Volume 11 (1) 2019


Susanne Kopf

Download Full Text

  • This paper complements theoretical and methodological considerations regarding social media in critical discourse studies as it addresses social media content policies as a key contextual element. Specifically, this paper argues that – and why – the exploration of content policies and their enforcement is indispensable when approaching social media platforms and social media data in particular from a critical perspective.

    A number of researchers have already begun to identify contextual elements that require particular attention when viewing social media and social media data through a CDS lens. However, social media sites’ content policies, as pervasive contextual element, have not received adequate research attention yet.

    Drawing on Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis (CMDA) and recent developments in Social Media CDS (SM-CDS), this paper first demonstrates the existing gap in research. Then, it contends that social media sites’ content policies deserve more detailed attention in SM-CDS, argues why this is the case and elaborates on the different aspects of content policies and policy enforcement that require examination. After detailed theoretical discussion of this, empirical evidence to support this argument is presented in the form of a case study of Wikipedia and Wikipedia data.

    1. Alexa (2018). The top 500 sites on the web – global. Alexa [online]. Available: https://www.alexa.com/topsites. Last accessed 10 September 2018.
    2. Allan, R. (2017). Hard questions: Who should decide what is hate speech in an online global community? Facebook [online]. Available: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/06/ hard-questions-hate-speech/. Last accessed 24 September 2018.
    3. Androutsopoulos, J. (2008). Potentials and limitations of discourse-centred online ethnography. Language@Internet 5. Available: http://www.languageatinternet.org/ articles/2008/1610. Last accessed 10 Janury 2016.
    4. Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (3.4.3). [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available from: http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.
    5. Barton, D. (2015). Tagging on Flickr as asocial practice. In R.H. Jones, A. Chik, and C.A. Hafner (eds.), Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. London: Routledge. pp. 48-65.
    6. Facebook (2018a). Community Standards. Facebook [online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/. Last accessed 17 September 2018.
    7. Facebook (2018b). Terms of Service. Facebook [online]. Available: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php. Last accessed 17 September 2018.
    8. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    9. Fairclough, N. (2010). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London, New York: Routledge.
    10. Fairclough, N. and R. Wodak (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 258-85.
    11. Farkas, J. and C. Neumayer (2017). ‘Stop fake hate profiles on Facebook’: Challenges for crowdsourced activism on social media. First Monday 22(9). Available: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8042/6531. Last accessed 4 June 2019.
    12. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society 23(1): 97-123. doi:10.1177/0961463X13502117.
    13. Fuchs, C. (2017). From digital positivism and administrative big data analytics towards critical digital and social media research! European Journal of Communication 32(1): 37-49. doi:10.1177/0267323116682804.
    14. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions that Shape Social Media. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
    15. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
    16. Hart, C. and P. Cap (eds.) (2014). Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
    17. Hartley, J. (2013). Digital literacy and the growth of knowledge. In J. Burgess and J. Green (eds.), YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Oxford: Wiley. pp. 126-43.
    18. Herring, S. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse.’ Language@Internet 4 [online]. Available: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/ 2007/761/. Last accessed July 07, 2015.
    19. Herring, S. (2013). Discourse in web 2.0: familiar, reconfigured and emergent. In D. Tannen and A. Trester (eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. pp. 1-25.
    20. Jarrett, K. (2016). Feminism, Labour and Digital Media: The Digital Housewife. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.
    21. Jones, R. (2008). Technology, democracy and participation in space.’ In R. Wodak and V. Koller (eds.), Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 429-47.
    22. Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented revolution. Future Internet 4(1): 83-91. doi:10.3390/fi4010083.
    23. Kaplan, A. and M. Haenlein (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53(1): 59-68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor. 2009.09.003.
    24. Kelly, H. (2017). What Facebook’s new mission can and can’t fix. CNN [online]. Available: https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/22/technology/facebook-mission-statement/index. html. Last accessed 17 September 2018.
    25. KhosraviNik, M. (2017). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). In J. Flowerdew and J. Richardson (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. New York: Routledge. pp. 582-596.
    26. KhosraviNik, M. and J. Unger (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd ed.). London, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 205–33.
    27. Konieczny, P. (2010). Adhocratic governance in the internet age: A case of Wikipedia. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 7(4): 263-83. doi:10.1080/19331681.2010.489408.
    28. Kopf, S. (2018). Debating the European Union Transnationally: Wikipedians’ Construction of the EU on a Wikipedia Talk Page (2001-2015). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Lancaster University, UK. Available: http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/ publications/debating-the-european-union-transnationally(62ecd5a7-9f7c-4dfd-8243-5dbb25aaa8d1).html. Last accessed 4 June 2019.
    29. Machin, D. and A. Mayr (2012). How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    30. Neumayer, C. (2012). Which alternative? A critical analysis of Youtube-comments in anti-fascist protest.’ tripleC 10(1): 56-65. doi:10.31269/triplec.v10i1.313.
    31. Page, R., D. Barton, J. Unger, and M. Zappavigna (2014). Researching Language and Social Media: A Student Guide. London, New York: Routledge.
    32. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London, New York: Routledge.
    33. Rosenberg, E. (2018). Facebook censored a post for ‘hate speech’. It was the Declaration of Independence. The Washington Post [online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theintersect/wp/2018/07/05/facebookcensored-a-post-for-hate-speech-it-was-the-declaration-of-independence/?noredirect=on&utm_ term=.40ba3e34ce86. Last accessed 18 September 2018.
    34. Schiff, S. (2006). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? The New Yorker [online]. Available: https://web.archive.org/web/20081122125817/http:/www.newyorker.com/ fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact. Last accessed September 24, 2018.
    35. Seargeant, P. and C. Tagg (eds.) (2014). The Language of Social Media: Identity and Community on the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    36. Solon, O. (2017). ‘I can’t trust YouTube any more’: creators speak out on Google advertising row.’ The Guardian [online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/ mar/21/youtube-google-advertising-policies-controversial-content. Last accessed 18 Spetember 2018.
    37. Stein, L. (2013). Policy and participation on social media: The cases of YouTube, Facebook, and Wikipedia. Communication, Culture & Critique 6(3): 353-71. doi:10.1111/cccr.12026.
    38. Tumblr (2018). Sensitive Content. Tumblr [online]. Available: https://tumblr.zendesk.com/ hc/en-us/articles/231885248-Sensitive-content. Last accessed 17 Spetember 2018.
    39. Twitter (2018a). Rules and policies. Twitter [online]. Available: https://help.twitter.com/ en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules. Last accessed September 17, 2018.
    40. Twitter (2018b). Twitter trends FAQs. Twitter [online]. Available: https://help.twitter.com/ en/using-twitter/twitter-trending-faqs. Last accessed September 17, 2018.
    41. Twitter (2018c). Twitter, our services, and corporate affiliates. Twitter [online]. Available: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-services-and-corporate-affiliates. Last accessed 17 Spetember 2018.
    42. Unger, J., R. Wodak, and M. KhosraviNik (2016). Critical discourse studies and social media data. In D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research (4th ed). London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 276–91.
    43. van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society 31(1): 41-58. doi:10.1177/0163443708098245.
    44. van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
    45. Wales, J. (2005). The birth of Wikipedia. Ted [online]. Available: https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_on_the_birth_of_wikipedia/transcript). Last accessed September 23 2018.
    46. Wikipedia (2015). Wikipedia:Neutral Point Of View. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Last accessed 15 July 2015.
    47. Wikipedia (2016a). Wikipedia:Protection policy. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#extended. Last accessed 11 October 2016.
    48. Wikipedia (2016b). Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines. Last accessed 6 October 2016.
    49. Wikipedia (2018a). Category:Wikipedia content policies. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_content_policies. Last accessed 18 Spetember 2018.
    50. Wikipedia (2018b). Wikipedia:Core content policies. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Core_content_policies. Last accessed October 08, 2018.
    51. Wikipedia (2019a). European Union. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union. Last accessed 26 February 2019.
    52. Wikipedia (2019b). Wikipedia:List of policies. Wikipedia [online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content. Last accessed 18 March 2019.
    53. Wodak, R. (2001a). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 63-95.
    54. Wodak, R. (2001b). 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, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 1-14.
    55. Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (eds.) (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
    56. Youtube (2018). Policies and safety. Youtube [online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/intl/en-GB/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines. Last accessed 17 September 2018.
    57. Zappavigna, M. (2015). Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: [How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web]. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.


Samuel Parker

Download Full Text

  • In recent years asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom have been subject to a ‘hostile policy environment’ (Zetter et al. 2005) initiated by the UK government consisting of dispersal, destitution and detention. At the same time, the UK government has also focussed on ‘integrating’ refugees. In this paper, Critical Discourse Analysis of seven policy documents is used to demonstrate how ambivalence is a feature of UK and devolved government refugee integration strategies. Analysis revealed that each strategy is predicated upon rhetorical devices which construct the governments as having a ‘proud history’ of offering protection to those fleeing persecution by drawing on long histories and traditions of welcoming refugees. Such rhetorical and commemorative devices may also function to dialogically repress (Billig 1997) the UK’s history of not providing protection to refugees and of creating a ‘hostile environment’ for asylum seekers. It concludes that such devices construct refugee integration ambivalently, which is a result of an ideological dilemma (Billig et al. 1988) inherent in these strategies between the integration of refugees and deterrence of asylum seekers.

    1. Ager, A. and A. Strang (2004). Indicators of Integration. London: Home Office
    2. Ahmed, S. (2007). ‘You end up doing the document rather than doing the doing’: Diversity, race equality and the politics of documentation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(4): 590-609.
    3. Andreouli, E. and P. Dashtipour (2014). British citizenship and the ‘Other’: An analysis of the earned citizenship discourse. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 24(2): 100-110
    4. APPG on Refugees (2017). Refugees Welcome? The Experience of New Refugees in the UK. London: All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees.
    5. Baker, P. and T. McEnery (2005). A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics 4(2): 197-226.
    6. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.
    7. Billig, M. (1997). The dialogic unconscious: Psychoanalysis, discursive psychology and the nature of repression. British Journal of Social Psychology 36(2): 139-159.
    8. Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D. Middleton and A. Radley (1988). Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage.
    9. Bloch, A. and L. Schuster (2005). At the extremes of exclusion: Deportation, detention and dispersal. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(3): 491-512.
    10. Capdevila, R. and J.E.M. Callaghan (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): 1-16.
    11. Castles, S., H. De Haas and M.J. Miller (2014). The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World (5th ed). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    12. Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society 17(5): 563-581.
    13. Crawley, H. and D. Skleparis (2018). Refugees, migrants, neither, both: Categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(1): 48-64.
    14. Darling, J. (2013). Moral urbanism, asylum, and the politics of critique. Environment and Planning A 45(8): 1785-1801.
    15. Duffy, B. and T. Frere-Smith (2014). Perceptions and Reality: Public Attitudes to Immigration. Ipsos-MORI Social Research Institute.
    16. Dunmire, P.L. (2005). Preempting the future: Rhetoric and ideology of the future in political discourse. Discourse & Society 16(4): 481-513.
    17. Eurostat (2016). Asylum Statistics. Eurostat. [online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics. Last accessed 18 April 2018.
    18. Evans, N. (2015). Immigrants and minorities in Wales, 1840-1990: a comparative perspective. In C. Williams, N. Evans and P. O’Leary (eds.), A Tolerant Nation? Revisiting Ethnic Diversity in a Devolved Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp. 24-50.
    19. Every, D. (2008). A reasonable, practical and moderate humanitarianism: The co-option of humanitarianism in the Australian asylum seeker debates. Journal of Refugee Studies 21(2): 210-229.
    20. Every, D. and M. Augoustinos (2008a). Constructions of Australia in pro‐and anti‐asylum seeker political discourse. Nations and Nationalism 14(3): 562-580.
    21. Every, D. and M. Augoustinos (2008b). ‘Taking advantage or fleeing persecution? Opposing accounts of asylum seeking. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(5): 648-667.
    22. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity press.
    23. Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.
    24. Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of New Labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.J. Yates (eds.), Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage in association with the Open University, pp. 229-266.
    25. Fekete, L (2005). The deportation machine: Europe, asylum and human rights. Race & Class 47(1): 64-78.
    26. Gabrielatos, C. and P. Baker (2008). Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996-2005. Journal of English Linguistics 36(1): 5-38.
    27. Goodman, S. and S. Burke (2010). ‘Oh you don’t want asylum seekers, oh you’re just racist’: A discursive analysis of discussions about whether it’s racist to oppose asylum seeking. Discourse & Society 21(3): 325-340.
    28. Goodman, S. and A.J. Johnson (2013). Strategies used by the Far Right to counter accusations of racism. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 6(2): 97-113.
    29. Goodman, S., A. Sirriyeh and S. McMahon (2017). The evolving (re)categorisations of refugees throughout the ‘refugee/migrant crisis’. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 27(2): 105-114.
    30. Goodman, S. and S.A. Speer (2007). Category use in the construction of asylum seekers. Critical Discourse Studies 4(2): 165-185.
    31. Hodge, R. and G.R. Kress (1988). Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    32. Home Office (2000). Full and Equal Citizens. London: Home Office.
    33. Home Office (2005). Integration Matters: A National Strategy for Refugee Integration. London: Home Office.
    34. Home Office (2009). Moving on Together: Government’s Recommitment to Supporting Refugees. London: Home Office.
    35. Home Office (2017). Immigration Statistics October to December 2016. Gov.uk. [online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-october-to-december-2016/asylum. Last accessed 18 April 2018.
    36. KhosraviNik, M. (2009). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers during the Balkan conflict (1999) and the British general election (2005). Discourse & Society 20(4): 477-498.
    37. Kirkwood, S., A. McKinlay and C. McVittie (2013). ‘They’re more than animals’: Refugees’ accounts of racially motivated violence. British Journal of Social Psychology 52(4): 747-762.
    38. Kirkwood, S., A. McKinlay and C. McVittie (2014). ‘He’s a cracking wee geezer from Pakistan’: Lay accounts of refugee integration failure and success in Scotland. Journal of Refugee Studies 28(1): 1-20.
    39. Kundnani, A. (2001). In a foreign land: the new popular racism. Race & Class 43(2): 41-60.
    40. Kushner, T. (2003). Meaning nothing but good: ethics, history and asylum-seeker phobia in Britain. Patterns of Prejudice 37(3): 257-276.
    41. Lea, S. and N. Lynn (2003). ‘A phantom menace and the new Apartheid’: the social construction of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom. Discourse and Society 14(4): 425-452.
    42. Leudar, I., J. Hayes, J. Nekvapil and J.T. Baker (2008). Hostility themes in media, community and refugee narratives. Discourse & Society 19(2): 187-221.
    43. Millar, J. (2013). An interdiscursive analysis of language and immigrant integration policy discourse in Canada. Critical Discourse Studies 10(1): 18-31.
    44. Misztal, B. (2003). Theories of Social Remembering. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
    45. Nightingale, A., M. Quayle and O. Muldoon (2017). ‘It’s just heart breaking’: Doing inclusive political solidarity or ambivalent paternalism through sympathetic discourse within the ‘refugee crisis’ debate. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 27(2): 137-146.
    46. Parekh, B.C. (2000). The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. London: Profile Books.
    47. Parker, S. (2018). ‘It’s ok if it’s hidden’: The discursive construction of everyday racism for refugees and asylum seekers in Wales. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 28(3): 111-122.
    48. Sales, R. (2002). The deserving and the undeserving? Refugees, asylum seekers and welfare in Britain. Critical Social Policy 22(3): 456-478.
    49. Scottish Government (2013). New Scots: Integrating Refugees in Scotland’s Communities. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
    50. Somerville, W. (2007). Immigration under New Labour. Bristol: Policy.
    51. Tileagă, C. (2008). What is a ‘revolution’? National commemoration, collective memory and managing authenticity in the representation of a political event. Discourse & Society 19(3): 359-382.
    52. Welsh Government (2008). Refugee Inclusion Strategy. Cardiff: Welsh Government.
    53. Welsh Government (2014). Refugee Inclusion Strategy Action Plan June 2014 Update. Cardiff: Welsh Government.
    54. Welsh Government (2016). Refugee and Asylum Seeker Delivery Plan. Cardiff: Welsh Government.
    55. Williams, C. (2015). Claiming the national: Nation, national identity and ethnic minorities. In: C. Williams, N. Evans and P. O’Leary (eds.), A Tolerant Nation? Revisiting Ethnic Diversity in a Devolved Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp. 331-352.
    56. Zerubavel, E. (2006). The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    57. Zetter, R., D. Griffiths and N. Sigona (2005). Social capital or social exclusion? The impact of asylum-seeker dispersal on UK refugee community organizations. Community Development Journal 40(2): 169-181.
    58. Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies 20(2): 172-192.


Saliha Anjum, Andy McKinlay, and Chris McVittie

Download Full Text

  • According to the 2011 UK Census, Muslims form the second largest religious community in Britain. The relationship of this community to British society more generally has come under much scrutiny. The current study focused on British Muslim’s constructions of belonging and conflict towards Britain. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using discourse analysis. Findings suggested that for these participants second generation Muslims were more likely to construct themselves as belonging to Britain than first-generation Muslims, who show more attachments to their own culture and religion. Both generations produced rationalizations in order to negotiate their sense of belonging to British society and /or other culture. Moreover, their discourse was constructed in such a way that it fulfilled the function of protecting both generations from issues of accountability in social interactions.


    1. Ali, S. (2008). Understanding acculturation among second-generation South Asian Muslims in the United States. Contributions to Indian Sociology 42: 383-411.
    2. Anjum, S., C. McVittie, and A. McKinlay (2018). It is not quite cricket: Muslim immigrants’ accounts of integration into UK society. European Journal of Social Psychology 48(1): O1-O14.
    3. Ansari, H. (2002). Muslims in Britain. London: Minority Rights Group International.
    4. Antaki, C., and S. Widdicombe (eds.) (1998). Identities in Talk. London: Sage.
    5. Bamberg, M.G. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7(1-4): 335-342.
    6. Din, I. (2006). The New British:Tthe Impact of Culture and Community on Young Pakistanis. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
    7. Drury, I. (2015). Muslims in Europe reach 44 m: No signs of integration. Themuslimissue.wordpress.com [online]. Available: https://themuslimissue.wordpress. com/2015/11/16/muslims-ineurope-reaches-44m-serious-concerns-raised-about-t-She-challenges-of-integration-following-attacks-on-paris. Last accessed 19 March 2019.
    8. Edwards, D., and J. Potter (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
    9. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    10. Goodman, S., S. Burke, H. Liebling, and D. Zasada (2015). ‘I can’t go back because if I go back I would die’: How asylum seekers manage talk about returning home by highlighting the importance of safety. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 25(4): 327-339.
    11. Holland, S., and E. Stephenson (2015). Donald Trump urges ban on Muslims entering United States. Reuters.com [online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/usaelection-trump-idUSKBN0TQ2QT20151208#e0WQarYHGSBFMe0T.97 Last accessed 19 March 2019.
    12. Isajiw, W. (1999). Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
    13. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13-23.
    14. Kirkwood, S., A. McKinlay, and C. McVittie (2015). ‘He’s a cracking wee geezer from Pakistan’: Lay accounts of refugee integration failure and success in Scotland. Journal of Refugee Studies 28: 1-20.
    15. Krzyżanowski, M., and R. Wodak (2008). Multiple identities, migration and belonging: ‘Voices of migrants’. In: C.R. Caldas-Coulthard & R. Iedema (eds.), Identity Trouble. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 95-119.
    16. McKinlay, A. and C. McVittie (2008). Social Psychology and Discourse. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    17. McKinlay, A. and C. McVittie (2011). Identities in Context: Individuals and Discourse in Action. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    18. Min, P.G. and R. Kim (2000). Formation of ethnic and racial identities: narratives by young Asian-American professionals. Ethnic and Racial Studies 23: 735-760.
    19. Office of National Statistics (2013). Religion: Analyses include people affiliating with a religion in the 2011 census, and religions among the non-UK born population in England and Wales. ONS.Gov.uk. [online]. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/ peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion. Last accessed 19 March 2019.
    20. Pettersson, T. (2007). Muslim immigrants in Western Europe: persisting value differences or value adaptation. In M. Moaddel (ed.), Values and Perceptions of the Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.71-102.
    21. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
    22. Sambaraju, R., and C. McVittie (2017). The European Union and the refugee ‘crisis’: Inclusion, challenges, and responses. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 27(2): 99-104.
    23. Savage, M., G. Bagnall, and B. Longhurst (2005). Globalization and Belonging. London: Sage.




Ali Basarati and Hadaegh Rezaei

 Download Full Text

  • Over the past years, Iran’s reputation has been defined with fear-generating terms and resources in connection with extended nuclear programmes. A critical investigation of the discourse of Iranophobia in the recurrent political discourse of the USA reveals the spatial nature of this discourse. The aim of this paper is towards an analysis of Donald Trump’s 2017-2018 speeches which have their focus on Iran/the Iran Deal. Applying Proximisation Theory (Cap 2013) shows that he conflates spatial and temporal proximisation strategies while conceptually construing Iran as a strong and ubiquitous regional and global threat to the world. Furthermore, we shall indicate how the discourse of Iranophobia legitimates the US withdrawal from the Iran Deal and imposing heavy economic sanctions as preemptive measures. The analysis also shows that Trump’s discourse on Iran endeavours to establish a global consensus against Iran by using lexico-grammatical markers and pragmatic tools in order to influence the international political and strategic behaviour of Iran.

  • To be announced

BOOK REVIEW Page 84-87

Anna Marchi

 Download Full Text


Buckledee S. (2018). The Language of Brexit: How Britain Talked Its Way Out of the European Union. London/ New York: Bloomsbury. 240 pages; ISBN: 9781350047976; £49.50 (hbk), £16.19 (ppb), £15.54 (e-book).

    1. Bayley, P. and Williams, G. (eds.) 2012. European Identity: What the Media Say. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press
    2. Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. 1965. The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research 1: 64-90.
    3. Hardt-Mautner, G. 1995. How Does One Become a Good European: The British Press and European Integration. Discourse & Society 6(2): 177–205.
    4. Hidalgo-Tenorio, C. & Benitez-Castro, M. (eds.) 2019. Populist Discourse: Critical Approaches to Contemporary Politics. London and New York: Routledge.
    5. Koller, V., Kopf, S. & Miglbauer, M. (eds.) 2019. Discourses of Brexit. London and New York: Routledge.
    6. Marchi, A. 2019. Self-Reflexive Journalism. A Corpus Study of Journalistic Culture and Community in the Guardian. London and New York: Routledge.
    7. Partington, A. & Zuccato, M. 2018. Europhobes and Europhiles: Revisiting Britain’s EU Debate in the light of an EU Referendum. I A. Cermakova & M. Mahlberg (eds.) The Corpus Linguistics Discourse. In Honour of Wolfgang Teubert. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95-.126.
    8. Teubert, W. 2001. A province of a federal superstate, ruled by an unelected bureaucracy. Keywords of the Euro-sceptic discourse in Britain. In A. Musolff, C. Good, P. Points and R. Wittlinger (eds.) Attitudes towards Europe. Language in the Unification Process. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 45–88.