Volume 6 (1) 2012

WORLDVIEWS: SPATIAL GROUND FOR POLITICAL REASONING IN DUTCH ELECTION MANIFESTOS  Pages 1-22

Bertie Kaal

Download Full Text

  • A discourse approach was developed to identify explicit perspectivisation afforded by conceptual and narrative structures in political texts. The hypothesis is that the ground perspective of political rationale is packaged in ‘worldviews’ that guide ideologically motivated attitudes. This pilot study focuses on finding the ground of such discursive rhetorical structures in spatial representation as a method to distinguish party profiles. The cognitive motivation for a discursive worldview approach lies in theory of spatial cognition its relation to language and thought (Levinson 2003). Without claiming that language mirrors thought, we assume that discourse spaces suggest boundaries that give structure to the way we think and feel about the complex world we experience. In a narrative sense these spatial frames of reference make speculative assumptions about the future that sound ‘right’, as seen from a particular deictic point of view. These subjective worldviews suggest text-intrinsic causal relations by metaphorically mapping attitude on real time and space dimensions. This cross-over of real space and subjective mental space links attitude with the real time and space in which we share knowledge and experiences. The hypothesis is that the time and space in which worldviews are based is indicative of rational as well as affective characteristics of party positions.A discourse space model (Chilton 2004) was developed for the annotation of time, space and modality markers in Dutch election manifestos to identify differences between the discourse space of politically motivated worldviews. Results were compared with a content analytic study for party positioning using the same data. The TSM model is being designed for meaning-based party positioning on political dimensions.

    1. Aerts, D., L. Apostel, B. De Moor, S. Hellemans, E. Maex, H. Van Belle J. Van der Veken (2007 [1994]). “World views. From fragmentation to integration”. Translation of Apostel and Van der Veken (1991) with some additions. Brussels: VUB Press. [Internet edition]
    2. American Scientific Affiliation (n.d.). What is a worldview? Definition and Introduction. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/index.html (accessed 19-8-2010)
    3. Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies 23: 5-26.
    4. Budge, I. (1994). A new spatial theory of party competition. British Journal of Political Science 24 (4): 443-467.
    5. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
    6. Chilton, P. (2005). Vectors, viewpoints and viewpoint shift: Toward a discourse of space theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116.
    7. Chilton, P. (2007). Geometrical concepts at the interface of formal and cognitive models. Pragmatics & Cognition 15: 91-114.
    8. Chilton, P. and V. Evans (eds.) (2010). Language, Cognition and Space: The state of the art and new directions. London: Equinox.
    9. Cienki, A., B. Kaal and E. Maks (2010). Mapping world view in political texts using Discourse Space Theory: Metaphor as an analytical tool. Presented at RaAM 8, VU Amsterdam.
    10. http://vu-nl.academia.edu/BertieKaal
    11. Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
    12. Gumperz, J. and S.C. Levinson (1991). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 31 (5): 613-623.
    13. Herman, D. (ed.) (2003). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI.
    14. Heylighen F. (2000). What is a world view? Principia Cybernitica Web. http://pcp.vub.ac.be/WORLVIEW.html (accessed 11-8-2011).
    15. Hörnig, R., B. Claus, and K. Eyferth (2000). In search of an overall organising principle in spatial mental models. In S. O’Nuallain (ed.), Spatial Cognition: Functions and Applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 69-81.
    16. Kaal, B. (2010). Spatial metaphor and worldview in political party positions. Unpublished paper, Workshop on Narrative, Living with Uncertainty, York University. http://vu-nl.academia.edu/BertieKaal
    17. Kaal, B., E. Maks and A. van Elfrinkhof (2009). Vying for Security. Unpublished research report, VU.
    18. Laclau, E. (1996). Why do empty signifiers matter to politics. In E. Laclau, Emancipation(s). London: Verso.  pp. 36-46.
    19. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to the Western world. NY: Basic Books.
    20. Laver, M., K. Benoit, and J. Garry (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97 (2): 311-331.
    21. Levinson, S.C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, et al. (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge: CUP.  pp. 109-169.
    22. Levinson, S.C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: CUP.
    23. Lyotard, J.F. (1984 [1979]). The Postmoden Condition: A report on knowledge. Translated by G. Bennington and B. Massumi. Minneapolis: UMP.
    24. Maks, E. and P. Vossen (2010). Annotation scheme and gold standard for Dutch subjective adjectives. Working paper, ELREC 2010.
    25. Oakley, T. and S. Coulson (2008). Connecting the dots: Mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In T. Oakley and A. Hougaard (eds.), Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 27-50.
    26. Scott, M. (1996 to date). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Lexical Semantic Software Ltd and OUP. http://www.lexically.net/wordsmith/
    27. Searle, J. and D. Vanderveken (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: CUP.
    28. Smith, A. (2000). Spatial cognition without spatial concepts. In S. O’Nuallain (ed.), Spatial Cognition: Foundations and Applications. Amsterdam: Benjamins.  pp. 127-135.
    29. Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.

REMEMBERING TO FORGET: SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING THE WAR ON TERROR THROUGH THE MYTH OF THE BLITZ SPIRIT AFTER THE JULY 7TH BOMBINGS  Pages 23-37

Darren Kelsey

Download Full Text

  • The ‘Blitz spirit’ is a popular story of Britain during the Second World War, uniting together with defiance to overcome the threat of invasion from Nazi Germany. This paper reviews the Blitz spirit as a myth before a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines how this myth was retold in British newspapers after the July 7th bombings. I firstly analyse Blitz spirit discourses that evoked unity between Britain and America in the war on terror. I then argue that evocations of this myth became more complex, often criticising Tony Blair for his moral incompatibility with Second World War or Churchillian analogies. Both discursive positions used a myth that remembers and forgets details in a popular story from the past. This paper argues that whilst the Blitz spirit was a problematic feature of post-July 7th media, it did not serve one ideological purpose. Through a nuanced approach to Roland Barthes’ model of myth, I argue that an ideological battleground occurred when a myth from the 1940s recurred in 2005.

    1. Addison, P. (1994). The Road to 1945: British Politics and the Second World War.  London: Pimlico
    2. Aitkenhead, D. (2005).  ‘ALIEN NATION’ The Guardian, July 23rd, Page 7.
    3. Allan, S. (1999). News Culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    4. Barthes, R. (1993). Mythologies. London: Vintage.
    5. Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
    6. Bishop, H. and A. Jaworski (2003). ‘‘We beat ’em”: Nationalism and the hegemony of homogeneity in the British press reportage of Germany versus England during Euro 2000. Discourse & Society 14 (3): 243-271.
    7. Blommaert, J. (1999). The debate is open. In J. Blommaert (ed.), Language Ideological Debates.  New York: Mouton de Gruyter.  pp. 1-38
    8. Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983).  Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Calder, A. (1991).  The Myth of the Blitz. London: Pimlico.
    10. Calder, A. (1999). The People’s War. London: Pimlico.
    11. Cornwell, R. (2005). TERROR IN LONDON: WE’LL TAKE FIGHT TO THE ENEMY, SAYS BUSH.  The Independent, July 12th, Page 10.
    12. Connelly, M. (2005). We can take it: Britain and the memory of the Second World War. London: Pearson
    13. Coughlin, C. (2005). ‘The resilience of Londoners is amazing – all Americans stand by them resolutely.  The new US ambassador to Britain, in his first interview, tells CON COUGHLIN that the transatlantic alliance will prevail in the war on terror. Sunday Telegraph, July 24th, Page 19.
    14. Curran, J., & Seaton, J. (1997). Power without responsibility: The press and broadcasting in Britain (5th ed.). London: Routledge.
    15. Elder, D. (2005). YOU’RE ALL RIGHT, JACK; OFF THE LEASH. The Express, July 13th, Page 16.
    16. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Essex: Longman
    17. Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge
    18. Galloway, (2005).  The state of denial is a busy place this week. Daily Mail, July 17th, Page 27.
    19. Giuliani, R. (2005).  Giuliani writes to people of London.  The Times, July 8th, Page 9.
    20. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks.  New York: International Publishers.
    21. Hall, S. et al. (1978) Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order London: Macmillan
    22. Hall, S. (2001).  Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse.  In M. Wetherell and S. Taylor (eds.), Discourse Practice and Theory: A reader London: Sage.  pp. 72-81.
    23. Harnden, T. (2005). “Londoners are made of particularly tough stuff”: HOW THE WORLD REACTED.  Sunday Telegraph, July 10th, Page 19.
    24. Heartfield, J. (2005). Revisiting the Blitz Spirit: Myths about the Second World War won’t help us understand what is happening today. July 12th [http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/869/]
    25. Independent on Sunday, The (2005) Denial is no defence against terror. July 24th, Page 26
    26. Jenkins, H. (2006).  Captain America sheds his mighty tears: Comics and September 11.  In D. Sherman and T. Nardin (eds.), Terror, Culture, Politics: Rethinking 9/11.Indiana: University Press.  pp. 69-102
    27. Jones, S. (2006).  Antonio Gramsci.  New York: Routledge.
    28. Kampfner, J. (2005).  Challenge, don’t emote: In times of uncertainty, journalism of the left must not accept the status quo.  The Guardian, July 26th, Page 21.
    29. Kelsey, D. (2011): Mentioning the war: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the “Blitz spirit” in British newspaper responses to the July 7th bombings.  In B. Baybars-Hawks & L. Baruh (eds.), Societies Under Siege:  Media, Government, Politics and Citizens Freedoms in an Age of Terrorism.  Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.  pp. 50-65.
    30. Lule, J. (2001). Daily News, Eternal Stories: The Mythological Role of Journalism. New York: Guilford Press.
    31. Malone, C. (2005).  CAROLE MALONE: TONY BLAIR.  Sunday Mirror, July 17th, Page 29.
    32. Manthorpe R. (July 1st 2006). Spirit of the Brits. The Guardian http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/history/story/0,,1809895,00.html.
    33. Mayr, A. (ed.) (2008).  Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London: Continuum.
    34. Macintyre, B. (2005). ‘How would Churchill have answered the Islamist threat?’ The Times July 23rd, page 25.  
    35. McLaine, I. (1979). Ministry of morale: Home front morale and the ministry of information in World War II. London: George Allen and Unwin.
    36. Panayi, P. (1995).  Immigrants, refugees, the British State and public opinion during World War Two.  In P. Kirkham and D. Thomas (eds.), War Culture: Social Change and Changing Experience in World War Two.  London: Lawrence and Wishart.  pp. 201-8
    37. Phillips, L. and M. Jorgensen (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage
    38. Ponting, C. (1990).  1940: Myth and Reality.  Reading: Cox and Wyman.
    39. Ponting, C. (1994). Churchill. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.
    40. Rai, M. (2006).  7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War.  London: Pluto.
    41. Richardson, J. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis.  Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    42. Roberts, B. (2005) 07/07: WAR ON BRITAIN: WATCH NEXT WEEK AS WE BURY OUR DEAD, BUT SEE ALSO NEW PEOPLE COMING TO MAKE THIS CITY THEIR HOME, CALLING THEMSELVES LONDONERS AND DOING IT BECAUSE OF THE FREEDOM TO BE THEMSELVES MAYOR KEN KIVINGSTONE’S MESSAGE TO THE BOMBERS. Daily Mirror, July 9th, Page 9.
    43. Sanders, K. (2009). Communicating Politics in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    44. Scraton, P. (ed.) (2002). Beyond September 11: An Anthology of Dissent.  London: Pluto Press. 
    45. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge.
    46. van Dijk, T. (1998).  Opinions and ideologies in the press.  In A. Bell and P. Garrett (eds.), Approaches to Media Discourse.  West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.  pp. 21-63
    47. Wayne, M. (2003). Marxism and Media Studies: Key Concepts and Contemporary Trends. London: Pluto Press.
    48. Whittam Smith, A. (2005). ‘Mr Blair wants to be a modern-day Churchill, but in reality he is another Chamberlain again – in denial and wrong’. The Independent,  July 25, page 29
    49. Wodak, R. et al. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity.  Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    50. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments.  In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.  pp. 1-14.
    51. 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.

THE ROLE OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS  Pages 38-52

Jørn Cruickshank

Download Full Text

  • In discourse theoretical studies the qualitative interview is scarcely treated as a method, but as empirical data. Some important methodological challenges for discourse theory are thereby being obscured. In this paper the role of the qualitative interview in discourse theory is therefore discussed. The paper outlines the roots of the discourse theoretical project and its approach to language as a reality-producing force. Furthermore, I discuss the role of the discourse theorist in the interview and the status that is assigned to actors and structure in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Discourse theoretical studies do not take advantage of the interview as a way to reveal social forces beyond the influence of language and discourse. It is therefore argued that further efforts should be made in order to reveal the limits to discourse theoretical studies, but then it is the necessary to be more explicit on the distinction between method and empirical data.

    1. Aase, T.H. and E. Fossåskaret (2007). Skapte Virkeligheter: Kvalitativt Orientert Metode. (Constructed Realities: Qualitatively Oriented Method). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    2. Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. (2003). Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Bristol: Policy Press.
    3. Alvesson, M. and K. Sköldberg (1994). Tolkning och Reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi och Kvalitativ Metod. (Interpretation and Reflection: Philosophy of Science and Qualitative Method).  Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    4. Atkinson, J.M. and J. Heritage (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    5. Barnett, C. (1998). The cultural worm turns: Fashion or progress in human geography? Antipode 30: 379-394.
    6. Berger, P.L. and T. Luckmann (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    7. Billig, M. (2001). Discursive, rhetorical and ideological messages. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.J. Yates (eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader.  London: Sage. pp. 210-221.
    8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    9. Briggs, C.L. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    10. Cloke, P.J. (2006). Conceptualizing rurality. In T. Marsden, P.J. Cloke and P.H. Mooney (eds.), Handbook of Rural Studies.  London: Sage.  pp. 18-28.
    11. Cook, I. (2000). Cultural Turns/Geographical Turns: Perspectives on Cultural Geography. London: Pearson Education.
    12. Critchley, S. and O. Marchart (2004). Laclau: A Critical Reader. New York: Routledge.
    13. Derrida, J. ([1967] 1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    14. Esmark, A. C. Bugge Laustsen, C. and N. Åkerstrøm Andersen (2005). Poststrukturalistiske Analysestrategier. (Poststructural Strategies for Analysis). Fredriksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
    15. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
    16. Flick, U. (2007). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
    17. Foucault, M. (1970). Diskurs og diskontinuitet. (Discourse and discontinuity). In P. Madsen (ed.), Strukturalisme: En Antologi. (Structuralism: An Anthology). København: Bibliotek Rhodos.  pp. 145-163.
    18. Foucault, M. (1983). Nietzcshe – genealogien, historien. (Nietzcshe- genealogy, history). In A. Koyré and S. Gosvig Olesen (eds.), Epistemologi. (Epistemology).København: Rhodos. pp. 93-98.
    19. Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press.
    20. Hagen, R. (2006). Nyliberalismen og Samfunnsvitenskapene: Refleksjonsteorier for det Moderne Samfunnet. (Neoliberalism and the Social Sciences: Refelction Theories for the Modern Society). Oslo: Universitetsforl.
    21. Hall, S. (ed.) (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage in association with Open University.
    22. Hansen, A., S. Lyager Bech and M. Plum (2004). Spillet om læring: En diskursanalyse af brugen af læring på dagtilbudområdet. (The play for learning: A discourse analysis of learning in primary school). Retrieved 15 May 2007 from http://kid.lld.dk/rundtomkid/diskursanalyse2
    23. Kvale, S. (1997). Det Kvalitative Forskningsintervju. (The Qualitative Research Interview). Oslo: Ad notam Gyldendal.
    24. Lacan, J. ([1964] 1985). Det ubevisstes stilling. (The position of the unconsciouss). In S. Haugsgjerd (ed.), Det Symbolske: Skrifter i Utvalg. (The Symbolic: Selected Writings). Oslo: Gyldendal.  pp. 163-185.
    25. Laclau, E. (1990). New Reflections on the Revolution of our Time : Ernesto Laclau. London: Verso.
    26. Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.
    27. Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (2nd  edn.). London: Verso.
    28. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    29. Lees, L (2004). Urban geography: Discourse analysis and urban research. Progress in Human Geography 28 (1): 101-107.
    30. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Rev.edn.). Boston: Beacon Press.
    31. Lysgård, H.K. (2001). Produksjon av Rom og Identitet i Transnasjonale Regioner: Et Eksempel fra det Politiske Samarbeidet i Midt-Norden. (The Production of Space and Identity in Transnational Regions: A Case from the Political Cooperation in Midt-Norden). Geografisk institutt, Fakultet for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse, Trondheim.
    32. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.
    33. Mey, J. (2001). The CA/CDA controversy. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (4): 609-615.
    34. Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography a guide to relational space. London: Sage.
    35. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
    36. Potter, J. and M. Wetherell (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.
    37. Putnam, H. (1987). The Many Faces of Realism. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
    38. Repstad, P. (1987). Mellom Nærhet og Distanse: Kvalitative Metoder i Samfunnsfag. (Between Proximity and Distance: Qualitative Methods in Social Sciences). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
    39. Robinson, A. (2004). The politics of Lack. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6: 259-269.
    40. Ryen, A. (2002). Det Kvalitative Intervjuet: Fra Vitenskapsteori til Feltarbeid. (The Qualitative Interview: From Theory of Science to Fieldwork). Bergen: Fagbokforl.
    41. de Saussure, F. ([1916] 1960). Course in General Linguistics. London: Peter Owen.
    42. Schegloff, E.S. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society 8 (2): 165-187.
    43. Sokal, A. and J. Bricmont (1998). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.
    44. Stavrakakis, Y. (1999). Lacan and the Political. London: Routledge.
    45. Søndergaard, D.M. (2000). Destabiliserende diskursanalyse: Veje ind i poststrukturalistisk inspireret empirisk forskning. (Destabilising discourse analysis: Roads into empirical research inspired by post-structuralism). In H. Haavind (ed.), Kjønn og Fortolkende Metode: Metodiske Muligheter i Kvalitativ Forskning. (Gender and Interpretative Method: Methodological Possibilities in Qualitative Research). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.  pp. 60-104.
    46. Tannen, D., D. Schiffrin and H.E. Hamilton (eds.) (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
    47. ten Have, P. (2006). Conversation Analysis versus Other Approaches to Discourse. Review Essay: Robin Wooffitt (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 7(2), Art. 3, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs060239
    48. Torfing, J., T.B. Dyrberg and A. Hansen (2000a). Diskursteorien på Arbejde. (Discourse Theory at Work). Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
    49. Torfing, J., T.B. Dyrberg and A. Hansen (2000b). Metodiske refleksjoner. (Methodological reflections). In J. Torfing, T.B. Dyrberg and A. Hansen (eds.), Diskursteorien på Arbejde. (Discourse Theory at Work). Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.  pp. 319-338.
    50. Townsend, J. (2003). Discourse theory and politcal analysis: A new paradigm from the Essex School? British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5 (1): 129-142.
    51. Wetherell, M. (2001). Minds selves and sense making: Editors introduction. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S.J. Yates (eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader.  London: Sage. pp. 186-197.
    52. Winther Jørgensen, M. And L. Phillips (1999). Diskursanalyse som Teori og Metode. (Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method). Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Samfundslitteratur.

TAKING A STANCE ON STANCE: METASTANCING AS LEGITIMATION  Pages 53-75

Ilona Vandergriff

Download Full Text

  • Employing theoretical concepts and frameworks from pragmatics and Critical Discourse Analysis, this study shows how taking a stance on stance (henceforth: metastancing) can be used to as a legitimation strategy in political speeches. Based on a data collection extracted from Hitler speeches (1935-1941) I document how this speaker’s metastances serve two complementary “constructive strategies” (Van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999: 92), a polarized negative other-representation and positive self­-representation. Whereas negative references and predications are well-documented in this kind of discourse, the manner in which opponents of Nazi ideology (including Jews, communists/socialists, or the Allies) are disrespected or even ridiculed deserves special attention. Instead of derogatory or pejorative terms, conventionally positively evaluated references and predications are voiced with irony, sarcasm and mockery. By discrediting opponents and critics in this way, the speaker simultaneously voices and suppresses challenges to or criticisms of Nazi political action. Complementing this negative other-representation the speaker uses self-references and predications to enhance his or his party’s positive image. These references and predications in conjunction with framing and fallacious argumentation promote a polarized us-against-them mentality that invites the audience to align with the speaker. By showing oppositional stances as inferior to the speaker’s, the speaker seeks legitimation of Nazi policy and ideology.

    1. Bakhtin, M. (1981).  The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    2. Barbe, K. (2007).  Klemperer as sociolinguist. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (4): 505-519.
    3. Beard, A. (2000).  The Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
    4. Beck, H.-R. (2001).  Politische Rede als Interaktionsgefüge: Der Fall Hitler. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    5. Berning, C. (1964). Vom ‘Abstammungsnachweis’ zum ‘Zuchtwart’: Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    6. Besnier, N. (1993). Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae Atoll. In J. Hill and J. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 161-181.
    7. Biber, D. and E. Finegan (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11 (1): 1-34.
    8. Biber, D. and E. Finegan (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9: 93-124.
    9. Billig, M. (1991).  Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: Sage.
    10. Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
    11. Bitzer, L. (1981).  Political rhetoric. In D. Nimmo and K. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. pp. 225-248.
    12. Bolinger, D. (1982).  Language: The Loaded Weapon. London: Longman.
    13. Bork, S. (1970). Mißbrauch der Sprache. Tendenzen nationalsozialistischer Sprachregelung. Bern, Switzerland: Francke.
    14. Brünner, G. (1991).  Redewiedergabe in Gesprächen. Deutsche Sprache 1: 1-15.
    15. Bucholtz, M. and K. Hall (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7 (4-5): 585-614.
    16. Burke, K. (1939). The rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’. The Southern Review 5: 1-21.
    17. Channell, J. (2000). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 38-55.
    18. Chilton, P. (2005) Manipulation, memes, and metaphors: The case of Mein Kampf. In L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. pp. 15-41.
    19. Conrad, S. and D. Biber (2000).  Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 56-73.
    20. Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser (2000) Constructions with if, since and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen and B. Kortmann (eds.)Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 111-142.
    21. Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser (2005). Mental Spaces in Grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    22. Davies, B. and R. Harré (1990). Positioning: Conversation and the production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20: 43-63.
    23. Domarus, M. (ed.) (1988). Hitler. Reden und Proklamationen 1932-1945. München: Süddeutscher Verlag.
    24. Domarus, M. (ed.) (1997). Hitler. Speeches and Proclamations 1932-1945. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci.
    25. Downing, A. (2002). ‘Surely you knew’: Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language 8 (2): 253-285.
    26. Du Bois, J. (2002). Stance and consequence. Paper given at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, November 21.
    27. Du Bois, J. (2007).  The Stance Triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.  pp. 139-182.
    28. Ehlich, K. (1989).  Sprache im Faschismus. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
    29. Ford, C. (1997).  Speaking conditionally: Some considerations for If-clauses in conversation. In A. Athanasiadou and R. Dirven (eds.), On Conditionals.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. pp. 387-413.
    30. Forster, I. (2009). Euphemistische Sprache im Nationalsozialismus. Schichten, Funktionen, Intensität. Bremen: Hempen.
    31. Geis, M. (1987). The Language of Politics. New York, NY: Springer.
    32. Gohl, C. (2002). Zwischen Kausalität und Konditionalität: Begründende wenn-Konstruktionen. Deutsche Sprache 30: 193-219.
    33. Goffman, E. (1981). Footings. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 124-159.
    34. Goodwin, C. and M. Goodwin (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 147-189.
    35. Goodwin, M. (2006). The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Oxford: Blackwell.
    36. Günthner, S. (1997). Stilisierungsverfahren in der Redewiedergabe – Die ‚Überlagerung von Stimmen‛ als Mittel der moralischen Verurteilung in Vorwurfsrekonstruktionen. In B. Sandig and M. Selting (eds.), Sprech- und Gesprächsstile. Berlin/New York, NY: de Gruyter, 94-122.
    37. Günthner, S. (1998).  Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues. An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech.  InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 3: 1-26. Retrieved from http://w3.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/schriftenreihen_ebene2.php?sr_id=10&la=de August 30, 2007.
    38. Harré, R. and L. van Langenhove (1992).  Varieties of Positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20: 393-407.
    39. Haviland, J. (1991). ‘Sure, sure’: Evidence and affect. Text 9: 27-68.
    40. Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford et al. (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 196-224.
    41. Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005).  The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15-38.
    42. Hermodsson, L. (1977).  Wenn Goethe sagt. Zum ‘resumptiven’ oder formal-konditionalen wenn. Moderna språk 71: 227-238.
    43. Hitler, A. (1925).  Mein Kampf. München: Zentralverlag der NSDAP und Verlag Franz Eher.
    44. Hitler, A. (1935).  Rede des Führers und Reichskanzlers Adolf Hitler vor dem Deutschen Reichstag. Munich: Muller & Sohn. Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/RedeDesFhrersUndReichskanzlersAdolfHitlerVorDemReichstagAm21.Mai on December 20, 2011.
    45. Hitler, A. (1941).  Der Großdeutsche Freiheitskampf. Vol. 2. Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, F. Eher Verlag. Retrieved from       http://www.archive.org/details/AdolfHitlerRedenDerGrodeutscheFreiheitskampf-BandIi on December 20, 2011.
    46. Hodge, B. and R. Fowler (1979). Orwellian linguistics. In R. Fowler et al. (eds.), Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. pp. 6-25.
    47. Hoey, M. (2000).  Persuasive rhetoric in Linguistics: A stylistic study of Noam Chomsky. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 28-37.
    48. Hunston, S. and J. Sinclair (2000).  A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 74-101.
    49. Hunston, S. and G. Thompson (eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    50. Kärkhäinen, E. (2006).  Stance-taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk 26 (6). 699-731.
    51. Kienpointner, M. (1996). Vernünftig argumentieren. Regeln und Techniken der Diskussion. Hamburg: Rowohlt.
    52. Klemperer, V. (2000).  The Language of the Third Reich: LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook. Translated by Martin Brady. London: The Athlone Press.
    53. Klemperer, V. ([1947] 2007). LTI – Notizbuch eines Philologen. Stuttgart: Reclam.
    54. Kotthoff, H. (1998).  Irony, quotation, and other forms of staged intertextuality: Double or contrastive perspectivisation in conversation. In InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 5: 1-25. Retrieved from http://w3.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/schriftenreihen_ebene2.php?sr_id=10&la=de August 30, 2007.
    55. Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1387-1411.
    56. Lanham, R. (1991). A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    57. Lemke, H. (1998). Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientation in text semantics. Functions of Language 5: 33-56.
    58. Maynard, S. (1993).  Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    59. Musolff, A. (2010). Metaphor, Nation and the Holocaust. The Concept of the Body Politic. London/New York: Routledge.
    60. Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz and S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 407-437.
    61. Oropreza-Escobar, M. (2011).  Represented Discourse, Resonance and Stance in Joking Interaction in Mexican Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
    62. Pascual, E. (2006). Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk 26 (3), 383-402
    63. Pegelow Kaplan, Th. (2009). The Language of Nazi Genocide. Linguistic Violence and the Struggle of Germans of Jewish Ancestry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    64. Peiter, A. (2007).  Komik und Gewalt. Cologne: Böhlau.
    65. Press, S. (2005).  The language of ideology: Lingual manipulation of readers in German literature of the Third Reich. Vanderbilt Undergraduate research Journal 1(1). Retrieved from http://ejournals.library.vanderbilt.edu/ojs/index.php/vurj/article/view/2712 December 10, 2011.
    66. Pomerantz, A. (1984).  Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57-101.
    67. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2001).  Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
    68. Reyes, A. (2011).  Strategies of legitimation in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society 22 (6): 781-807.
    69. Ribeiro, B. (2006). Footing, positioning, voice. Are we talking about the same things? In A. deFina et al. (eds.), Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 48-82.
    70. Sauer, W. (1978).  Der Sprachgebrauch der Nationalsozialisten vor 1933. Hamburg: Buske.
    71. Schiffrin, D. (1994).  Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
    72. Schiffrin, D. (2006).  From linguistic reference to social reality. In A. deFina et al. (eds.), Discourse and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 103-131.
    73. Schmitz-Berning, C. (1998).  Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    74. Schnauber, C. (1972).  Wie Hitler sprach und schrieb. Zur Psychologie und Prosodik der faschistischen Rhetorik. Frankfurt/Main: Athenäum.
    75. Schwitalla, J. (1994).  Vom Sektenprediger- zum Plauderton. Beobachtungen zur Prosodie von Politikerreden vor und nach 1945. In H. Löffler, K. Jakob and B. Kelle (eds.),Texttyp, Sprechergruppe, Kommunikationsbereich. Studien zur deutschen Sprache in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 208-224
    76. Seidel, E. and I. Seidel-Slotty (1961). Sprachwandel im Dritten Reich. Halle/Saale: Niemeyer.
    77. Shoaps, R. (2002).  ‘Pray earnestly’: The textual construction of personal involvement in Pentecostal prayer and song. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12: 34-71.
    78. Steiner, G. (1979). The hollow miracle. In G. Steiner. Language and Silence. Essays 1958-1966. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 136-151.
    79. Sternberger, D., G. Storz and W. Süskind (1962). Aus dem Wörterbuch eines Unmenschen. München: DTV.
    80. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    81. Turner, H. (2001). Book review of The Language of the Third Reich: LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook. By Victor Klemperer. Translated by Martin Brady. London: The Athlone Press. 2000. Central European History 34 (3): 452-453.
    82. Ulonska, U. (1990). Suggestion der Glaubwürdigkeit. Untersuchungen zu Hitlers rhetorischer Selbstdarstellung zwischen 1920 und 1933. Ammershut/Hamburg: Verlag an der Lottbeck.
    83. Ulrich, W. (1992). In defense of the fallacy. In W. Benoit, D. Hample and P. Benoit (eds.), Readings in Argumentation. Berlin/New York: Foris Publication. pp. 337-356.
    84. Van Dijk, T. (2005) War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimization of the war in Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics 4 (1): 65-92.
    85. Van Eemeren, F. and R. Grottendorst (1992).  Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdayle, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    86. Van Eemeren, F., R. Grottendorst and T. Kruiger (1987) Argumentation: Analysis and Practices. Dordrecht: Foris.
    87. Van Langenhove, L. and R. Harré (1999). Introducing Positioning Theory. In R. Harré and L. Van Langenhove (eds.), Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Malden: Blackwell. pp. 14-31.
    88. Van Leeuwen, T. and R. Wodak (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83-118.
    89. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91-112.
    90. Vandergriff, I. (2010).  Staging dialogue – Commenting wenn ‘if’-constructions in German persuasive discourse. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 15 (2): 163-202.
    91. Vierhufe, A. (2008). ‘Lexikographie, Stil, Rhetorik. Sprachkritische Perspektiven in neueren Arbeiten zur Sprache im Nationalsozialismus’. Aptum. Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 4 (3): 272-288.
    92. Watt, R. (2001).  Victor Klemperer’s experience of the totalitarian manipulation of language. In J. Welch (ed.), Language Change: Poetry, Politics, and Common Usage. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Press. pp. 33-44.
    93. Wilson, J. (2001).  Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin et al. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA/ Oxford: Blackwell.  pp. 398-415.
    94. Wodak, R. (ed.). (1989).  Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse.  Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
    95. Wodak, R. and M. Meyer (2001).  Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
    96. Wulf, J. (1964). Presse und Funk im Dritten Reich. Gütersloh: S. Mohn.
    97. Zeman, Z. (1964). Nazi Propaganda. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    98. Zifonun, G. et al. (1997). Grammatik der Deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

INTERTEXTUALITY AND INTERDISCURSIVITY IN THE DISCOURSE OF MUSLIM TELEVANGELISTS  Pages 76-96

Shaimaa El Naggar

Download Full Text

  • In this paper, I apply the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) (e.g. Wodak and Meyer 2009) to discourse on religion. Discourse on religion has been taken for granted (e.g. Chilton 2004: xi) and little is known about its characteristic discourse features. A few studies (e.g.  Neuman et al 2001; Muchnik 2005) have explored discourse on religion, focusing on particular features (e.g. irony, and narratives). These studies, however, have overlooked the broader socio-political and historical contexts that intertwine with discourse. The present study aims to fill that gap by exploring processes of persuasion in one speech by the Muslim televangelist Hamza Yusuf. Two main processes will be explored: interdiscursivity and intertextuality. Interdiscursivity indicates that discourses can be linked to discourses on other topics or sub-topics; intertextuality refers to the link to other texts through invoking a topic, an event or a main actor (e.g. Richardson and Wodak 2009b:46). As I will show in the data analysis, the speaker invokes some discourses and dismisses others to serve his specific persuasive intentions. In addition, religious terms are recontextualised in contemporary contexts to link the speech to the religious realm and to present religion as a force of change.

    1. Baker, P. (2010). Representations of Islam in British broadsheet and tabloid newspapers 1999-2005 Journal of Language and Politics 9 (2): 310-338.
    2. Baker, P., C. Gabrielatos, M. Khosravinik, M.K. Anowski, 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 (3): 273-306.
    3. Bhatia, A. (2007). Religious metaphor in the discourse of illusion: George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. World Englishes 26 (4): 507-524.
    4. Bruce, S. (1990). Pray TV: Televangelism in America.  London: Routledge.
    5. Bugliosi, V. (2008).  The Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder. New York: Vanguard Press.
    6. Bunzl, M.  (2007).  Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Hatreds Old and New in Europe. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
    7. Caldwell, C. (2009).  Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West. London: Allen Lane.
    8. Cesari, J. (2009).  Rarefied Islamophobia: When Americans duplicate the European cultural talk. http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/1784/rarefied_islamophobia:_when_americans_duplicate_the_european_cultural_talk/ Accessed 16 June 2011.
    9. Cesari, J. (2010).  Securitization of Islam in Europe. In Cesari, J. (Ed.) Muslims in the West after 9/11: Religion, Politics and Law. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 9-27.  
    10. Chilton, P.A. (1998).  Politics and language. In Mey and Asher (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. pp. 688-695.
    11. Chilton, P.  (2004).  Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice.  London: Routledge. pp. 173–193.
    12. Chilton, P.A. and C. Schäffner (1997). Discourse and politics. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 2 London: Sage. pp. 206-230.
    13. Cook, G. (1992).  The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.
    14. Corner, J. and D. Pels (eds.) (2003).  Media and the Restyling of Politics. London: Sage.
    15. Diamond, J. (1997).  Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years. London: Vintage Books.
    16. Dwight, N. (1876).  The Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. New York, Chicago and New Orleans:  A.S. Barnes and Company.
    17. Durkheim, E. (1965).  The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. J. Swain. New York: The Free Press.
    18. Echchaibi, N. (2011).  From audio tapes to video blogs: the delocalization of authority in Islam. Nations and Nationalism 17 (1): 25-44.
    19. El-Nawawy, M. and S. Khamis (2009).  Islam Dot Com: Contemporary Islamic Discourses in Cyberspace. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    20. Esposito and Kalin (eds.) (2009). The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World. The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre. Amman: Jordan
    21. Fairclough, N. (1995).  Media Discourse. London and New York: E. Arnold.
    22. Fallaci, O. (2002). The Rage and the Pride. New York: Rizzoli.
    23. Ferrari, F. (2007). Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: Investigating a ‘preventive war’ persuasion strategy. Discourse & Society 18: 603-625
    24. Frankl, R. (1987).  Televangelism: The Marketing of Popular Religion. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press
    25. Fuertes-Olivera, P.A., M. Velasco-Sacristán, A. Arribas-Baño and E. Samaniego-Fernández (2001). Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1291- 1307.  
    26. Garner, M. (2009).  Preaching as a communicative event: A discourse analysis of sermons by Robert Rollock (1555-1599). Reformation and Renaissance Review: 45-70.
    27. Geis, M.L. (1982).  The Language of Television Advertising. New York: Academic Press.
    28. Gilliat-Ray, S. (2010).  Muslims in Britain: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press   
    29. Hafez, O.M. (1991).  Turn-taking in Egyptian Arabic: Spontaneous speech vs. drama dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 59-81.
    30. Harrell, R.S. (1957).  The Phonology of Colloquial Egyptian Arabic. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
    31. Hashem, M. (2010). The Ummah in the khutba: A religious sermon or a civil discourse. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 30 (1): 49-61. 
    32. Helland, C. (2004). Popular religion and the World Wide Web: A match made in (cyber) heaven. In L.L. Dawson and D.E. Cowan (eds.), Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 23-36.
    33. Houellebecq, M. (2003). Platform. New York: Knopf.
    34. Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
    35. Lakoff, R.T. (1982). Persuasive discourse and ordinary conversation with examples from advertising. In D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, D.C.: George Town University Press. pp. 25- 42.
    36. Lotfy, W. (2009).  The Phenomenon of Televangelists. Cairo: Dar El Ein.
    37. Lövheim, M. and M. Axner (2011). Halal-TV: Negotiating the place of religion in Swedish public discourse.  Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 24 (1): 57-74.
    38. Mandaville, P. (1999). Digital Islam: Changing the boundaries of religious knowledge?. ISIM Newsletter: 1 and 23
    39. Mandaville, P. (2002). Reimaging the Umma? Information technology and the changing boundary of political Islam. In A. Mohammadi (ed.), Islam Encountering Globalization. Richmond: Curzon. pp.61-90.  
    40. Marshall, J. and A. Werndly (2002).  The Language of Television. London and New York: Routledge.   
    41. Myers, G. (1999a).  Words in Ads. London: Arnold
    42. Myers, G. (1999b).  Ads Worlds. London: Arnold.
    43. Myers, G. (2010a).  The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London: Continuum
    44. Myers, G. (2010b).  Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies 7 (4): 263-275
    45. Muchnik, M. (2005). Discourse strategies of Maxzirim Bitshuva: The case of a repentance preacher in Israel. Text 25 (3): 373-398.
    46. Neuman, Y., Y. Lurie and M. Rosenthal (2001).  A Watermelon without seeds: A case study in rhetorical rationality. Text 21 (4): 543-565.
    47. O’Shaughnessy, J. and N.J. O’Shaughnessy (2004). Persuasion in Advertising. London: Routledge
    48. Pardo, M.L. (2001).  Linguistic persuasion as an essential political factor in current democracies: Critical analysis of the globalization discourse in Argentina at the Turn and at the end of the century. Discourse & Society 12 (1): 91-119.
    49. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2009).  The Discourse Historical Approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 87-121.
    50. Richardson, J.E. (2004).  Misrepresenting Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    51. Richardson, J.E. and R. Wodak (2009a). Recontextualizing fascist ideologies of the past: Right-wing discourses on employment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom. Critical Discourse Studies 6 (4): 251-267.
    52. Richardson, J.E. and R. Wodak (2009b). The impact of visual racism: Visual arguments in political leaflets in Austrian and British far-right parties. Controversia  6 (2): 45-67.
    53. Riegert, K. (2007). The ideology of The West Wing: the television show that wants to be real. In K. Riegert (ed.), Politicotainment: Television’s Take on the Real. Bern: Peter Lang.  pp. 213-36.
    54. Schmidt, G. (2005).  The transnational Umma- myth or reality? Examples from the Western Diasporas. The Muslim World 95: 575-586.
    55. Schmidt, R. and J.F. Kess (1986).  Television Advertising and Televangelism: Discourse Analysis of Persuasive Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    56. Simpson, P. (2001).  Reason and tickle as pragmatic constructs in the discourse of advertising. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (4): 589-607.
    57. Smith, A. (1990).  An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (2nd edn.). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
    58. Sornig, K. (1989).  Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion. In R. Wodak (ed.), Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  pp. 227-250.
    59. Thussu, D.K. (2009).  News as Entertainment: The Rise of Global Infotainment. London: Sage.
    60. Van Leeuwen, T. (1993a).  Language and Representation: The Recontextualisation of Participants, Activities and Reactions. Unpublished PhD thesis.  University of Sydney.
    61. Van Leeuwen, T. (1993b).  Genre and field in Critical Discourse Analysis: A synopsis. Discourse & Society 4 (2): 193-225.
    62. Van Leeuwen, T. (1995).  Representing social action. Discourse & Society 6 (1): 81-107.
    63. Van Leeuwen, T. (2007).  Legitimation in discourse and communication.  Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91-112.
    64. Van Leeuwen, T. and R. Wodak (2009). Legitimizing immigration control: A Discourse Historical Analysis.  Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83-118.
    65. Wodak, R. (1989).  The power of political jargon: A ‘Club-2′ discussion. In R. Wodak (ed.), Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.  pp. 227-250.
    66. Wodak, R. and M. Reisigl (1999). Discourse and Racism: European Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 175-199.
    67. Wodak, R. and V. Koller (eds.) (2008).  Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    68. 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. 1-34.
    69. Wodak, R. (2009).  The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    70. Wodak, R. (2011).  Language, power and identity. Language Teaching: 1-19.
    71. Zayed, A. (2007).  Patterns of Contemporary Religious Discourses. Cairo: Dar El Ein.