Volume 9 (2) 2017: Special Issue – Discourse: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Identity

INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE ON ‘DISCOURSE: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON IDENTITY’ Pages 1-4

Roberta Piazza & Charlotte Taylor

Download Full Text

    1. Aboelela, S.W., E. Larson, S. Bakken, O. Carrasquillo, A. Formicola, S.A. Glied, J. Haas, and K.M. Gebbie (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research 42(1, Pt 1): 329–346. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955232/. Last accessed 04 September 2017.
    2. Fairclough, N. (2003). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

EXCLUSION IN GOSSIPY TALK: HIGHJACKING THE PREFERENCE STRUCTURE FOR INGROUP BELONGING Pages 5-22

Jessica S. Robles

Download Full Text

  • This paper employs discourse analysis and draws on interdisciplinary approaches to examine how identity is constructed in conversation. The purpose of the paper is twofold: to present an argument for a particular exclusionary practice in everyday life; and to show how this practice is revealed through discourse analytic methods. Specifically, the analysis describes how extremely negative moral assessments about outgroup identity-related behaviour constitute a high-risk strategy for ingrouping with co-participants in ordinary face-to-face interactions. Demonstrating this strategy shows how discourse analysis can provide a frame through which to understand what interactional resources are available to people and therefore how we might reflect on the relationship between local exclusionary practices and broader social phenomena such as racism and sexism.

    1. Antaki, C. (2004). Reading minds or dealing with interactional implications? Theory & Psychology 14 (5): 667-683.
    2. Arundale, R. B. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2(2): 193-216.
    3. Bailey, B. (2016). Street remarks to women in five countries and four languages: Impositions of engagement and intimacy. Sociolinguistic Studies 10(4): 589-609.
    4. Bergmann, J.R. (1993). Discreet Indiscretions: The Social Organization of Gossip. New York: Gruyter.
    5. Billig, M. (1988). The notion of ‘prejudice’: Some rhetorical and ideological aspects. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(1-2): 91-110.
    6. Billig, M. (2001). Humour and hatred: The racist jokes of the Ku Klux Klan. Discourse and Society 12(3): 267-289.
    7. Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
    8. Brown, G. and G. Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
    9. Bucholtz, M. and K. Hall (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse studies 7(4-5): 585-614.
    10. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage.
    11. Carbaugh, D. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 36(3): 167-182.
    12. Carbaugh, D. and D. Boromisza-Habashi (2015). Ethnography of communication. In K. Tracy (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 537-552.
    13. Edwards, D. and J. Potter (1992). Discursive psychology. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: Sage.
    14. Ehrlich, S. and T. Romaniuk (2014). Discourse analysis. In R.J. Podesva and D. Sharma (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 460-493.
    15. Ekström, M. (2016). Young people’s everyday political talk: A social achievement of democratic engagement. Journal of Youth Studies 19(1): 1-19.
    16. Festinger, L. and J. Thibaut (1951). Interpersonal communication in small groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46(1): 92-99.
    17. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.
    18. Galam, S. and S. Moscovici (1991). Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups. European Journal of Social Psychology 21(1): 49-74.
    19. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. London: Routledge.
    20. Geddes, G.E. (2016). Keyboard Warriors: The Production of Islamophobic Identity and an Extreme Worldview Within an Online Political Community. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    21. Georgakopoulou, A. (2007). Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. John Benjamins Publishing.
    22. Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18(3): 213-231.
    23. Gurney, C.M. (1999). Pride and prejudice: Discourses of normalisation in public and private accounts of home ownership. Housing Studies 14(2): 163-183.
    24. Jaffe, A. (ed.) (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
    25. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 125: 13-34.
    26. Konishi, N., T. Oe, H. Shimizu, K. Tanaka, and Y. Ohtsubo (2017). Perceived shared condemnation intensifies punitive moral emotions. Scientific Reports 7: 1-9.
    27. Kurylo, A. and J.S. Robles (2015). How should I respond to them? An emergent categorization of responses to interpersonally communicated stereotypes. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 44(1): 64-91.
    28. Laihonen, P. (2000). Self-deprecations in American and Hungarian Everyday Conversations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
    29. Linguistic Politeness Research Group (eds.) (2011). Discursive Approaches to Politeness (Vol. 8). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    30. Maynard, D.W. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean-prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. Conversational repair and human understanding 30: 198-233.
    31. Nettleton, S., J. Neale and L. Pickering (2013). ‘I just want to be normal’: An analysis of discourses of normality among recovering heroin users. Health: 17(2): 174-190.
    32. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    33. Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9(2): 219-229.
    34. Rauniomaa, M. (2003). Stance Accretion: Some Initial Observations. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, USA.
    35. Robles, J.S. (2015). Extreme case (re) formulation as a practice for making hearably racist talk repairable. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34(4): 390-409.
    36. Robles, J.S. and A.K. Kurylo (in press). ‘Let’s have the men clean up’: Interpersonally-communicated stereotypes as a resource for resisting gender-role prescribed activities. Discourse Studies 19.
    37. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    38. Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    39. Schiffrin, D. (1996). Interactional sociolinguistics. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching 4: 307-328.
    40. Sikveland, R. and E. Stokoe (2016). Dealing with resistance in initial intake and inquiry calls to mediation: The power of ‘willing’. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 33(3): 235-254.
    41. Stokoe, E. (2012). Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3): 277-303.
    42. Tannen, D. (ed.) (1993). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    43. Tileaga, C. (2005). Accounting for extreme prejudice and legitimating blame in talk about the Romanies. Discourse & Society 16(5): 603-624.
    44. Tracy, K. and J.S. Robles (2013). Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York: Guilford Press.
    45. Van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3(1): 87-118.
    46. Van Swol, L.M., M.T. Braun, E.E. Acosta Lewis, C.L. Carlson and G. Dimperio (2015). Discussion of shared information can increase the influence of divergent members. Communication Research: 1-25.
    47. Wert, S.R. and P. Salovey (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology 8(2): 122-137.

