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    13. Fairclough, N.(1992b). Discourse and text. Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 3(2): 193 – 217.
    14. Fairclough, N.(1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of public discourse. The
    15.       universities. Discourse & Society 4(2): 133-168.
    16. Fairclough, N.(1995a). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
    17. Fairclough, N.(1995b). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman.
    18. Fairclough, N.(1997). Technologisation of discourse. In: C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds.), Texts and practices. Readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge. pp. 71-83.
    19. Fairclough, N.(2000a). New Labour, new language? London: Routledge.
    20. Fairclough, N.(2000b). Discourse, social theory, and social research. The discourse of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 163-195.
    21. Fairclough, N.(2000c). Language and neo-liberalism. Discourse & Society 11(2): 147-148.
    22. Fairclough, N.(2002). Language in new capitalism. Discourse & Society 13(2): 163-166.
    23. Fairclough, N.(2003). Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
    24. Fairclough, N.(2004). Critical discourse analysis in researching language in the new capitalism.  Overdetermination, transdisciplinarity and textual analysis. In: L. Young and C. Harrison (eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis. London: Continuum. pp. 103-122.
    25. Fairclough, N.(2006). Language and globalizationLondon: Routledge.
    26. Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge.
    27. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right. The future of radical politics. Cambridge: Polity.
    28. Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way. The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge: Polity.
    29. Hall, S. (1998). The great moving nowhere show. Marxism Today, November / December, pp. 9-14.
    30. Hall, S. (2005). New Labour’s double-shuffle. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural  Studies  27(4): 319-335.
    31. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of Language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
    32. Hodge, R. and Kress, G.(1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity.
    33. Kress, G.(1993). Against arbitrariness. The social production of the sign as a foundational issue in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 169-191.
    34. Locke, A. and Edwards, D.(2003). Bill and Monica. Memory, emotion and normativity in Clinton’s Grand Jury testimony. British Journal of Social Psychology 42(2): 239-256.
    35. Potter, J.(1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage: London.
    36. Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse & Society  9(3): 413-416.
    37. Schegloff, E. A. (1999a). ‘Schegloff’s texts’ as ‘Billig’s data’. A critical reply. Discourse & Society 10(4): 558-572.
    38. Schegloff, E. A. (1999b). Naivety vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence. Discourse & Society 10(4)577-582.
    39. Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249-283.
    40. Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press.
    41. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertories. Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9(3): 387-412.


Katarzyna Molek-Kozakowska

Download Full Text

  • This paper problematizes the notion of the dominant ideology by analyzing multiple ideological positions related to female political representation in Poland in the 2009 Internet-mediated debate over the implementation of gender parity legislation. Instead of taking for granted the notion of a singular dominant ideology that legitimizes the interests of elites, the study verifies a claim that in late-modern societies public discourse is increasingly characterized by articulations of multiple, even conflicting ideologies. Some ideological positions become prominent by virtue of being discursively reproduced in rhetorically appealing ways. The study focuses on generic frames, terms of address, and rhetorical figures as salient textual features of the argumentation in the debate. On this basis, it is shown that such ideological infractions as reformatory feminism, idealism, collectivism, liberalism and progressivism are evidenced in the pro-parity discourse, while post-feminism, paternalism, matriarchalism, American individualism and conservatism are reproduced by anti-parity campaigners.
    1. Abercrombie, N. Hill, S. and Hill, B. (1980). The dominant ideology thesis. London: Allen and Unwin.
    2. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage.
    3. Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing political discourse. London: Routledge.
    4. Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    5. Decker, J. (2004). Ideology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
    7. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
    8. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Translated and edited by Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    9. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    10. Hawkes, D. (2003). Ideology. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
    11. Lewis, J. (2002). Cultural studies. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage.
    12. Milner, A., and Browitt, J. (2002). Contemporary cultural theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.
    13. Storey, J. (1994). Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction. Harlow: Prentice Hall,
    14. Tokarz, M. (2007). Ocena społeczna – teoria i wnioski praktyczne [Social assessment – theory and practice]. In: G. Habrajska, (ed.) Mechanizmy perswazji i manipulacji[Mechanisms of persuasion and manipulation]. Łask: Oficyna Wydawnicza Leksem. pp. 73-94.
    15. van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage.
    16. Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, language and discourse. London: Routledge.
    17. Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


Maarten Van Leeuwen

Download Full Text

  • In the analysis of political discourse, relatively sparse attention is paid to grammatical phenomena. As far as grammatical phenomena are analyzed, the focus is generally on linguistic means that can be used to hide agency, like nominalization and passivization, or on transitivity analysis. In this article I argue that it can be fruitful in the analysis of political discourse to focus on other grammatical phenomena as well. I argue that also other grammatical phenomena can sort out subtle rhetorical effects that are worth analyzing – complementary to more ‘traditionally’ analyzed linguistic categories. I will highlight the grammatical phenomenon of ‘complementation’ and illustrate its rhetorical potential.  A detailed stylistic analysis of a speech held by the Dutch controversial politician Geert Wilders serves as an example.
    1. Burger, P. and de Jong, J. (2009). Handboek Stijl, Adviezen voor aantrekkelijk schrijven.  Groningen/Houten: Noordhoff Uitgevers.
    2. Dirven, R., Polzenhagen, F.  and Wolf , H. G. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics, Ideology, and Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 1222-1241.
    3. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge [etc.]: Polity Press.
    4. Fausey, C. M. and Matlock, T. (2011). Can Grammar Win Elections?. Political Psychology 32(4), pp. 563-574
    5. Fowler, R. and Kress, G. (1979). Critical Linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress and T. Trew (eds.), Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 185-213.
    6. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd  ed. London: Arnold.
    7. Hart, C. (2011). Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: A Cognitive Linguistic approach to CDA. Discourse & Society 22(3): 269-286.
    8. Heerma van Voss, S. (2008). Nu gaf Vogelaar wél antwoord; Minister krijgt forse kritiek van kamer om wijkenaanpak’. Nrc.next (Dutch Newspaper), April 24.
    9. Jeffries, L. (2010). Critical Stylistics, The Power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave, Macmillan.
    10. Lakoff, G. And Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    11. Lammerts, A. and Verhagen, A. (1994). De oorlog in de krant. In  A. Maes, P. van Hauwermeiren and L. van Waes (eds.), Perspectieven in Taalbeheersingsonderzoek. Dordrecht: ICG Publications. pp. 375-384.
    12. Leech, G. N. and Short,  M.H. (2007). Style in Fiction, A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. 2nd ed. London: Longman.
    13. Oakley, Todd (2009). From Attention to Meaning. Explorations in Semiotics, Linguistics, and Rhetoric. European Semiotics 8. Bern: Peter Lang.
    14. Oversteegen, E. and Missioura, O. (2009). Taal en gender in de advocatuur. Een stilistische analyse van pleidooien van vrouwelijke en mannelijke advocaten.Neerlandstiek.nl, http://www.neerlandistiek.nl/09.05/ [accessed December 2, 2011]
    15. Pander Maat, H. (2007). How Promotional Language in Press Releases Is Dealt With by Journalists: Genre Mixing of Genre Conflict?’ Journal of Business Communication 44, pp. 59-95.
    16. Sanders, T. and Spooren, W. (2007). Discourse and Text Structure. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 916-941.
    17. Schellens, P. J. (2006). Bij vlagen loepzuiver, Over argumentatie en stijl in betogende teksten. Oration Radboud University. Nijmegen.
    18. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.
    19. Van Leeuwen, M. (2009). Het hoofdzinnenbeleid van Wilders, Over de stijl van Geert Wilders en Ella Vogelaar. Tekstblad 15(2): 6-11.
    20. Van Leeuwen, M. (forthcoming). Systematic stylistic analysis: The use of a checklist. In B. Kaal, E. Maks and A. van Elfrinkhof (eds.), From Text to Political Positions, State-of-the-art approaches to mapping/estimating party positions. Selected papers from the workshop From Text to Political Positions (T2PP), Free University Amsterdam, 9-10 April 2010.
    21. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of Intersubjectivity, Discourse, Syntax and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    22. Vis, K., Sanders, J. and Spooren, W. (2009). Subjectiviteit door de jaren heen: conversationalisatie in journalistieke teksten. In W. Spooren, M. Onrust and J. Sanders (eds.), Studies in taalbeheersing 3. Assen: Van Gorcum. pp. 405-418.
    23. Vogelaar, E. and Bosma, O. (2009). Twintig maanden knettergek, Dagboek van een ministerschap. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Balans.


Irina Diana Mǎdroane

Download Full Text

  • The enlargement of the European Union towards Central and Eastern Europe, the profound transformations throughout the EU member-states, old and new, and the recent financial and economic crisis have led to a resurgence of discrimination and new racism, affecting in particular migrants. The paper looks at the reactions occasioned in the Romanian public space by the Italian and French measures against Romani immigrants, among whom there is a large number of Romanian Roma. It employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methodology (argumentation schemes, intertextuality) to explore a press campaign targeted at policy change for the purpose of preventing the ethnonym-based confusion between ‘Roma’ and ‘Romanian’. The media articles are significant on two levels: the role of the media in policy deliberations and the dynamic and strategic construal of collective identities.  The findings indicate, first, that the arguments put forward by the newspaper are not rationally persuasive and, second, that the discursive configuration of collective identities gives prominence to a nationalist discourse of Romanian (national) identity. At the same time, a disempowered view of the ‘Gypsy’ ethno-cultural identity is highlighted, oscillating between negative stereotypes and positive, romanticised ones.
    1. Achim, V. (2004). The Roma in Romanian History. Budapest, New York: Central European University Press.
    2. Aldea, A. (2009). Gipsy la Londra, rom la Bucuresti, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 13], http://www.jurnalul.ro/campaniile-jurnalul/tigan-in-loc-de-rom/gipsy-la-londra-rom-la-bucuresti-146106.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    3. Antoniu, G. (2009). Propunere Jurnalul Naţional: ‘ţigan’ în loc de ‘rom’, Jurnalul Național [online March 2], http://www.jurnalul.ro/campaniile-jurnalul/tigan-in-loc-de-rom/propunere-jurnalul-national-tigan-in-loc-de-rom-145427.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    4. Beciu, C. (2007a). Forme mediatice de dezbatere a normelor europene. Redefinirea “misiunii” jurnalistului – Elemente analitice (I). Revista Română de Sociologie XVIII (3-4): 1-21.
    5. Beciu, C. (2007b). “Europa” ca format mediatic. Constructia problemelor publice in discursul presei din România. In C. Beciu and N. Perpelea (eds.), Europa şi spatiul public: practici comunicaţionale, reprezentări, climat emoţional. Bucuresti: Ed. Academiei. pp. 25-61.
    6. Beciu, C., Péllisier, N., Perpelea, N. (2009). Du «eux» au «nous»: Étude de l’impact de la construction Européenne sur la responsabilité sociale des journalistes. Revista Română de Sociologie XX (3-4): 289-298.
    7. Cires, T. (2009). Arta culinară si dublul limbaj, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 7], http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-tigan-in-loc-de-rom/romii-atenteaza-la-muschiul-tiganesc-145758.html [ accessed August 23, 2010].
    8. Crowe, D.  (1991). The Gypsy Historical Experience in Romania. In D. Crowe and J. Kolsti (eds.), The Gypsies of Eastern Europe. Armonk, New York, London, England: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 61-80.
    9. Dimitriu, D. (2009). Cum e românul “rom” in actele de indentitate, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 15], http://www.jurnalul.ro/campaniile-jurnalul/tigan-in-loc-de-rom/cum-e-romanul-rom-in-actele-de-identitate-146190.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    10. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    11. 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.
    12. Fairclough, I. and Fairclough, N. (2011). Practical Reasoning in Political Discourse: The UK Government’s Response to the Economic Crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report.Discourse and Society 22(3): 243-268.
    13. Fairclough, I. and Fairclough, N. (2012 forthcoming). Political Discourse Analysis. A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
    14. Fairclough, N., B. Jessop and Sayer, A. (2004). Critical Realism and Semiosis. In J. Joseph and J. M. Roberts (eds.), Realism, Discourse and Deconstruction. London: Routledge. pp. 43-67.
    15. Fairclough, N. and Wodak R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage. pp. 258-284.
    16. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
    17. Franklin, B. (1999) Introduction. In B. Franklin (ed.), Social Policy, the Media and Misrepresentation. London: Routledge.
    18. Fraser, A. (2010). Ţiganii. Trans. by D. Şerban Sava. Bucureşti: Humanitas.
    19. Hammond, A.  (2004). Introduction. In A. Hammond (ed.), The Balkans and the West: Constructing the European Other, 1945-2003. Hampshire: Ashgate. pp. xi-xxiii.
    20. Hancock, I. (2002). We Are the Romani People. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.
    21. Ieţcu-Fairclough, I. (2008) Legitimation and Strategic Maneuvering in the Political Field. Argumentation 22: 399-417.
    22. Jurnalul Naţional, un prieten adevărat al ţiganilor (2009), Jurnalul Naţional [online March 5], http://www.jurnalul.ro/campaniile-jurnalul/tigan-in-loc-de-rom/jurnalul-national-un-prieten-adevarat-al-tiganilor-145652.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    23. Mihalcea, E. and Piciu, D. (2009). Cuvântul rom e un neologism, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 5], http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-tigan-in-loc-de-rom/cuvantul-rom-este-un-neologism-145633.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    24. Oleaque, J.M. (2011). Gypsies in the Spanish Press. Language, Ideology and Power (LIP) Group Event, May 16, Lancaster University.
    25. O’Nions, H. (2007). Minority Rights Protection in International Law: the Roma of Europe. Hampshire: Ashgate.
    26. Piciu, D. (2009). Silviu Prigoană preia iniţiativa Jurnalul Naţional, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 18], http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-tigan-in-loc-de-rom/silviu-prigoana-preia-initiativa-jurnalului-national-146429.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    27. Richardson, J.E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Palgrave.
    28. Ringold, D., Orenstein, M. A. and Wilkens, E. (2005). Roma in an Expanding Europe: Breaking the Poverty Cycle. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
    29. Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
    30. Sayer, A. (2005). The Moral Significance of Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    31. Scarlat, D. (2009). Cuza i-a dezrobit, Aman i-a pictat, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 4], http://www.jurnalul.ro/campaniile-jurnalul/tigan-in-loc-de-rom/cuza-i-a-dezrobit-aman-i-a-pictat-145541.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    32. Se dau mari pe posturi, dar ce-au făcut pentru ţigani? (2009), Jurnalul Naţional [online March 11], http://www.jurnalul.ro/campaniile-jurnalul/tigan-in-loc-de-rom/se-dau-mari-pe-posturi-dar-ce-au-facut-pentru-tigani-145945.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    33. Todorova, M. (1997). Imagining the Balkans. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    34. Tomozei, D. (2009). Florin Cioabă: “Noi ne-am schimbat numele ca Miliţia dupa Revoluţie!”, Jurnalul Naţional [online March 9], http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-tigan-in-loc-de-rom/florin-cioaba-noi-ne-am-schimbat-numele-ca-militia-dupa-revolutie-145854.html [accessed August 23, 2010].
    35. Triandaffylidou, A. and Wodak, R. (2003). Conceptual and Methodological Questions in the Study of Collective Identities: An Introduction. Journal of Language and Politics2(2): 205-223.
    36. Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). ‘New(s) Racism': A Discourse Analytical Approach. In S. Cottle (ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. pp.33-49.
    37. Van Eemeren, F.H. (2009). Strategic Manoeuvring between Rhetorical Effectiveness and Dialectical Reasonableness. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 16 (29): 69-91.
    38. Vermeersch, P. (2006). The Romani Movement: Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.
    39. Walton, D. (2007). Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    40. Walton, D., Reed, Ch., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    41. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd ed. Trans. by A. Hirsch, R. Mitten and J.W. Unger. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    42. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn. London: Sage. pp. 1-33.
    43. Woodcock, S. (2007). Romania and EUrope: Roma, Rroma and Ţigani as Sites for the Contestation of Ethno-National Identities. Patterns of Prejudice 41(5): 493-515.


Silva Bratoz

Download Full Text

  • The present paper examines metaphors in the discourse of elections from a cross-linguistic perspective. The methodological framework brings together the conceptual theory of metaphor, as one of the most prominent models within cognitive linguistics, and Critical Discourse Analysis. In addition, a cross-linguistic approach to analysing metaphors in discourse is suggested following Kövecses’ (2005) criteria for cultural and linguistic universality and variation in metaphor. The analysis is based on a corpus of newspaper articles related to the elections held in 2008 in Slovenia and those held in the USA in the same year. The results suggest that while there is a certain degree of universality in terms of the predominant conceptual metaphors, there are also important variations between the two languages and cultures in question, such as the ubiquity of metaphorically motivated terminology and election jargon identified in (American) English texts.
    1. Cameron, L. (1999). Operationalising ‘metaphor’ for applied linguistic research. In L. Cameron and G. Low (eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3-29.
    2. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Cienki, A. (2008). The application of conceptual metaphor theory to political discourse: methodological questions and some possible solutions. In T. Carver and J. Pikalo (eds.), Political Language and Metaphor. New York: Routledge. pp. 241-256.
    4. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. London, New York: Routledge.
    5. Gibbs, W. R, Jr. (ed.) (2008). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
    6. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    7. Hart, C. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework. Critical Discourse Studies 5( 2): 91-106.
    8. Hart, C. and Lukeš, D. (eds.) (2010). Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    9. Kocbek, A. (2008). The Cultural Embededdness of Legal Texts. Journal of Language and Translation 9(2): 49 -70.
    10. Koller, V. (2006). Of critical importance: Using electronic text corpora to study metaphor in business media discourse. In A. Stefanowitsch and S. T. Gries (eds.), Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 237-266.
    11. Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion. Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    12. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: a practical introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    13. Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    14. Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 202-251.
    15. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    16. Lakoff, G. and Kövecses, Z. (1987). The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in American English. In D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds.), Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 195-221.
    17. Maalej, Z. (2010). Doing Critical Discourse Analysis with the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: Towards a discourse model of metaphor. In C. Hart and D. Lukeš (eds.),Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp 132-158.
    18. Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and Political Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Mcmillan.
    19. Stenvoll, D. (2008). Slippery slopes in political discourse. In T. Carver and J. Pikalo (eds.), Political Language and Metaphor. New York: Routledge. pp.28-41.
    20. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) (2001). Methods of Critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.


Dita Trckova

Download Full Text

  • The metaphoric conceptualization of a natural phenomenon employed in newspaper discourse on natural catastrophes is examined through a data-driven analysis. The focus is put on the representation of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and 2005 Hurricane Katrina in three newspapers published in Western English-speaking countries: The New York Times, The Guardian and The Globe and Mail. The major metaphoric themes discerned include the depiction of the natural phenomenon as an ANIMATE BEING, a MONSTER and a WARRIOR. By demonizing nature, such a representation reinforces Western nature-culture dualism, puts the blame for the catastrophe on the natural phenomenon and hides social and historical factors contributing to the disaster.
    1. Ana, O. S. (1999). ‘Like an Animal I Was Treated': Anti-immigrant Metaphor in US Public Discourse. Discourse & Society, 10(2): 191-224.
    2. Birkmann, J. (2006). Measuring vulnerability to promote disaster-resilient societies: Conceptual frameworks and definitions. In: Birkmann, Jörn, (ed.) Measuring Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies. Tokyo; New York: United Nations University Press. 9-54.
    3. Cacciari, C. (1998). Why Do We Speak Metaphorically: Reflections on the Functions of Metaphor in Discourse and Reasoning. In: Katz, A. N. et al., (eds.) Figurative Language and Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. 119-157.
    4. Cassirer, E. (1946). The Myth of the State. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    5. Cooper, C. and Block, R. (2006). Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland Security. New York: Times Books.
    6. Dickson, D. (2010). Tsunami Disaster: A Failure in Science Communication. In: Fuller, L. K., (ed.) Tsunami Communication: (Inter)personal/intercultural, Media, Technical, Ethical, Philanthropic, Development, and Personal Responses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 275-277.
    7. Dobrovol’skij, D. and Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Elsevier.
    8. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
    9. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London; New York: Longman.
    10. Fitzpatrick, P. J. (2006). Hurricanes: A Reference Book, 2nd edition. California: ABC CLIO.
    11. Frerks, G. (2010). Principles Ignored and Lessons Learned: A Disaster Studies Perspective on the Tsunami Experience in Sri Lanka. In: McGilvray, D. and Gamburd, M. R., (eds.) Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka: Ethnic and Regional Dimensions. London; New York: Routledge. 143-162.
    12. Fuller, L. K. (2010). Tsunami Communication. In: Fuller, L. K., (ed.) Tsunami Communication: (Inter)personal/intercultural, Media, Technical, Ethical, Philanthropic, Development, and Personal Responses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 1-14.
    13. Gamburd, M. R. and McGilvray, D. (2010). Introduction. In: McGilvray, D. and Gamburd, M. R., (eds.) Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka: Ethnic and Regional Dimensions. London; New York: Routledge. 1-16.
    14. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain – Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    15. Greene, L. S. (2009). Governmental Liability for the Katrina Failure. In: Levitt, J. L. and Whitaker, M. C., (eds.) Hurricane Katrina: America’s Unnatural Disaster. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 206-225.
    16. Grimal, P. (1965). Introduction: Man and Myth. In: Grimal, P., (ed.) Larousse World Mythology. New York Putnam. 9-16.
    17. Gunewardena, N. (2008). Peddling Paradise, Rebuilding Serendib: The 100-Meter Refugees versus the Tourism Industry in Post-tsunami Sri Lanka. In: Gunewardena, N. and Schuller, M., (eds.) Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal Strategies in Disaster Reconstruction. Lanham: AltaMira Press. 69-92.
    18. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985).  An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    19. Hawkes, D. (2003). Ideology, 2nd ed. London; New York: Routledge.
    20. Hawkins, B. (2001). Ideology, Metaphor and Iconographic Reference. In: Dirven, R., Frank, R. and Ilie, C., (eds.) Language and Ideology, Volume II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    21. Johns, A. (1999). Introduction. In: Johns, Alessa, (ed.) Dreadful Visitations: Confronting Natural Catastrophe in the Age of Enlightenment. New York: Routledge.
    22. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    23. Larue, G. A. (1975). Ancient Myth and Modern Man. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.
    24. Levitt, J. I. and Whitaker, M. C.  (2009). Truth Crushed to Earth Will Rise Again. In: Levitt, J. L. and Whitaker, M. C., (eds.) Hurricane Katrina: America’s Unnatural Disaster. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1-21.
    25. Niman, M. I. (2010). The Political Tsunami: Not All Death and Destruction Is Natural. In: Fuller, Linda K., (ed.) Tsunami Communication: (Inter)personal/intercultural, Media, Technical, Ethical, Philanthropic, Development, and Personal Responses. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 85-99.
    26. Pavelka, J. (1982). Anatomie metafory. Brno: Blok.
    27. Pielke, R. A, Jr and Pielke, R. A, Sr (1997). Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society. Chichester; New York: Wiley.
    28. Radman, Z. (1997). Metaphors: Figures of the Mind. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    29. Rodriguez, H. et al. (2006). A Snapshot of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: Societal Impacts and Consequences. Disaster Prevention and Management 15(1): 163-177.
    30. Sanyika, M. (2009). Katrina and the Condition of Black New Orleans: The Struggle for Justice, Equity, and Democracy. In: Bullard, R. D. and Wright, B., (eds.) Race, Place, and Environmental Justice After Hurricane Katrina: Struggle to Reclaim, Rebuild, and Revitalize New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 87-111.
    31. Schuller, M. (2008). Deconstructing the Disaster after the Disaster: Conceptualizing         Disaster Capitalism. In: Gunewardena, N. and Schuller, M., (eds.) Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal Strategies in Disaster Reconstruction. Lanham: AltaMira Press. 17-28.
    32. Taylor, C. F. (1994). Introduction. In: Taylor, Colin F., (ed.) Native American Myths and Legends. Vancouver: Cavendish Books. 6-11.
    33. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2): 249-283.
    34. van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse & Society 6(2): 243-289.
    35. Waterhouse, C. (2009). Failed Plans and Planned Failures: The Lower Ninth Ward, Hurricane Katrina, and the Continuing Story of Environmental Injustice. In: Levitt, J. L. and Whitaker, M. C., (eds.) Hurricane Katrina: America’s Unnatural Disaster. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 156-182.
    36. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA Is About – A Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments. In: Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE Publications. 1-13.


Laura Filardo Llamas

Download Full Text

  • Contemporary post-Agreement Northern Ireland seems to be characterised by the spectre of commemoration, as seen in a nigh number of murals, graffiti and commemoration plaques. These memorials have a double function. On the one hand, they help construct a collective memory of the past, in as much as they ‘represent’ given historical events. On the other, they (de)legitimise those historical events, which are not only recalled but also reconstructed. In those (re-)constructions, given facts may be prioritized or hidden, and actors involved in them may be portrayed in very different ways. The relation between both functions can be understood by looking at the language – and images – that are used, in as much as they have a mediating function which entails accessing history from a particular point of view, which is, in turn, related to the legitimising function of those memorials. In this article, we intend to look at the linguistic strategies that are used in two sets of commemoration plaques found in Belfast.
    1. Achugar, M. (2008). What we remember. The construction of memory in military discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    2. Alonso, R. (2001). Irlanda del Norte. Una historia de guerra y la gúsqueda de la paz. Madrid: Complutense.
    3. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
    4. Berger, P. and Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of Kknowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
    5. Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
    6. Cap, P. (2006). Legitimisation in political discourse: A cross-disciplinary perspective on the modern US war rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    7. Cap, P. (2010). Proximizing objects, proximizing values. Towards an axiological contribution to the discourse of legitimization. In U. Okulska and P. Cap (eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 119-142.
    8. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric. The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingtoke: Palgrave-MacMillan.
    9. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
    10. Coogan, T. P. (2002). The IRA. New York: Palgrave.
    11. Dunn, S. and Dawson, H. (2000). An alphabetical listing of word, name and place in Northern Ireland and the living language of conflict. New York: Edwin Mellen.
    12. Elliott, S. and Flackes, W. D. (1999). Northern Ireland. A Political Directory. 1968-1999. Belfast: Blackstaff.
    13. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
    14. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    15. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Revised by Matthiessen, C., 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
    16. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor. A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    17. Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    18. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    19. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    20. McBride, I. (2001). History and memory in modern Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    21. McDonald, H. (2004). Remember the Horrors. The Observer¸ 22nd  Aug. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/aug/22/northernireland.northernireland [Accessed 30/05/11].
    22. McDowell, S. (2007). Remembering: Victims, survivors and commemoration. Introduction to Commemoration, and to Commemoration in Northern Ireland. Available from:http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/victims/memorials/smcd07commemoration.html [Accessed 30/05/11]
    23. Melaugh, M. (2007). A chronology of the conflict. 1968 to present. [WWW] CAIN. Available from: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch70.htm [Accessed 30/05/2011]
    24. Roe, M.; Pegg, W.; Hodges, K.; and Trimm, R.. (1999). Forgiving the Other Side: Social Identity and Ethnic Memories in Northern Ireland. In J. P. Harrington and E. J. Mitchell (eds.), Politicis and Performance in Contemporary Northern Ireland. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. pp. 122-156.
    25. Rolston, B. (2010). Drawing support. Murals in the North of Ireland. 2nd ed. Belfast: Beyond the Pale.
    26. Schacter, D. (1996). Searching for memory. The brain, the mind, and the past. New York: Basic Books.
    27. Switzer, C. (2005). Conflict Commemoration Amongst Protestants in Northern Ireland. In G. J. Ashworth and B. Graham (eds.), Senses of Place: Senses of Time. Aldershot: Ashgate. pp. 119-132.
    28. Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology. A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
    29. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication 1(1): 91-112.
    30. Van Leeuwen, T. and Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical approach. Discourse Studies 1(1): 83-118.
    31. Whyte, J. (1991). Interpreting Northern Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    32. Wodak, R. (2006). History in the making/The making of history. Journal of Language and Politics 5(1): 125-154.


Argyro Kantara

Download Full Text

  • Previous research on media discourse in Greek television has indicated that informal conversation features in the conversational practices of hosts in TV (panel) discussion programmes and prime time news discourse either echo the attested conversationalization of the genre (Patrona 2006, 2009) or create an atmosphere of solidarity (Tzanne 2001). This article provides a data-driven analysis of adversarial challenges and responses to them in a different genre – the Greek political news interview. Within this political interview, the journalist tends to challenge the interviewee by: 1) predicting the interviewee’s answer and immediately after finishing his question explicitly asking him not to answer along specific lines, 2) explicitly stating that the interviewee either repeats himself when answering or has given an evasive answer, 3) using colloquial language, jokes and layman’s words as the outside source (footing), 4) presenting contrasting opinions as a ‘matter of personal disagreement.’  In turn, the interviewee responds by: 1) issuing direct attacks on the interviewer as a professional, 2) issuing indirect attacks on the interviewer as a person, 3) using questions to answer a question. It is argued that, within the context of this Greek political news interview, co-participants (re)shape the ever-changing confrontational institutional norm of the political news interview, co-constructing a new form of neutralism.
    1. Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N. and Mullett, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
    2. Bull, P.E., Elliot, J., Palmer, D., & Walker, L. (1996). Why politicians are three-faced: The face model of  political interviews. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 267-284 
    3. Bull, P. (2000). Equivocation and the Rhetoric of Modernisation: An Analysis of Televised  Interviews with Tony Blair in the 1997 British General Election. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19(2): 222-247.
    4. Bull, P. (2008). ‘Slipperness, Evasion and Ambiguity': Equivocation and Facework in Noncommittal Political Discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,  doi:10.1177/0261927X08322475,  available online at: http://jls.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/08/15/0261927X08322475, accessed on April 3 2011
    5. Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew and J. Heritage J. (eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge: CUP. pp. 163-198
    6. Clayman, S. E. (2002). Tribune of the people: maintaining the legitimacy of aggressive journalism. Media Culture & Society 24(2): 197- 216.
    7. Clayman, S. E. and Heritage J. (2002). The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air, Cambridge: CUP.
    8. Emmertsen, S. (2007). Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews, Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 570-591.
    9. Fairclough, N. (1998). Political Discourse in the Media: An Analytical Framework. In A. Bell and P. Garrett (eds,), Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 142-162
    10. Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 124-159
    11. Greatbatch, D. (1998). Conversation Analysis: Neutralism in British News Interviews. In A. Bell and P. Garrett P. (eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 163-185
    12. Gnisci, A. and Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Grilling Politicians: Politicians’ Answers to Questions in Television Interviews and Courtroom Exanimations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology (22): 385-413
    13. Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile content. Journal of Pragmatics (34): 1427-1446
    14. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1999). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    15. Leon, J. (2004). Preference and ‘bias’ in the format of French news interviews: the semantic analysis of question-answer pairs in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics(36):1885-1920
    16. Lauerbach, G. (2007). Argumentation in political talk show interviews. Journal of Pragmatics (39): 1388-1419
    17. Luginbuhl,  M. (2007). Conversational Violence in political TV debates: Forms and Functions. Journal of Pragmatics (39): 1371-1387
    18. Patrona, M. (2006). Conversationalisation and media empowerment in Greek television discussion programmes. Discourse and Society 17(1): 5-27.
    19. Patrona, M. (2009). ‘A mess’ and ‘rows': evaluation in prime-time TV news discourse and the shaping of public opinion. Discourse and Communication 3(2): 173-194.
    20. Rendle-Short, J. (2007). Neutralism and adversarial challenges in the political news interview. Discourse and Communication 1(4): 387-406.
    21. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society (29): 1-63.
    22. Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2008). ‘Those are only Slogans': A Linguistic Analysis on Argumentation in Debates With Extremist Political Speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(4): 345-358.
    23. Ten Have, P. (1999). Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    24. Tzanne, A. (2001). ‘What you’re saying sounds very nice and I’m delighted to hear it': Some considerations on the functions of presenter-initiated simultaneous speech in Greek panel discussions. In A. Bayraktaroglu  and M. Sifianou (eds.), Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins B.V. pp. 271-306