Volume 7 (1) 2013


Richard J. Alexander 

Download Full Text

  • Against the background of corporate globalization and the discoursal integration of ecological issues by multinationals this paper examines how BP played down and took steps to minimize the effects of its Deep Horizon rig explosion in 2010.  Using a combination of CDA methods and corpus linguistic techniques an empirical analysis is first given of a series of BP’s press releases during the attempts to stop the oil spill. Various linguistic features, such as euphemisms and metaphors, are isolated. The manner in which BP presents issues of obligation and responsibility is discussed. A second empirical section considers how the aftermath of the spill, especially the ‘restoration’ of the Gulf, and BP’s claims to be dealing with it is presented on BP’s website. This can be seen as a case of how crisis communication is undertaken by corporations. A key feature that is illustrated is the role terminological control and word choice play in deflecting attention from real and potential troubles. A final generalizing discussion section provides a critical political-economic evaluation of the practices and media presentations that state and business corporate bodies engage in to conceal and obscure their real operations and intentions.

    1. Agre, P. (2000). The Crisis of Public Reason. Independent Media Center, Tuesday 15 Aug 2000. <http://www.indymedia.org:8081> (Last accessed 28.02.2008) (no pagination).
    2. Alexander, R. J. (2008). How the anti-green movement and its ‘friends’ use language to construct the world. In M. Döring, H. Penz and W. Trampe (eds.), Language, Signs and Nature: Ecolinguistic Dimensions of Environmental Discourse. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. pp.127-142.
    3. Alexander, R. J. (2009). Framing Discourse on the Environment. A Critical Discourse Approach. London: Routledge.
    4. Carey, A. (1995). Taking the risk out of democracy. Corporate propaganda versus freedom and liberty. New York, Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press, Ltd./Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. (ed. by Andrew Lohrey, with a foreword by Noam Chomsky.)
    5. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Politics. (ed. Otero, C. P.) New York: Black Rose Books.
    6. Chomsky, N. (2010). Hopes and Prospects. London: Penguin.
    7. Cromwell, D. (2001). Terror, Delusion and Obscenities. Z-Net Commentary December 9, 2001 (no pagination).
    8. Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-Death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    9. Flaherty, J. (2012). Two Years After the BP Drilling Disaster, Gulf Residents Fear for the Future. ZNet Commentary April 22, 2012.
    10. Frandsen, F. and W. Johansen (2010). Corporate crisis communication across cultures. In A. Trosborg (ed), Pragmatics Across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 543-569.
    11. Heffernan, M. (2011a). Wilful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    12. Heffernan, M. (2011b).  Wilful blindness – Why we ignore the obvious at our peril. New Statesman 8 August 2011. pp.33-35.
    13. Higgins, P. (2010). Eradicating Ecocide: Laws and Governance to Stop the Destruction of the Planet. London: Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd.
    14. Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 176-207.
    15. Jennings, F. (1988). Empire of Fortune. New York: W. W. Norton.
    16. Jørgensen, P.E.F. and M. Isaksson (2010). Credibility in corporate communication. In A. Trosborg (ed.), Pragmatics Across Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.  pp.513-541.
    17. Lischinsky, A. (2011). In times of crisis: a corpus approach to the construction of the global financial crisis in annual reports. Critical Discourse Studies 8 (3): 153-168.
    18. Marcuse, H. (1964). One Dimensional Man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    19. O’Neill, J. (1972). Sociology as Skin Trade: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. London: Heinemann.
    20. Pilger, J. (1998). Hidden Agendas. London: Vintage.
    21. Scollon, R. (2008). Analyzing Public Discourse: Discourse Analysis in the Making of Public Policy. London: Routledge.
    22. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249-283.


Ghadah Alrasheed

Download Full Text

  • The paper is to display through critical discourse analysis discursive structures of six opinion articles taken from three Canadian newspapers discussing the niqab after the ban of it in France: two newspapers are national – Globe and Mail and National Post – and one is locally published in Ottawa -Ottawa Sun. Studying these articles through a CDA lens, I have found that the discourse of the opinion articles features two ‘ways of seeing’ (Berger 2008) towards the face veil: one is the colonial gaze, which comes from a history of colonization and for which the face veil stands out as a barrier to obtaining knowledge about these women and thus conquering them. The other coded way of seeing is that of nationalism which translates Muslim women as symbols of anti-nationality and inability to assimilate into the ‘imagined Canada’ (Jiwani 2006; Berland 2009). The theoretical investigation of the paper relies on discussions of Orientalism, and on critical descriptions the socio-historical and political context of Canada. It is substantiated by a qualitative critical analysis of the data to illustrate discursive patterns that characterize ideologically loaded presentations of the face-veil and Muslim women.

    1. Abu-Laban, Y. (1992). Ethnic pluralism under siege: Popular and partisan oppositions to multiculturalism. Canadian Public Policy 18: (4): 365-386.
    2. Berger, J. (2008). Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin.
    3. Berland, J. (2009). North of Empire. Durham: Duke University Press.
    4. Billig, M. (2006). Banal nationalism. In S. Philip and H. Wollman (eds.), Nations and Nationalism: A Reader. New Brundwick: Rutgers University Press
    5. Bullock, C. (2002). Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil: Challenging Historical and Modern Stereotypes. Herndon, VA: International Institute of Islamic Thought.
    6. Carey, J. (1989). Communication as Culture. New York: Routledge.
    7. Croucher, S. (2008). French Muslims and the hijab: An analysis of identity and the Islamic veil in France. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 37 (3): 199-213.
    8. Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author? In D.F. Bouchard and M. Foucault (eds.) (Trans. D. F. Bouchard and S. Simon), Language, Counter-Memory, Practice.  NY: Cornell University Press. pp.113-38. 
    9. Foucault, M. (1991). Politics and the study of discourse. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 53-72.
    10. Fox, J. (1998). Foucault, Foucauldians and Sociology. The British Journal of Sociology 49 (3): 415-433.
    11. Greenaway, N. (2010, August 15). Tempest in a niqab: A guide. The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved November20,2010,from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Tempest+niqab+guide/3401204/story.html
    12. Haddad, Y.Y., K.M. Moore and J. Smith (2006). Muslim Women in America: The Challenge of Islamic Identity Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    13. Hall,S.,(2006).Race: The floating signifier. Retrieved Dec 3, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMo2uiRAf30.
    14. Hassan,F.,(2010, June 15). Canadian courts must face down Islamism`s niqab. The Globe and Mail.RetrievedNovember1,2010,from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/canadian-courts-must-face-down-islamisms-niqab/article1603937/
    15. Jiwani,Y.,(2006). Discourses of Denial: Mediations of Race, Gender, and Violence. Vancouver: UBC Press.
    16. Karim, K.H. (2000). Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
    17. Langlaude, S. (2007). The Right of the Child to Religious Freedom. Leiden: Nijhoff.
    18. Levant, E. (2010, August 1). Time to face facts on burkas. The Ottawa Sun. Retrieved 2010, November 1, from http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/2010/07/30/14879551.html.
    19. McGowan, T. (2007). The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    20. Mills, S. (2004). Discourse: The New Critical Idiom. London: Routledge.
    21. Ontario, Quebec Differ over Soccer Head Scarf Ban. (2007, February). CBC News. Retrieved July 14, 2010, from http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/02/26/hijab.html.
    22. Our Kind of Multiculturalism (2010, October 21). National Post. Retrieved October 21, 2010, from http://www.nationalpost.com/kind+multiculturalism/3703612/story.html.
    23. Park, L. (2005). Cultures in Orbit. Durham: Duke University press.
    24. Poole, E. (2002). Reporting Islam: Media representations and British Muslims. London: I.B. Tauris.
    25. Razack, S.H. (2007). When place becomes race. In T.D. Gupta (ed.), Race and racialization: Essential readings. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. pp. 74-82.
    26. Richardson, J. (2004). (Mis)representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadcast Newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    27. Shaheen, J. (Writer). (2007). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. [Motion picture]. (Available form Media Education Foundation, 60 Masonic Street, MA 01060).
    28. Shome, R. and R. Hedge (2002). Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections. Communication Theory 12 (13): 249-270.
    29. Solberg, M. (2010, August 9). Niceties won’t protect us. The Ottawa Sun. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/monte_solberg/2010/08/06/14945956.html
    30. Stern, L. (2009, June 27). What not to wear. The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/What+wear/1738166/story.html
    31. Turner, B.S. (1994). Orientalism, Postmodernism and Globalism. London, Routledge.
    32. Vivian, B. (1999). The veil and the visible. Western Journal of Communications 63 (2): 115-139.
    33. Wakeham, P. (2008). Taxidermic Signs: Reconstructing Aboriginality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    34. Washington, P. (2010, July 14). France attacks burkas. National Post. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/14/peter-worthington-burka-ban-is-an-attack-on-oppression.
    35. Wente, M. (2010, June 24). Ban the burka? No, but… The Globe and Mail. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/ban-the-burka-no-but/article1195738/


Michael S. Boyd

Download Full Text

  • The work is interested in the use and recontextualization of certain legal lexis in the representation of mediatized legal discourse. Specifically, it focuses on the media portrayal of Amanda Knox, the American university exchange student who was convicted of and subsequently acquitted for the murder of British Exchange student, Meredith Kercher. A corpus-assisted empirical analysis of word frequencies and keywords is aimed at uncovering examples of recontextualization and misrepresentation of legal terms and concepts. The data are analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. From a theoretical point of view, the work is informed by the notion that distinctive contextual characteristics of the system, culture, language, and society and the frames and scripts that these imply must be taken into consideration when analyzing (mediatized) legal discourse. Crucially, it argues that recontextualization is both a selective and on-going process, which in the case of mediatized legal discourse can lead to mispresentation of both rules of law and the systems through which legal systems acquire ‘their meaningfulness and meaning’ (Cao 2007).

    1. Anunziato, S. (2011). The Amanda Knox case: The representation of Italy in American media coverage. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 31 (1): 61-78.
    2. Associated Press (2010). Amanda Knox appeal opens in Italy: American student back in court for appeal against conviction for killing Meredith Kercher. The Guardian, 24 November 2010.
    3. Azuelos-Atias, S. (2011). On the incoherence of legal language to the general public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 24: 41-59.
    4. Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    5. Bell, A. (1991). The Language of News Media. Blackwell: London.
    6. Bhatia, V. (2010). Specification in legislative writing: Accessibility, transparency, power and control. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.  pp. 37-50.
    7. Cao, D. (2007). Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    8. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge.
    9. Chilton, P. and C. Schäffner (2002). Introduction: Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse. In P. Chilton and C. Schäffner (eds.), Politics as Text and Talk. Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 1-41.
    10.  Cotterill, J. (2002). ‘Just one more time’: Aspects of intertextuality in the trials of O.J. Simpson. In J. Cotterill (ed.), Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 147-161.
    11. Donadio, R. (2009). Verdict in Italy, but American’s Case Isn’t Over. The New York Times, 6 December. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/europe/06perugia.html.  Accessed 15 June 2012.
    12. Dunlevy, M. (1998). Objectivity. In M. Breen (ed.), Journalism: Theory and Practice. Paddington, NSW: Macleay Press.  pp. 119-138.
    13. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press
    14. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. Arnold: London.
    15. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd edn.). Harlow: Longman.
    16. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.
    17. Goodrich, P. (1997). Legal Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    18. Harwood, M. (2010). Reasonable doubt that justice was done, The Guardian, 25 February. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/25/oprah-winfrey-meredith-kercher. Accessed 15 June 2012.
    19.  Heffer, C. (2002). ‘If you were standing in Marks and Spencers’: Narrativisation and comprehension in the English summing-up. In J. Cotterill (ed.), Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 228-245.
    20. Jackson, B. (1985). Semiotics and Legal Theory. London: Routledge.
    21. Jackson, B. (1987). Making Sense in Law. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.
    22. Koller, V. (2008). Identity, image, impression: Corporate self-promotion and public reactions. In R. Wodak and V. Koller (eds.), Handbook of Communication in the PublicSphere. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  pp. 155-180.
    23. Mattila, H. (2006). Comparative Legal Linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    24. Mirabella, J.G. (2012). Scales of justice: Assessing Italian criminal procedure through the Amanda Knox trial. Boston University International Law Journal 30: 229-260.
    25. Minsky, M. (1974). A framework for representing knowledge. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306, June, 1974. http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html. Accessed 12 February 2013.
    26. Richardson, J.E. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    27. Sarcevic, S. (1997). New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
    28. Schäffner, C. and S. Bassnett (2010). Introduction – Politics, media and translations: Exploring synergies. In C. Schäffner and S. Bassnett (eds.), Political Discourse, Media and Translation. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 1-30.
    29. Scott, M. (2008). Oxford Wordsmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
    30. Simon, M. (2011). Amanda Knox: How the four-year court saga unfolded. CNN, 3 October 2011. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/europe/knox-court-saga/index.html. Accessed 24 June 2012.
    31. Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    32. Tannen, D. and C. Wallat (1999). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.), The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.  pp. 346-366.
    33. Tiersma, P.M. (1999). Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    34. van Dijk, T.A. (1998). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    35. van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    36. Villez, B. (2010) Television and the Legal System. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
    37. Wodak, R. and R. De Cillia (2007). Commemorating the past: The discursive construction of official narratives about the ‘Rebirth of the Second Austrian Republic’. Discourse & Communication 1 (3): 315-341.
    38. Wodak, R. and G. Weiss (2005). Analyzing European discourses: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak and P. Chilton (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 121-137.


Jennifer E. Cheng

Download Full Text

  • Due to the way racism is now hidden behind discourses of ‘cultural difference’ rather than relying on beliefs of biological inferiority, capturing instances of racism has now become a difficult task. The discourse of ‘difference’ in recent times has strongly manifested itself as exclusion from a discursively constructed nation: borders of the nation are redrawn along cultural essentialist lines so that undesirable ‘others’ are always excluded. Taking data from Australian parliamentary debates on immigration and citizenship during 2006-2007, this paper uses critical discourse analysis to explore how politicians discursively (re)construct borders of ‘Australia’ to either exclude or include immigrants. This paper argues that exclusion and inclusion in national constructions are more conducive ways of seeing how racism and anti-racism towards immigrants are enacted.

    1. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
    2. Augoustinos, M. and D. Every. (2010). Accusations and denials of racism: Managing moral accountability in public discourse, Discourse & Society 21 (3): 251-256.
    3. Barker, M. (1982). The New Racism: Conservatives and the Ideology of the Tribe. Frederick: Aletheia Books.
    4. Bauder, H. and J. Semmelroggen (2009). Immigration and imagination of nationhood in the German parliament. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 15 (1): 1-26.
    5. Blackledge, A. (2006). The racialization of language in British political discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 3 (1): 61-79.
    6. Blackledge, A. (2009). Being English, speaking English: Extension to English language testing legislation and the future of multicultural Britain. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero and P. Stevenson (eds.), Discourses on Language and Integration: Critical Perspectives on Language Testing Regimes in Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 83-108.
    7. Bonnett, A. (2000). Anti-Racism. London: Routledge.
    8. Collins, J. (2007). The landmark of Cronulla. In J. Jupp and J. Nieuwenhuysen (eds.), Social Cohesion in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 61-69.
    9. Every, D. and M. Augoustinos (2007). Constructions of racism in the Australian parliamentary debates on asylum seekers. Discourse & Society 18 (4): 411-436.
    10. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    11. Farrell, E. (2010). ‘Do I feel Australian? No you tell me’: Debating the introduction of the Australian formal citizenship test.  In C. Slade and M. Möllering (eds.), From Migrant to Citizen: Testing Language, Testing Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 164-187.
    12. Fozdar, F. and B. Spittles (2009). The Australian citizenship test : Process and rhetoric. Australian Journal of Politics and History 55 (4): 496-512.
    13. Guerin, B. (2003). Combating prejudice and racism: New interventions from a functional analysis of racist language. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 13 (1): 29-45.
    14. Harris, P. and V. Williams (2003). Social inclusion, national identity and the moral imagination. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs 3 (3): 205-222.
    15. Hodge, B. and J. O’Carroll (2006). Borderwork in Multicultural Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin .
    16. Horner, K. (2009). Language, citizenship and europeanization: Unpacking the discourse of integration. In G. Hogan-Brun, C. Mar-Molinero and P. Stevenson (eds.),Discourses on Language and Integration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 109-128.
    17. Johnson, C. (2007). John Howard’s ‘values’ and Australian identity. Australian Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 195-209.
    18. Jørgensen, M. and L.J. Phillips (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage.
    19. Manz, S. (2004). Constructing a normative national identity: The Leitkultur debate in Germany, 2000/2001. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25 (5-6): 481-496.
    20. McAllister, I. and D.T. Studlar (1992). Gender and representation among legislative candidates in Australia. Comparative Political Studies 25 (3): 388-411.
    21. McPherson, M. (2010). ‘I integrate, therefore I am’: Contesting the normalizing discourse of integrationism through conversations with refugee women, Journal of Refugee Studies 23 (4): 546-570.
    22. Phillips, M.W. and Jorgensen, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method, London: Sage.
    23. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism, London: Routledge.
    24. Reisigl, M and R. Wodak. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.  pp. 87-121.
    25. Saniotis, A. (2004). Embodying ambivalence: Muslim Australians as ‘Other’.  Journal of Australian Studies 82: 49-59.
    26. Sears, D.O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P.A. Katz and D.A. Taylor (eds.), Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy. New York: Plenum Press.  pp. 23-45.
    27. Sedlak, M. (2000). You really do make an unrespectable foreigner policy … Discourses on ethnic issues in the Austrian parliament. In R. Wodak and T.A. van Dijk (eds.),Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.  pp. 107-166.
    28. Stolcke, V. (1995). Talking culture: New rhetorics, new boundaries of exclusion in Europe. Current Anthropology 36 (1): 1-24.
    29. Taguieff, P.-A. (1990). The new cultural racism in France. Telos 83: 109-122.
    30. van Dijk, T.A. (1987). Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park: Sage.
    31. van Dijk, T.A. (1997). Political discourse and racism: Describing others in Western parliaments. In Riggins, S.H. (eds), The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.  pp.31-64.
    32. van Dijk, T.A. (2000). Theoretical Background. In R. Wodak and van Dijk, T.A. (eds.), Racism at the Top: Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States,Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag.  pp. 13-30 .
    33. van Dijk, T.A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.  pp. 62-86.
    34. Wieviorka, M. (1997). Is it so difficult to be anti-racist? In P. Webster and T. Modood (eds.), Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multicultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism, Zed Press: London.
    35. Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
    36. Wren, K. (2001). Cultural racism: Something rotten in the state of Denmark? Social & Cultural Geography 2 (2): 141-162.


Silvia de Candia, Cinzia Spinzi & Marco Venuti

Download Full Text

  • White House Press Briefings, daily meetings with the press held by the White House Press Secretary, are the main information conduit for the White House (Kumar 2007). They are considered a ‘political chess game’ where the Press Secretary and the press face a ‘wrestling match’ (Partington 2006: 16). Our analysis is carried out on a corpus comprising all the Press Briefings across three presidencies from Clinton to Obama. The additional mark-up includes information about individual speakers and their role, allowing us to compare different discourse strategies adopted by the participants in the briefings at different points in time. This leads us to determine the extent of the differences in the patterns found as well as the nature of the variation from one participant to the next one. Starting from a phraseological perspective (Granger and Meunier 2008), our analysis will focus on avoidance strategies enacted by the podium with the main purpose of preserving face and yet ‘doing the job’ (Partington 2003: 80). We will show how the cluster ‘I don’t know’ can be exploited by various podiums, mainly in accordance with strategic communication choices made by the US administrations, highlighting differences in the podium’s attitude towards the press.

    1. Baker, P. and S. Ellece (2011). Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
    2. Biber, D., G. Leech and S. Conrad (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London and New York: Longman.
    3. Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson ([1978] 1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    4. Cava, A.M., S. de Candia, G. Riccio, C. Spinzi and M. Venuti (2009). The evolution of institutional genres in time: The case of the White House Press Briefings. In M. Mahlberg, V. González-Díaz and C. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference. Available: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/387_FullPaper.doc (last accessed 20 December 2012).
    5. Fairclough, N. (2006). Semiosis, ideologies and mediation. In I. Lassen, J. Strunck and T. Vestergaard (eds.), Mediating Ideology in Text and Image. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.19-35.
    6. Galasinski, D. (2000). The Language of Deception: A Discourse Analytical Study. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
    7. Granger, S. and F. Meunier (eds.) (2008). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    8. Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. London: Heineman.
    9. Halliday, M.A.K. ([1985] 1994).  An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    10. Han, L.C. (2001). Governing From Center Stage: White House Communication Strategies during the Television Age of Politics. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
    11. Harris, S. (1995). Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics 23 (2): 117-135.
    12. Kumar, M.J. (2007). Managing the President’s Message: The White House Communications Operation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
    13. Mahlberg, M. (2007) Clusters, key clusters and local textual functions in Dickens. Corpora 2 (1): 1-31.
    14. Martin, J.R. and P.R.R. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    15. McCarthy, M. A. O’ Keeffe and R. Carter (2007). From Corpus to Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
    16. Östman, J. (1981). You Know: A Discourse Functional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    17. Partington, A. (2003). The Linguistics of Political Argumentation: The Spin-doctor and the Wolf-pack at the White House. London: Routledge.
    18. Partington, A. (2006). The Linguistics of Laughter: A Corpus-assisted Study of Laughter Talk. London: Routledge.
    19. Perloff, R.M. (1998). Political Communication: Politics, Press, and Public in America. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    20. Phillips, M. (1989). Lexical Structure of Text. Birmingham: ELR, University of Birmingham.
    21. Renouf, A. and B. Jayeeta (2007). Lexical repulsion between sense-related pairs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12 (3): 415-444.
    22. Schegloff, E.A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.52-133.
    23. Schimitt, N. (2004). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    24. Scott, M. (1996). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    25. Scott, M. (2010). Problems in investigating keyness. In M. Bondi and M. Scott (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp.43-57.
    26. Scott, M. and C. Tribble (2006). Textual Patterns: Keywords and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    27. Sinclair J. McH. (1996). The search for units of meaning. Textus 9 (1): 75-106.
    28. Sinclair, J. McH. and S. Jones ([1974] 2007). English lexical collocations: A study in computational linguistics. In W. Teubert and R. Krishnamurthy (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Vol 1-6. New York: Routledge. pp.223-269.
    29. Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. and L. Burnard (eds.) (2007). TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange. Online. Available at http://www.tei-c.org/Guidelines/P5/ (last accessed 20 December 2012).
    30. Tsui, A.B.M. (1991). The pragmatic functions of ‘I don’t know’. Text 11: 607-622.


Kati Kaupinnen

Download Full Text

  • Female empowerment, success and agency have become icons of contemporary postfeminist popular culture and especially of women’s magazines. While in previous research these notions have been seen as manifestations of a new, popular feminism, more recently they have also been connected to the growing hegemony of neoliberal governance, a mode of power that ultimately aims at an economization of the social and is fundamentally exercised in and through discourse. This article seeks to contribute to the emerging body of research on the interconnectedness of these two phenomena, postfeminism and neoliberalism, by using the example of the German edition of the women’s magazine Cosmopolitan. Methodologically the study draws on linguistically oriented discourse analysis. The analysis focuses on the operation of a ‘discourse of postfeminist self-management’ in two key domains of the magazine: work and sex. Following a multilayered examination, the study concludes that although the discourse of postfeminist self-management evokes a feminist ethos, its logic is that of neoliberal governmentality. Thus the study suggests that rather than feminist action of any kind, what is going on here is gender-specific neoliberal governance, whereby the subversive power of feminism is systematically turned into a productive force for the (self-)production of neoliberalized, entrepreneurial subjects.

    1. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
    2. BMFSFJ Gleichstellung. Available at: http://www.bmfsfj.de/BMFSFJ/gleichstellung,did=88096.html. (accessed 16 December 2010).
    3. Boltanski, L. and È. Chiapello (2007). The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
    4. Bröckling, U. (2000). Totale Mobilmachung. Menschenführung im Qualitäts- und Selbstmanagement. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, and T. Lemke (eds.),Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart: Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. pp. 131-167.
    5. Bröckling, U. (2005). Gendering the enterprising self: Subjectification programs and gender differences. Distinction 11: 7-23.
    6. Bröckling, U. (2007). Das unternehmerische Selbs: Soziologie einer Subjektivierungsform. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    7. Bröckling, U., S. Krasmann and T. Lemke (eds.) (2000). Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart: Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    8. Bröckling, U., S. Krasmann and T. Lemke (2004). Einleitung. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann and T. Lemke (eds.), Glossar der Gegenwart. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.  pp. 9-16.
    9. Brooks, A. (1997). Postfeminisms: Feminism, Cultural Theory and Cultural Forms. London: Routledge.
    10. Der Venus Code by P. Harms. Cosmopolitan 7/2006. München: Marquard Media, 64-70.
    11. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    12. Foucault, M. (1978). Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
    13. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H.L. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow (eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester Press. pp. 208-226.
    14. Foucault, M. (2006). Die Geburt der Biopolitik: Geschichte der Gouvernementalität II. Vorlesung am Collège de France 1978-1979. M. Sennelart (ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
    15. Friedan, B. (1963). Feminine Mystique. New York: Dell Publishing.
    16. Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
    17. Gender mainstreaming. Available at: www.gender-mainstreaming.net. (accessed 20 February 2012).
    18. Gill, R. (2007a). Gender and the Media. Cambridge: Polity press.
    19. Gill, R. (2007b). Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies 10 (2): 147-166.
    20. Gill, R. (2009). Mediated intimacy and postfeminism: A discourse analytical examination of sex and relationship advice in a women’s magazine. Discourse and Communication 3 (4): 345-369.
    21. Gill, R. and Arthurs J. (2006). Editor’s introduction. New femininities? Feminist Media Studies 6 (4): 443-451.
    22. Gill, R. and Scharff C. (2011a). Introduction. In R. Gill and C. Scharff (eds.), New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1-17.
    23. Gill, R. and C. Scharff (eds.) (2011b). New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    24. Harvey, L. and R. Gill (2011). Spicing it up: Sexual entrepreneurs and The sex inspectors. In R. Gill and C. Scharff (eds.), New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 52-67.
    25. Henry, A. (2007). Orgasms and empowerment: Sex and the City and the third wave feminism. In K. Akass and J. McCabe (eds.), Reading Sex and the City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 65-82.
    26. Holton, V. and F.E. Dent (2012). Women in Business: Navigating Career Success. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
    27. Hult, F. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of Sociology of Language 202: 7-24.
    28. Kauppinen, K. (2012) Subjects of Aspiration. Untersuchung von diskursiven Prozessen neoliberaler Regierung in einer postfeministischen Frauenzeitschrift. Finnische Beiträge zur Germanistik 28. Doctoral thesis. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
    29. Kommission für Zukunftsfragen Bayern – Sachsen 1997: III. Erwerbstätigkeit und Arbeitslosigkeit in Deutschland. Entwicklung, Ursachen und Maßnahmen.  Available at: http://www.bayern.de/Anlage4500338/BerichtderKommissionfuer ZukunftsfragenderFreistaatenBayernundSachsen-Teil3.pdf. (accessed 15 March 2012).
    30. Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
    31. Lazar, M.M. (2005). Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis as political perspective and praxis. In M.M. Lazar (ed.), Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 1-27.
    32. Lazar, M.M. (2006). ‘Discover the power of femininity!’ Analyzing global ‘power  femininity’ in local advertising. Feminist Media Studies 6 (4): 505-517.
    33. McCabe, J. and K. Akass (2004). Introduction: Welcome to the age of un-innocence. In K. Akass and J. McCabe (eds.), Reading Sex and the City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 1-14.
    34. MacDonald, M. (1995). Representing Women: Myths of Femininity in the Popular Media. London: Arnold Publishers.
    35. Machin, D. and J. Thornborrow (2003). Branding and discourse: The case of Cosmopolitan. Discourse & Society 14 (4): 453-471.
    36. Machin, D. and T. van Leeuwen (2003). Global schemas and local discourses in Cosmopolitan. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (4): 493-512.
    37. Mautner, G. (2008). Analyzing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In R. Wodak and M. Krzyżanowski (eds.), Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    38. McRobbie, A. (1999). In the Culture Society: Art, Fashion and Popular music. London: Routledge.
    39. McRobbie, A. (2004). Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies 4 (3): 255-264.
    40. McRobbie, A. (2009). The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. London: Sage Publications.
    41. Milani, T. (2009). At the intersection of power and knowledge. An analysis of a Swedish policy document on language testing for citizenship. Journal of Language and Politics 8 (2): 287-304.
    42. MVG Cosmopolitan. Available at: http://www.mvg.de/cosmopolitan.html. (accessed 20 April 2007 and 15 January 2011).
    43. MVG Cosmopolitan/Auflagen. Available at: http://www.mvg.de/cosmopolitan/print/auflagen.html. (accessed 20 January 2011).
    44. Nigsch, O. (1997). Management – ein Weg zur gesellschaftlichen Generalsanierung? Soziale Welt 48: 417-430.
    45. Peck, J. (2008). The Age of Oprah: Cultural Icon for the Neoliberal Era. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
    46. Pietikäinen, S. (2010). Sámi language mobility: Scales and discourses of multilingualism in a polycentric environment. International Journal of Sociology of Language 202. 79-101.
    47. Pietikäinen, S. and A. Mäntynen (2009). Kurssi Kohti Diskurssia. Tampere: Vastapaino.
    48. Quast, L. (2007). Your Career, Your Way! Personal Strategies to Achieve Your Career Aspirations. Livermore: Wingspan.
    49. Rose, N. (1996). Inventing Ourselves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    50. Rose, N. (1999a). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (2nd edn). London: Free Association Books.
    51. Rose, N. (1999b). Powers of Freedom. Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    52. Schultheis, F. (2007). Vorwort: Reflexive Gesellschaftskritik: von der Identitätskrise zur historischen Selbstverortung. In L. Boltanski and É. Chiapello (eds.), Der Neue Geist des Kapitalismus. Konstanz: UVK.  pp. i-v.
    53. Scollon, R. (2005). The discourses of food in the world system: Toward a nexus analysis of a world problem. Journal of Language and Politics 4 (3): 465-488.
    54. Scollon, R. and S. Wong Scollon (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.
    55. Sunderland, J. (2000). Baby entertainer, bumbling assistant and line manager: discourses of fatherhood in parentcraft texts. Discourse and Society 11 (2): 249-274.
    56. Tasker, Y. and D. Negra (2007) Introduction. Feminist politics and postfeminist culture. In Y. Tasker and D. Negra (eds.), Interrogating Postfeminism. London: Duke University Press. pp. 1-25.
    57. Winship, J. (1987). Inside Women’s Magazines. London: Pandora.
    58. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. pp. 63-94.
    59. Wolf, N. (1993). Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century. London: Vintage.
    60. Zehn Königswege zum Erfolg by B. Schwertfeger and I. Nitzche. Cosmopolitan 9/2006. München: Marquard Media, 151-157.


Rachele Lawton

Download Full Text

  • This paper examines the discursive construction of immigrants and immigration within the ‘English Only’ movement in the United States.  In this critical discursive language policy study, emphasis is placed on the role of discourse in the reproduction of discrimination and anti-immigrant sentiment in the context of a debate related to language in the U.S.  The aims of the English Only movement are to make English the official language of the United States, restrict linguistic access to political and civil rights, and dismantle or restrict bilingual education programs (Schmidt 2000).   A variation of the discourse historical approach (DHA) (Wodak and Meyer 2009; Reisigl and Wodak 2001; Wodak 2006) is applied as a framework to analyze public texts that are produced by proponents of the English Only movement.  The DHA’s concept of context, the use of metaphor, and the macro-strategies of (mis)representation, (de)legitimization and coercion (Chilton 2004) are emphasized as analytical categories.  Finally, the analysis exposes the movement’s ideological aims by demonstrating how ‘in groups’ and ‘out groups’ are constructed in order to depict both the act of immigration and immigrants themselves in derogatory and thus discriminatory terms.  

    1. Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    2. Blommaert, J. (1999). Language Ideological Debates.  Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    3. Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse.  London: Continuum.
    4. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis.     Basingstoke: Palgrave-MacMillan.
    5. Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor.  Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
    6. Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign.  Discourse & Society 17 (5): 563-581.
    7. Chilton, P. (1996). Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang, Inc.
    8. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse.  London: Routledge.
    9. Chilton, P. and C. Schäffner (2002). Introduction: Themes and Principles in the analysis of political discourse.  In P. Chilton and C. Schäffner (eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 1-41. 
    10. Crawford, J. (ed.) (1992). Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    11. Crawford, J. (2001). A Nation Divided by One Language.  Guardian Unlimited.  http://www.guardian.co.uk
    12. Crawford, J. (2008). Advocating for English Language Learners.  Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    13. De Cillia, R., M. Reisigl and R. Wodak (1999). The discursive construction of national identities.  Discourse & Society 10 (2): 149-173.
    14. Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    15. Draper, B. and M. Jiménez (1996). A Chronology of the Official English Movement. OFFICIAL ENGLISH? NO! TESOL’s Recommendations for Countering the Official English Movement in the US.  [14 June 2007]. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/tesol/official/chronology.html
    16. Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics.  New York:  Continuum. 
    17. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.  Abingdon: Routledge.
    18. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
    19. Habermas, J. (1991) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    20. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar  (2nd edn.). London: Edward Arnold.
    21. Hart, C. (2008). Critical Discourse Analysis and metaphor: toward a theoretical framework.  Critical Discourse Studies 5 (2): 91-106. 
    22. Hart, C. (2011). Moving beyond metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic approach to CDA: Construal operations in immigration discourse. In C. Hart (ed.), Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp. 171-192.
    23. Heath, S.B. (1992). Why no official tongue?  In J. Crawford (ed.), Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  pp. 20-31.
    24. Herman, D.  (2003).  Iowa College students’ attitudes toward official English legislation: An exploratory study.  Journal of Language, Identity and Education 2 (2): 83-103. 
    25. Jernegan, K. (2005). A New Century: Immigration and the US. Migration Policy Institute.  http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=283 [accessed 29 September 2008].
    26. Johnson, E.  (2005).  war in the Media: Metaphors, Ideology, and the Formation of Language Policy.  Bilingual Research Journal 29 (3): 621-40. 
    27. Judd, E. (1987). The English Language Amendment: A case study on language and politics. TESOL Quarterly 21 (1): 113-135.
    28. Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction.  New York: Oxford University Press. 
    29. Kress, G. (1985/1989). Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice (2nd edn.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    30. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    31. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green.
    32. Macias, R. and Wiley, T. (1998) “Introduction to the Second Edition.”  In H. Kloss, The American Bilingual Tradition. (2nd edn.).  McHenry, Illinois: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.
    33. Martin, J.R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    34. May, S. (2001). Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language.  Harlow: Longman.
    35. May, S. (2003) Misconceiving minority language rights: Implications for liberal political theory.  In W. Kymlicka and A. Patten (eds.), Language Rights and Political Theory.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.  pp. 123-152.
    36. Meyer, M.  (2001). Between theory, method and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage Publications.  pp. 14-31.
    37. Nunberg, J. (1997). Lingo Jingo: English Only and the New Nativism.  The American Prospect 8 (33).  http://www.prospect.org
    38. Pavlenko, A.  (2002). We have room for but one language here: Language and national identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century.  Multilingua 21: 163-196.
    39. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
    40. Rapp, C. (2010).  Aristotle’s Rhetoric.  In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [accessed March 2010]   <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/>.
    41. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2001). Discourse and Discrimination.  London: Routledge.
    42. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  Los Angeles. Sage.  pp. 87-121.
    43. Ricento, T. (2003). The Discursive Construction of Americanism. Discourse & Society 14: 611-637.
    44. Ricento, T. (ed.) (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy:  Theory and Method.  Malden, Massachusetts:  Blackwell.
    45. Rubinelli, S. (2009) Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero.  Lugano: Springer. 
    46. Santa Ana, O. (1999). ‘Like an animal I was treated’: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse.  Discourse & Society 10 (2): 191-224.
    47. Santa Ana, O. (2002). Brown Tide Rising.  Austin: University of Texas Press.
    48. Schildkraut, D. (2003). American identity and attitudes toward official-English policies. Political Psychology 24: 469-499.
    49. Schmid, C. (2001). The Politics of Language: Conflict, Identity, and Cultural Pluralism in Comparative Perspective.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    50. Schmidt, R. Sr. (1991). Sources of Language Policy Conflict: A Comparative Perspective.  Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the Western Political Science Association.  Seattle, WA.
    51. Schmidt, R. Sr. (1997) Latinos and Language Policy: The Politics of Culture.  In F. C. Garcia (ed.), Pursuing Power: Latinos in the Political System.   Notre Dame Indiana:   University of Notre Dame Press.
    52. Schmidt, R. Sr. (1998). The politics of language in Canada and the United States: Explaining the differences.  In T. Ricento and B. Burnaby (eds.), Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  pp. 37-70.  
    53. Schmidt, R. Sr. (2000). Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    54. Schmidt, R. Sr. (2002). Racialization and Language Policy: The case of the USA. Multilingua 21 (2-3): 141-162.
    55. Schmidt, R. Sr. (2006). Political theory and language policy.  In T. Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method.  Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.  pp. 95-110. 
    56. Schmidt, R. Sr. (2007). Defending English in an English-dominant world: The ideology of the Official English movement in the United States.  In M. Heller and A. Duchene (eds.), Discourses of Endangerment: Interest and Ideology in the Defense of Languages.  London: Continuum.  pp. 197-215.
    57. Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brenneis and R. Macaulay (eds.), The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology.  Boulder, CO: Westview Press.  pp. 284-306.
    58. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    59. Thomas, L. (1996). Language as power: A linguistic critique of U.S. English. The Modern Language Journal 80 (2): 129-140. 
    60. Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality.  London: Longman.
    61. Tollefson, J. (2006). Critical Theory in language policy.  In T. Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method.  Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.  pp. 42-59. 
    62. Toulmin, S. E. (2003) The Uses of Argument.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    63. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998) Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach.  London: Sage Publications.
    64. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993a). Analyzing racism through discourse analysis: Some methodological reflections.  In J. Stanfield (ed.), Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods.  Newbury Park, CA: Sage.  pp. 92-134. 
    65. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993b). Elite Discourse and Racism.  London: Sage.
    66. Van Dijk, T.A. (2000a). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration.  In M. Reisigl and R. Wodak (eds.), The Semiotics of Racism: Approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis.  Vienna: Passagen Verlag.  pp. 85-103. 
    67. Van Dijk, T.A. (2000b). Ideologies, racism, discourse: Debates on immigration and ethnic issues.  In J. ter Wal and M. Verkuyten (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Racism.  Aldershot: Ashgate.  pp. 91-116.
    68. Wiley, T.G. (1996). Language planning and policy.  In S.L. McKay and N.H. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 103-147.
    69. Wiley, T.G. (1998). The imposition of World War I era English-only policies and the fate of German in North America.  In T. Ricento and B. Burnaby (eds.), Language and Politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and Realities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  pp. 211-241.  
    70. Wiley, T.G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States.  In T. Ricento (ed.), Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English.  Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  pp.  67-85.
    71. Wiley, T.G.  (2002). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the US Context.  In J. Tollefson (ed.), Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  pp. 39-64.
    72. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  London: Sage Publications.  pp. 63-94.
    73. Wodak, R. (2006). Linguistic analyses in language policies.  In T. Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method.  Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.  pp. 170-193.
    74. Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse studies – important concepts and terms. In R. Wodak and M. Krzyzanowski (eds.), Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences.  Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  pp. 1-29.
    75. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., and Reisigl, M. (1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
    76. Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.  (2nd edn.).  Los Angeles: Sage.  pp. 1-33.
    77. Wright, W. (2004). What English-Only really means: A study of the implementation of California language policy with Cambodian-American students. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7 (1): 1-23.
    78. Wright, S. (2008). Language, communication and the public sphere: Definitions. In R. Wodak and V. Koller (eds.), Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.  pp. 21-44.
    79. Zentella, A.C. (1997). The Hispanophobia of the Official English movement in the US. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 127: 71-86.


Malcolm N. MacDonald & Duncan Hunter

Download Full Text

  • Over the past decade, governments worldwide have taken initiatives both at a national and supra-national level in order to prevent terrorist attacks from militant groups. This paper analyses a corpus of policy documents which sets out the policy for UK national security. Informed by Foucault’s (2007) theory of governmentality, as well as critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, this paper analyses the ways in which the liberal state in late modernity realizes security as discursive practice.  A corpus of 110 documents produced by the UK government relating to security in the wake of the 7/7 attacks between 2007 and 2011 was assembled. The paper analyses the discursive constitution of the Foucaultian themes of regulation, knowledge and population, though carrying out a qualitative analysis of relevant key wards, patterns of collocation, as well as features of connotation and semantic prosody.

    1. Appleby, N. (2010). Labelling the innocent: how government counter-terrorism advice creates labels that contribute to the problem.  Critical Studies on Terrorism 3 (3): 421-436.
    2. Baker, P. (2010). Representations of Islam in British broadsheet and tabloid newspapers. Journal of Language and Politics 9: 310-338.
    3. 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: 197-226.
    4. Baker, P., C. Gabrielatos, M. KhosraviNik, M. Krzyzanowski, T.  McEnery and R. Wodak (2008). A useful methodological synergy?  Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19: 273-306.
    5. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. (rev. edn.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
    6. Bhatia, A. (2009). The discourses of terrorism. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2): 279-289.
    7. British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). (2007). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
    8. Burchell, G., C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.) (1991). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.
    9. Chouliaraki, L. and N. Fairclough. (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    10. Chang, G.C. and H.B. Mehan. (2008). Why we must attack Iraq: Bush’s reasoning practices and argumentation system.  Discourse & Society 19 (4): 453-482.
    11. De Beaugrande, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis from the perspective of ecologism. Critical Discourse Studies 1 (1): 113- 145.
    12. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
    13. Department for Innovation, Universities  and Skills. (2009a). Learning Together to be Safe: A Toolkit to Help Colleges Contribute to the Prevention of Violent Extremism. London.
    14. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2010). Preventing Violent Extremism: Sixth Report of Session 2009-10. London.
    15. Ecclestone K. and D. Hayes (2009). The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education. Abington: Routledge.
    16. Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, New Language. London: Routledge.
    17. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    18. Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of Things. London: Tavistock.
    19. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
    20. Foucault, M. (1973). The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock.
    21. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punishment. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    22. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, Michel Foucault, 1972-1977 (Colin Gordon, Ed.) Brighton: The Harvester Press.
    23. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population; lectures at the College de France, 1977-78 (trans. G. Burchell). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    24. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    25. Freake, R., G. Gentil and J. Sheyholislami (2011). A bilingual corpus-assisted discourse study of the construction of nationhood and belonging in Quebec. Discourse & Society 22 (11): 1-27.
    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: 5-38.
    27. Gales, T. (2009). Diversity as enacted in US immigration politics and law: a corpus-based approach. Discourse & Society 20 (2): 223-240.
    28. Gillborn, D. (2006). Rethinking white supremacy: Who counts in whiteworld. Ethnicities 6 (3): 318-340.
    29. Graham, P., T. Keenan and A.-M. Dowd (2004). A call to arms at the end of history: A discourse-historical analysis of George W. Bush’s declaration of war on terror.Discourse & Society 15 (2-3): 199-222.
    30. Home Office (2003). Prevent Strategy. London.
    31. Home Office (2006). CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism. London.
    32. Home Office. (2009a) CONTEST: Countering International  Terrorism: The United Kingdom’s Strategy. London.
    33. Home Office. (2009b) Prevent Strategy. London.
    34. Home Office. (2009c). Prevent Strategy (Part 2) London.
    35. Home Office. (2011a) CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism. London.
    36. Home Office. (2011b) Prevent strategy. London: Home Office.
    37. House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2010). Preventing Violent  Extremism. London: DCLG.
    38. Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo) (2011). Available at: http://www.cohesioninstitute.org.uk/
    39. Johnson, R. (2002). Defending ways of life: The (anti-)terrorist rhetorics of Bush and Blair. Theory, Culture and Society 19 (4): 211-31.
    40. MacDonald, M.N., R. Badger and J. O’Regan (2009). The social cognition of medical knowledge: With special reference to childhood epilepsy. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies  6 (3): 176 – 204.
    41. Meadows, B. (2007) Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: A critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004-2005. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1 (2): 1-17.
    42. Miller, P. and N. Rose (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society 19 (1): 1-31.
    43. Mulderigg, J. (2003). Consuming education: A critical discourse analysis of social actors in New Labour’s education policy. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies 1 (1). Available at:  http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=2.
    44. Mulderrig, J. (2011a).  The grammar of governance. Critical Discourse Studies 8: 45-68.
    45. Mulderrig, J. (2011b). Manufacturing consent: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of New Labour’s educational governance. Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory 43: 562-578.
    46. Office of Security and Counter Terrorism (2009). Delivering the Prevent Strategy: An Updated Guide for Local Partners. London: Home Office.
    47. Pennycook, A.  (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Chicago: L. Erlbaum.
    48. Preston, J. (2009). Preparing for emergencies: Citizenship education, whiteness and pedagogies of security. Citizenship Studies 13 (2): 187- 200.
    49. Rose, N. and P. Miller (1992). Political power behind the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology 43 (2): 173-205. 
    50. Salama, A.H.Y. (2011). Ideological collocation and the recontexualization of Wahhabi-Saudi Islam post-9/11: A synergy of corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis.Discourse & Society 22 (3): 315-342.
    51. Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.
    52. Simone, M.A. (2009). Give me liberty and give me surveillance: a case study of the US Governments discourse of surveillance. Critical Discourse Studies 6 (1): 1-14.
    53. Turley, A. (2009). Stronger Together: A New Approach to Preventing Violent Extremism. London: NLGN.
    54. Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods Of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 95-120.
    55. Wodak, R., R. De Cillia, M. Reisigl and K. Liebhart (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.


Alessia Tranchese & Sole Alba Zollo

Download Full Text

  • This study is part of an ongoing investigation into the portrayal of violence against women in the British media and it draws on Fairclough’s model of CDA and Kress and van Leeuwen’s theory of multimodality. The aim of this analysis is to compare the representation of victims and perpetrators of rape in the printed and broadcast media. By bringing to light the intertextual and interdiscursive elements which come out of the comparative linguistic and/or semiotic investigation, this study explores how an incident of rape is recontextualised in two different media and across genres through the use of different verbal and visual strategies. In addition, this research aims at showing how media discourse, regardless of the genre, may contribute to creating a stereotyped construction of gender-based violence by, for example, shifting the responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim’s mother, thus minimising the rapist’s foul play and leading to his almost total invisibility.

    1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp.60-101.
    2. Benedict, H. (1992) Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes. New York: Oxford University Press.
    3. Bingham, S.G. (ed.) (1994) Conceptualizing Sexual Harassment as Discursive Practice. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
    4. Briggs, C. L. and Bauman, R. (1990) Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2(2): 131-172.
    5. Carter, C., Branston, G., Allan, S. (eds) (1998) News, Gender and Power. London: Routledge.
    6. Connell, I. (1980) Television news and the social contrast. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (eds), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-1979. London: Hutchinson. pp.139-156.
    7. Coulmas, F. (1986) Reported speech: Some general issues. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 1-28.
    8. Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
    9. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity.
    10. Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
    11. Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
    12. Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd edition). London: Longman.
    13. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.Vol. 2. London: Sage. pp. 258-84.
    14. Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979) Language and Control London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    15. Gramsci, A. (1971) Quaderni del Carcere. Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore.
    16. Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    17. Iedema, R. (2003) Multimodality, Resemiotization: Extending the Analysis of Discourse as Multi-Semiotic Practice. Visual Communication 2(1): 29-57.
    18. Jewitt, C. (ed.) (2009) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London; New York: Routledge.
    19. Kress, G. (2009) What is mode?. In C. Jewitt (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London; New York: Routledge. pp. 54-67.
    20. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: the Grammar of Visual Design. London and New York: Routledge.
    21. Linell, P. (1998) Discourse across Boundaries: On Recontextualisations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse. Text 18(2): 143-157.
    22. Meyers, M. (1997) News Coverage of Violence against Women: Engendering Blame. London: Sage.
    23. Montgomery, M. (2007) The Discourse of Broadcast News. A Linguistic Approach. London and New York: Routledge.
    24. Soothill, K., Walby, S. (1991) Sex Crime in the News. London: Routledge.
    25. Tannen, D. (1989) Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    26. van Leeuwen, T. (1996) The representation of social actors. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard (eds), Texts and Practices. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. pp.32-69.
    27. van Leeuwen, T. (2005) Introducing Social Semiotics. London: Routledge.
    28. van Leeuwen, T. (2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
    29. van Zoonen, L. (1994) Feminist Media Studies. London: Sage.


Sharon Weinblum & Julien Danero Iglesias

Download Full Text

  • Studies on nation-state models and state-minorities relations often draw implicitly or explicitly on the civic vs. ethnic nation-state dichotomy, where the first would include minorities in a ‘civic’ nation, and the second would be the state of a sole ethnic nation, hence excluding minorities from this construction. Following other authors, the main argument of this paper is that in order to enhance our understanding of the state-minorities relations, these categories need to be challenged, but also empirically deconstructed. The paper argues that in so-called civic states, similar exclusivist discursive articulations to those present in ethnic states, are at play and vice versa. The argument is articulated through the study of central political elite’s narratives on the nation-state in two cases: one (self)-proclaimed ‘civic nation-state’, Moldova, and one ‘ethnic nation-state’ state, Israel. The analysis is based on an original methodology combining narrative analysis with critical discourse analysis (CDA). Through an analysis of the narrative chronological sequencing – present, future and past – the paper demonstrates that in both cases, inclusive discursive strategies are at play in the present. It then highlights that in both cases the future and past sequences of the narrative entail exclusive discursive practices leaving minorities out of the nation’s boundaries.

    1. Anderson, E. (2005). Backward, forward, or both? Moldovan teachers’ relationships to the State and Nation. European Education 37 (3): 53-67.
    2. Anderson, E. (2007). ‘They are the priests’: The role of the Moldovan historian and its implications for civic education. Compare 37 (3): 277-290.
    3. Brown, D. (1999). Are there good and bad nationalisms? Nations and Nationalism 5 (2): 281-302.
    4. Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    5. Brubaker, R. (2011). Nationalising states revisited: Projects and processes of nationalisation in post-Soviet states. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (11): 1785-1814.
    6. Cazacu, M. and  N. Trifon (2010). Un Etat en Quête de Nation: La République de Moldavie. Paris: Non Lieu.
    7. Ciscel, M. (2006). A separate Moldovan language? The sociolinguistics of Moldova’s Limba de Stat. Nationalities Papers 34 (5): 575-597.
    8. Danero Iglesias, J. (2013). Constructing national history in political discourse: Coherence and contradiction (Moldova, 2001-2009). Nationalities Papers 41 (5) : 780-800..
    9. Ihrig, S. (2007). Discursul (ne)civic si nemultumirile exprimate de el. In M. Heintz (ed.), Stat Slab, Cetatenie Incerta: Studii despre Republica Moldova. Bucharets: Curtea Veche. pp. 191-214.
    10. Jamal, A. (2007). Nationalizing states and the constitution of ‘Hollow Citizenship’: Israel and its Palestinian citizens. Ethnopolitics 6 (4): 471-493.
    11. Kaplan, T. (1993). Reading policy narratives: Beginnings, middles and Ends. In F. Fischer and J. Forestor (eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham: Duke University Press.  pp. 167-185.
    12. Kaufman, I. (2010). Escalating minority claims: The Arab ‘visions documents’ of 2006-2007 in Israel. In A. Lecours and L. Moreno (eds.), Nationalism and Democracy: Dichotomies, Complementarities, Oppositions. London and New York: Routledge.  pp. 184-208.
    13. Kohn, H. (1946). The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins and Background. New York: Macmillan.
    14. March, L. (2007). From Moldovanism to Europeanization? Moldova’s communists and nation building. Nationalities Papers 35 (4): 601-626.
    15. Negura, P. (2009). Ni Héros, ni Traîtres. Les Écrivains Moldaves Face au Pouvoir Soviétique sous Staline. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    16. Noiriel, G. (1991). La question nationale comme objet de l’histoire sociale. Genèse 4.
    17. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
    18. Rouhana, N. (1997). Identities in Conflict: Palestinians in an Ethnic Jewish State. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    19. Schnapper, D. (1994). La Communauté des Citoyens. Sur l’Idée Moderne de Nation. Paris: Gallimard.
    20. Shenhav, S. (2004). Once upon a time there was a nation: Narrative conceptualization analysis. The concept of ‘nation’ in the discourse of Israeli Likud Party leaders.Discourse & Society 15 (1): 81-104.
    21. Shenhav, S. (2009). We have a place in a long story empowered narratives and the construction of communities: The case of US presidential debates. Narrative Inquiry 19 (2): 199-218.
    22. Spencer, P. and H. Wollman (1998). Good and bad nationalisms : A critique of nationalism. Journal of Political Ideologies 3 (3): 255-274.
    23. Stepaniuc, V. (2005). Statalitatea Poporului Moldovenesc: Aspecte Istorice, Politico-juridice. Chisinau: Tipografia Centrala.
    24. Weinblum, S. (2013). Nationalising discourse vs. minorities’ political demands: The case of the Palestinian minority of Israel. In J. Danero Iglesias, N. Stojanovic and S. Weinblum (eds.), New Nation-States and National Minorities: A Comparative Perspective. Colchester: ECPR Press.  pp. 149-168.
    25. White, H. (1987). The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
    26. Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl and K. Liebhart (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    27. Yack, B. (1996). The Myth of the Civic Nation. Critical Review 10 (2) 193-211.
    28. Yiftachel, O. (2006). Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Speeches (Israel)

    1. Foreign Minister Lieberman (2011) Independence Day address by FM Lieberman to the diplomatic corps, 10 May 2011.
    2. Foreign Minister Livni (2008) FM Livni’s Independence Day address at the President’s Residence, 8 May 2008.
    3. Prime Minister Netanyahu (2009a) Incoming PM Benjamin Netanyahu presents his government to the Knesset, 31 March 2009.
    4. Prime Minister Netanyahu (2009b) Address by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Memorial Service for Victims of Terror, Mt. Herzl, 28 April 2009.
    5. Prime Minister Olmert (2009a) Address by PM Olmert – 30th anniversary of Israel-Egypt peace treaty, 30 March 2009.
    6. Prime Minister Olmert (2009b) Farewell speech by Israel’s 12th Prime Minister, Mr. Ehud Olmert, 1 April 2009.
    7. President Peres (2009) Independence Day message from President Peres, 27 April 2009.
    8. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 14 May 1948.

    Speeches (Moldova)

    1. President Voronin (2001) Address for the the 15th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Moldova, 27 August 2001.
    2. President Voronin (2004a) Address for Independence Day, 27 August 2004.
    3. President Voronin (2004b) Address at the 1st Congress of the Moldovans abroad, 8 October 2004.
    4. President Voronin (2005) Inaugural Address, 7 April 2005.
    5. President Voronin (2006) Address for the 15th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Moldova, 26 August 2006.
    6. President Voronin (2008) Address at the official reception for Republic’s Day, 27 August 2008.
    7. President Voronin (2009a) Address for the 18th anniversary of the Republic of Moldova, 27 August 2009.
    8. President Voronin (2009b) Address for the inauguration of the monument for Bogdan I the Founder, 8 September 2009.
    9. Interim President Ghimpu (2009a) Address for the Romanian National Day, 1 December 2009.
    10. Interim President Ghimpu (2009b) Address for New Year’s Day, 21/12/2009.
    11. Interim President Ghimpu (2010) ‘We are European and we need to be in the European Union’, 15 May 2010.