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE: THE ROLE OF SELF-EFFICACY IN STIGMA Pages 23-40

Hilary Bruffell

Download Full Text

  • As part of a multidisciplinary approach to Identity, this paper takes a psychological perspective to the role of self-efficacy in stigma theory. Maintaining a positive sense of self is a central feature of research into stigmatised identities. Breakwell (1993) suggests that there are four motivational principles which are essential to this; self-esteem, continuity, distinctiveness and self-efficacy, yet within the stigma literature only self-esteem seems to be mentioned and it appears to be used as a general term to cover all the other principles. This is important to the work on stigma because as Bandura (1986: 395) suggests, self-efficacy allows the individual to ‘produce their own future, rather than simply foretell it’.   This study extends the work of Bruffell (2015) and examines the role of self-efficacy in stigma theory with young mothers living in hostels in the south-east of England. Interviews were analysed with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and semantic content and language use were explored to identify common themes arising within the interviewees’/women’s accounts. Findings from this study indicate that having a baby provides young mothers with the opportunity to create and maintain a positive sense of self-efficacy, which might play a role in ameliorating the negative effects of living with a stigmatised label. Moreover, it would appear that whilst traditional views of stigma might have conflated the concepts of self-esteem and self-efficacy, these findings suggest that these two concepts may operate independently.

    1. Allport, G.W. (1954 [1979]). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
    2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    3. Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R.A Dienstbier (ed.), Perspectives on Motivation: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 38. Lincoln: University Nebraska Press. pp. 69-164.
    4. Bandura, A. (1992). Exercise of personal agency through the self-efficacy mechanism. In R. Schwarzer (ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought Control of Action. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. pp. 3-38.
    5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
    6. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V. and Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development 72: 187-206.
    7. Bandura, A. and Wood, R.E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 805-814.
    8. Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2000). The Subtlety of Emotions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    9. Breakwell, G.M. (1993). Integrating paradigms, methodological implications. In G.M. Breakwell and D.V. Canter (eds.), Empirical Approaches to Social Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 180-201.
    10. Broucek, F. (1979). Efficacy in infancy: A review of some experimental studies and their possible implications for clinical theory. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 60(3): 311-316.
    11. Bruffell, H. (2015). Young motherhood: Is it really a case of ‘shattered lives and blighted futures’? In R. Piazza and A. Fasulo (eds.), Marked Identities: Narrating Lives between Social Labels and Individual Biographies. London: Palgrave. p.p.123-148.
    12. Colahan, M., Tunariu, A.D. and Dell, P. (2012). Understanding lived experience and the structure of its discursive context. Qualitative Methods in Psychology Bulletin 13(1): 48-57.
    13. Crocker, J. and Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological review 96: 608-630.
    14. DiLapi, E. (1989). Lesbian mothers and the motherhood hierarchy. Journal of Homosexuality 18: 101-121.
    15. Dovidio, J.F., Major, B. and Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Jebl and J.G. Hull (eds.), Stigma: Social psychological Perspectives. New York: Guilford.
    16. Eatough, V. and Smith, J.A. (2006). ‘I was just like a wild wild person’: Understanding feelings of anger using interpretative phenomenological analysis. British Journal of Psychology 97: 483-498.
    17. Farina, A., Gliha, D., Boudreau, L.A., Allen, J.G. and Sherman, M. (1971). Mental illness and the impact of believing others know about it. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 77: 1-5.
    18. Feldman Barrett, L. and J.K. Swim (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In J.K. Swim and C. Stangor (eds.), Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 11–36.
    19. Finlay, M. and Lyons, E. (2000). Social categorizations, social comparisons and stigma: Presentations of self in people with learning difficulties. British Journal of Social Psychology 39: 129-146.
    20. Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology 8: 1-33.
    21. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    22. Gray-Little, B. and Hafdahl, A.R. (2000). Factors influencing racial comparisons of self-esteem: A quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 126: 26-54.
    23. Hadfield, L., Rudoe, N. and Sanderson-Mann, J. (2007). Motherhood, choice and the British media: A time to reflect. Gender and Education 19(2): 255-263.
    24. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (J. MacQuarrie and E. Robinson, trans.). New York: Harper.
    25. Hofferth, S.L. and Hayes, C.D. (1987). Risking the Future: Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy, and Childbearing (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    26. Holgate, H. (2012). Young mothers speak. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 17(1): 1-10.
    27. Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    28. Langdridge, D. (2008). Phenomenology and critical social psychology: Directions and debates in theory and research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(3): 1126-1142.
    29. Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 69: 241-251.
    30. Locke, E.A. and G.P. Latham (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    31. McDermott, E. and Graham, H. (2005). Resilient young mothering: social inequalities, late modernity and the ‘problem’ of ‘teenage motherhood’. Journal of Youth Studies 8(1): 59-79.
    32. Raeff, C. (1996). A cultural analysis of maternal self-conceptions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 17: 271-306.
    33. Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences (J. B. Thompson, trans. and ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    34. Ricoeur, P. (1996). Lectures on Ideology and Utopia (G.H. Taylor, ed.). New York, NY. Columbia University Press.
    35. Sedkides, C. and J.J. Skowronski (1991). The law of cognitive structure activation. Psychological Inquiry 2: 169-184.
    36. Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Los Angeles: Sage.
    37. Smith, J.A. and Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (2nd ed). London: Sage. pp 53-80.
    38. Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology (Vol. 18). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. pp. 247-305.
    39. Steele, C.M (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist 2: 613-629.
    40. Steele, C.M. and Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test-performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5): 797-811.
    41. Taylor, S.E. and Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin 103: 193-210.
    42. Van Dongen C.J. (1996). Quality of life and self-esteem in working and non-working persons with mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal 32: 535-548.
    43. Yardley, E. (2008). Teenage mothers’ experiences of stigma. