Volume 8 (1) 2016


Weining Ji & Wei Wang

Download Full Text

  • This paper investigates diachronic changes of the university textbook prefaces in China over the past 45 years (from 1966 to 2010). Applying genre analysis, a discussion of generic structure potential, appraisal theory, as well as multimodal discourse analysis, this paper examines the changes in generic structure, the lexical-grammatical and paralinguistic features of the genre with a detailed analysis of 60 sample texts over three time periods namely 1966-1980, 1981-1995, and 1996-2010. The analysis reveals that the university textbook prefaces feature distinctive changes with the development of the times, pointing to the intertextual mix of academic discourse and promotional discourse, thus undergoing a process of commodification. It argues that the ideological influence of promotional culture, the powerful position of advertising discourse and fierce professional competition are the most conceivable contextual factors contributing to the commodification of the genre in question.

    1. Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, ed. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, trans. V. W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    2. Bex, T. (1996). Variety in Written English: Texts in Society: Societies in Text. London & New York: Routledge.
    3. Bhatia,V.K. (1993). Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London:
    4. Bhatia, V.K. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.
    5. Erjavec, K. (2004). Beyond advertising and journalism: Hybrid promotional news discourse. Discourse & Society 15 (5): 553-578.
    6. Fairclough, N. (1992). Language and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    7. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 133-168.
    8. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
    9. Gee, J.P.(1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London:
    10. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
    11. Kwong, J. (2000). Introduction: Marketization and privatization in education. International Journal of Education Development 20: 87-92.
    12. Kress, G. and T. van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
    13. Martin, J.R. (2000). Beyond Exchange: Appraisal System in English. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 142-175.
    14. Martin, J.R. and P. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation: The Appraisal Framework. New York: Palgrave.
    15. Paltridge, B. (1997). Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    16. Pearce, M. (2004). The marketization of discourse about education in UK general election manifestos. Text 24 (2): 245-265.
    17. Scollon, R. (1998). Mediated Discourse as Social Interaction: A Study of News Discourse. London: Longman.
    18. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    19. Swales, J.M. (2004). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    20. Van Leeuwen, T. (1993). Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: A synopsis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 193-223.
    21. Ventola, E. (1998). Interpersonal choices in academic work. In A Sánchez-Macarro and R. Carter (eds.), Linguistic Choice Across Genres: Variation in Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 117-136.
    22. Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman.
    23. Zheng, C.X. (2006). Dance in the Mirror: the Literature Narrative in the Context of Contemporary Consumer Culture. Shanghai: Northeast Normal University Press.


Victoria Wirth-Koliba

Download Full Text

  • The aim of this paper is to present the diversity and dynamics of interpersonal relationships represented in political discourse. In almost every political activity there is the opposition camp (‘them’), as well as that of the allies (‘us’), as a result of which relations of inclusion and exclusion are invariably present. The present study deals with ‘us’ and ‘them’ constructions from a pragma-cognitive perspective. The means by which these relations are structured depend on the speaker’s intentions in the discourse, which in turn determine the way the ‘us’ and ‘them’ are presented. What is more, relationships of inclusion and exclusion within a single discursive event are dynamic and prone to alternations, since motives behind and implications of particular fragments which constitute the discursive event as a whole, may vary. All this will be exemplified on the basis of selected fragments of a speech delivered by Nick Griffin (available at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b9e_1272829239).

    1. Brokensha, S. (2011). Noticing Us and Them Constructions: The Pedagogical Implications of a Critical Discourse Analysis of Referring in Political Discourse. Per Linguam 27 (1): 56-73.
    2. Brown, P., and S. Levinson. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    3. Bryan, K. (2014). I Am Charlie. National Front Website. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from the World Wide Web: http://www.britishnationalfront.net/latestnews.html
    4. Cap, P. (2008). Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 17-41.
    5. Cap, P. (2010a). Proximizing Objects, Proximizing Values: Towards an Axiological Contribution to the Discourse of Legtimization. In U. Okulska and P. Cap (eds.), Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 119-142.
    6. Cap, P. (2010b). Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric Second Revised Edition. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    7. Cap, P. (2012). A War Road to Peace? Legitimization Strategies in the Post-9/11 US Anti- Terrorist Discourse. Heteroglossia 2: 79-90.
    8. Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    9. Capdevila, R., and J. 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.
    10. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    11. Chovanec, J. (2010). Legitimization Through Differentiation. In U. Okulska and P. Cap (eds.), Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 61-82.
    12. Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    13. Fielding, S. (2011). The Conservatives: a ‘polite alternative’ to the BNP? Ballots & Bullets: School of Politics & International Relations, University of Nottingham. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from the World Wide Web: http://nottspolitics.org/2011/06/01/the-conservatives-a-polite-alternative-to-the-bnp/
    14. Godfrey, H. (2014). Teacher banned for life appointed to replace Nick Griffin as BNP leader. The Guardian. Retrieved February 6, 2015, from the World Wide         Web: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/21/banned-teacher-adam-walker-british-national-party-leader-nick-griffin-vote-collapses
    15. Griffin, N. (2010). Emotional speech by Nick Griffin on the Lib/Lab/Con/UKIP     warmongers. LiveLeak. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from the World Wide Web: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b9e_1272829239
    16. Hartmann, R.K.K., and F.C. Stork. (1972). Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Applied Science Publishers.
    17. Kopytowska, M. (2012). Editorial: Critical Perspectives on Ideology, Identity, and Interaction. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 5 (2): 1-14.
    18. Lemke, J. (1995). Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis.
    19. Okulska, U, and P. Cap (eds). (2010). Analysis of Political Discourse. Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 3-20.
    20. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
    21. Richardson, J. (2013). Racial Populism in British Fascist Discourse: The Case of COMBAT and the British National Party (1960-1967). In R. Wodak and J. Richardson (eds.), Analysing Facist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. London: Routledge. pp. 181-202.
    22. Schiffrin, D. (2006). From Linguistic Reference to Social Reality. In A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin and M. Mamberg (eds.), Discourse and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 103-131.   
    23. Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249-283.
    24. Van Dijk, T. (1997). What is Political Discourse Analysis? In J. Blommaert and G. Bulcaen (eds.), Political linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 11-52.
    25. Van Dijk, T. (2002). Political Discourse and Ideology. In C. Lorda and M. Ribas (eds.), Analisi del discurs politic. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. pp. 15-34.
    26. Wieczorek, A. E. (2008a). Proximisation, Common Ground, and Assertion-Based Patterns for Legtimisation in Political Discourse. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2 (1): 31-48.
    27. Wieczorek, A. E. (2008b). Legitimisation and Proximisation Values in the Discourse of    Historic Change. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4 (2): 263-275.
    28. Wieczorek, A. E. (2009). This is to Say You’re Either In Or Out: Some Remarks on Clusivity. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 3 (2): 118-129.
    29. Wieczorek, A. E. (2010). And I Quote: Direct and Indirect Point-of-View Switches in Clusivity-Oriented Discourse. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 6 (2): 220-247.
    30. Wieczorek, A. E. (2013). Clusivity: A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in Political Discourse. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    31. Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis. A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry. Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1): 203-225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    32. Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse Studies – Important Concepts and Terms. In R. Wodak and M. Krzyzanowski (eds.), Qualitative Discourse Analysis in Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 1-29.
    33. Wodak, R. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis, Volume 1. Lancaster: Sage Publications.
    34. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Nicholas Close Subtirelu and Shakthidhar Reddy Gopavaram

Download Full Text

  • Critical discourse analysis (CDA) studies how social dominance and power are discursively enacted through, for example, discourse’s influence on attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies. Yet, various critics have charged that CDA’s generalizations, drawn from textual analysis, conflate analysts’ own interpretations with those of ‘typical’ readers. We examine one example of this: Subtirelu’s (2015) study of comments about instructors’ language and ethnicity on RateMyProfessors.com. We use Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk to test Subtirelu’s claim that ostensibly neutral or positive comments about language are taken up negatively by readers. Our experiments find that comments in which instructors’ accents are mentioned but not disparaged (e.g., ‘She has an accent, but…’) lead readers to be slightly less willing to take a course from the instructor than when information about the instructor’s accent is withheld. We also present a post hoc analysis designed to examine whether other textual features might explain the differing reactions to this information about accent which we observed. We hope the study will serve as an example of the type of work that can be done in CDA not only to address methodological criticisms but also to lead to more nuanced theory about the effects of discourse on audiences.

    1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179-211.
    2. Armitage, C. J., and M. Conner (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4): 471-499.
    3. Bleske-Rechek, A., and K. Michels (2010). RateMyProfessors.com: Testing assumptions about student use and misuse. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(5). http://pareonline.net/pdf/v15n5.pdf
    4. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    5. Brown, M. J., Baillie, M., and S. Fraser (2009). Rating RateMyProfessors.com: A comparison of online and official student evaluations of teaching. College Teaching, 57(2): 89-92.
    6. Davison, E., and J. Price (2009). How do we rate? An evaluation of online student evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1): 51-65.
    7. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.
    8. Feldman, M. E., and A. J. Weseley (2013). Which name unlocks the door? The effect of tenant race/ethnicity on landlord response. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43: E416-E425.
    9. Fort, K., Adda, G., and K. B. Cohen (2011). Amazon Mechanical Turk: Gold mine or coal mine? Computational Linguistics, 37(2): 413-420.
    10. Gastil, J. (1990). Generic pronouns and sexist language: The oxymoronic character of masculine generics. Sex Roles, 23(11-12): 629-643.
    11. Hart, C. (2013). Event-construal in press reports of violence in two recent political protests: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3): 400-423.
    12. Johnson, R. R., and A. D. Crews (2012). My professor is hot! Correlates of RateMyProfessors.com ratings for criminal justice and criminology faculty members. American Journal of Criminal Justice: 1-18.
    13. Koller, V. (2005). Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse. Discourse and Society, 16(2): 199-224.
    14. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    15. O’Halloran, K. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and language cognition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    16. Paolacci, G., and J. Chandler (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3): 184-188.
    17. Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., and A. Acquisti (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4): 1023-1031.
    18. Pennycook, A. (1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2): 115-138.
    19. Reid, L. D. (2010). The role of perceived race and gender in the evaluation of college teaching on RateMyProfessors.Com. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(3): 137-152.
    20. Ross, J., Irani, L., Silberman, M. S., Zaldivar, A., and B. Tomlinson (2010). Who are the crowdworkers?: shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. Paper presented at the CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
    21. Shuck, G. (2004). Conversational performance and the poetic construction of an ideology. Language in Society, 33(2): 195-222.
    22. Steffes, E. M., and L. E. Burgee (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research, 19(1): 42-59.
    23. Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In A. Wray and A. Ryan (eds.), Evolving models of language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. pp. 100-116
    24. Subtirelu, N. (2015). “She does have an accent but…”: Race and language ideology in students’ evaluations of mathematics instructors on RateMyProfessors.com. Language in Society, 44(01): 35-62.
    25. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2): 249-283.
    26. Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1): 179-190.
    27. 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. London: Sage. pp. 1-33


Eun-Young Julia Kim

Download Full Text

  • Currently one of the most divisive issues in some Christian communities centers on women’s ordination. This study critically analyzes a religious discourse which defends and justifies the Southern Baptist Convention’s opposition to women’s ordination by using a sociocognitive approach as an underlying theoretical framework. The analysis aims to illustrate how a religious text both assumes and tries to formulate unified mental models to control the beliefs of the audience and promulgate dominance by assigning sovereign values to certain interpretations so that readers will understand certain texts as they see them. In doing so, the current study also hopes to demonstrate usefulness of employing Critical Discourse Analysis in understanding the process of doctrinal formation and reproduction of dominance in religious discourse.

    1. Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
    2. Barrett, J. (2004). Why Would Anyone Believe in God? Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
    3. Bekalu, M. (2006). Presuppositions in news discourse. Discourse and Society 17: 147-172.
    4. Bellville, L. L. (2005). Women leaders in the Bible. In R. M. Groothuis, R. W. Pierce, and G. D. Fee (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 110-125.
    5. Bonyadi, A. (2011). Linguistic nature of presupposition in American and Persian newspaper editorials. International Journal of Linguistics 3: 1-16.
    6. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    7. Bultmann, R. (1960). Is exegesis without presuppositions possible? In S. M. Ogden (ed.), Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. New York: World Publishing. pp. 289-96.
    8. Carter, J. (2014). A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power. New York: Simon and Schuster.
    9. Chaves, M. (1977). Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    10. Chilton, P. and C. Schaffner (1997). Discourse and politics. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications. pp. 206-230.
    11. Chilton, P. (2004). Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    12. Chilton, P. and M. Kopytowska (Forthcoming). Religion, Language and the Human Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
    13. Chomsky, N. (1988). Political discourse and propaganda system, in N. Chomsky (ed.), Language and Politics (ed. C.P. Otero). Montreal: Black Rose Books. pp. 662-97.
    14. Cipriani, A. C. (2002). Power in religious discourse: a discourse analysis of two sermons from the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God. Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved from https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/83170/193384.pdf?sequence=1
    15. Daly, M. (1978). Gyn/ecology: The Mataethics of Radical Feminism. Boston: Beacon Press.
    16. Diagler, M. J. (2012). Incompatible with God’s Design: A History of the Women’s Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church. Lanham, MA: Scarecrow Press.
    17. Downes, W. (2011). Language and Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    18. El Naggar, S. (2012). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of Muslim televangelists: The case study of Hamza Husuf. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 6 (1): 76-95.
    19. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R. Punamaki (eds.), Perspective on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 19-38.
    20. Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 4. London: Academic Press, Inc. pp.61-82.
    21. Garner, M. (2007). Preaching as a communicative event. A discourse analysis of sermons by Robert Rollock (1555-1599). Reformation and Renaissance Review 9: 45-70.
    22. Groothuis, R. M. and R .W. Pierce (2005). Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementary without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
    23. Hampson, D. (1990). Theology and Feminism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    24. Hess, R. (2005). Equality with and without innocence. In R. M. Groothuis, R. W. Pierce, and G.D. Fee (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 79-95.
    25. Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication 10(3): 185-205.
    26. Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness 9(4): 179-197.
    27. Jacquet, C. (1988). Women Ministers in 1986 and 1977: A Ten Year View. New York: Office of Research and Evaluation, National Council of Churches.
    28. Jensen, A. S. (2007). Theological Hermeneutics. London: SCM Press.
    29. Kaiser Jr., W. C. and M. Silva (2007). Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
    30. Kim, Y. S. (2013). Biblical Interpretation: Theory, Process, and Criteria. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
    31. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    32. Macy, G. (2007). The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    33. McNamara, P. (2014). The Neuroscience of Religious Experience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    34. Melick, R. (May, 1998). Women pastors: What does the Bible teach? SBC Life: Journal of the Southern Baptist Convention. Downloaded from http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp
    35. Muchnik, M. (2005). Discourse strategies of Maxzirim Bitshuva: The case of a repentance preacher in Israel. Text 25 (3): 373-398.
    36. Neuman, Y., Y. Lurie and M. Rosenthal (2001). A watermelon without seeds: A case study in rhetorical rationality. Text 21 (4): 543-565.
    37. Raab, K. (2002). When Women Become Priests. New York: Columbia University Press.
    38. Rajtar, M. (2012). Gender in the discursive practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the former East Germany. Social Compass59: 102-119.
    39. Sered, S. (1999). ‘Woman’ as symbol and women as agents: Gendered religious discourses and practices. In M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, and B. B. Hess (eds.), Revisioning Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 193-221.
    40. Schmidt, R. and J. F. Kess (1986). Television Advertising and Televangelism: Discourse Analysis of Persuasive Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    41. Singh, P. K. H. and T. Thuraisingam (2011). Language for reconciliation in religious discourse: A critical discourse analysis of contradictions in sermons explored through the activity theory framework. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 30 (3-4): 391–404.
    42. Slone, D. J. (2004). Theological Incorrectness: Why Religious People Believe What They Shouldn’t. New York: Oxford University Press.
    43. Slone, D. J. (2006). Religion and Cognition: A Reader. London: Routledge.
    44. Spencer, A. B. (2005). Jesus’ treatment of women in the gospels. In R. M. Groothuis, R. W. Pierce, and G. D. Fee (eds.), Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 126-141.
    45. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (2004). Relevance Theory. In G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 607-632.
    46. Szudrowicz-Garstka, M. (2012). A glimpse into the analysis of religious discourse–On the basis of a speech addressed to young people by Pope John Paul II. Styles of communication 4 (1): 119-136.
    47. van Dijk, T. A. (2003). The discourse-knowledge interface. In G. Weiss and R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 85-109.
    48. van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production: A CDA perspective. In R. Wodak and P. Chilten (eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benmajins.
    49. van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications. pp. 62-86.
    50. Von Braun, C. et al. (eds.) (2006). ‘Holy War’ and Gender. Violence in Religious Discourses. Berlin: Lit.
    51. von Wright, G.H. (1951). An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.
    52. Ward, G. L. (1991). Introductory essay: A survey of the women’s ordination issue. In J. G. Melton (ed.), The Churches Speak on: Women’s Ordination. Detroit: Gale Research. pp. xiii-xxxv.
    53. Wijsen, F. (2013). Editorial: Discourse analysis in religious studies. Religion 43 (1): 1-3.
    54. Wilson, J. (2001). Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 398-415.
    55. 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. London: Sage Publications. pp. 87-121.


Franco Zappettini

Download Full Text

  • Drawing on a study conducted with an association of citizens operating in the European public sphere and applying the Discourse Historical Approach, this paper investigates how the organisation’s members construct their transnational citizenship and how they negotiate it vis-à-vis European, national, and local identities. The analysis reveals that informants often claim their transnational identities as membership of an expanded community of relevance, through the transportability of their civic engagement and through meta-narratives of spatiality and progress whereby cosmopolitan scenarios are often reterritorialised within the European space. These arguments are frequently realised through the metaphorical scenario of ‘spatial dynamics’ which makes sense of identities as emergent from unbounded social interaction, and through the indexicality of transnational narratives as specific discourses of socio-historical transformation of nationhood.

    1. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso.
    2. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity Al Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
    3. Balibar, E. (2009). Europe as borderland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 190-215.
    4. Beck, U. (1996). The cosmopolitanism manifesto. In G.W. Brown and D. Held D (eds.), The Cosmopolitanism Reader. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity. pp. 213-228.
    5. Beck, U. (2008). The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity. The British Journal of Sociology 51: 79-105.
    6. Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.
    7. Biebuyck, W. and C. Rumford (2011) Many Europes: Rethinking multiplicity. European Journal of Social Theory 15: 3-20.
    8. Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
    9. Delanty, G. (2000). Citizenship in a Global Age: Society, Culture, Politics. Buckingham, England; Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
    10. Delanty, G and C. Rumford (2005). Rethinking Europe: Social Theory And The Implications Of Europeanization. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.
    11. Eder, K. (2006). Europe’s borders: The narrative construction of the boundaries of Europe. European Journal of Social Theory 9: 255-271.
    12. Habermas, J. (1998). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    13. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage in association with the Open University.
    14. Hanquinet, L. and M. Savage (2013). The Europeanisation of everyday life: Cross-border practices and transnational identifications among EU and third-country citizens. Eucross Working Papers Series 6.
    15. Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39: 1-23.
    16. Krzyżanowski, M. (2010). The Discursive Construction of European Identities: A Multi-level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang
    17. Levitt, P. and N. Glick Schiller (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on society. International Migration Review 38: 1002-1039.
    18. McEntee-Atalianis, L. and F. Zappettini (2014). Networked identities. Critical Discourse Studies 11(4): 397-415.
    19. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E. and P. Landolt (1999). Tansnational communities. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22.
    20. Reisigl, M. (2014). Argumentation analysis and the discourse-historical approach: A methodological framework. In C. Hart and P. Cap (eds.), Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury. pp. 67-96.
    21. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing transnational relations back in: non-state actors, domestic structures, and international institutions. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press.
    22. Ruzza, C. (2004). Europe and Civil Society: Movement Coalitions and European Governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    23. Sassen, S. (2002). Towards post-national and denationalized citizenship. In E.F. Isin and B.S Turner (eds.), Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London; Thousand Oaks: SAGE. pp. 277-291.
    24. Smith, M.P. and L. Guarnizo (1998). Transnationalism From Below. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    25. Tarrow, S.G. (2005). The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    26. Triandafyllidou, A., Wodak, R. and M. Krzyżanowski (2009). The European Public Sphere and the Media: Europe in Crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    27. Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Oxford; New York: Taylor and Francis.
    28. Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd edn.). London: Sage. pp. 63-94.
    29. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., et al. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    30. Zappettini, F. (2015). The Discursive Construction of Europeanness: a Transnational Perspective. Birkbeck: University of London.
    31. Zappettini, F. and R. Comănaru (2014). Bottom-up perspectives on multilingual ideologies in the EU: The case of a transnational NGO. Journal of Contemporary European Research 10: 402-422.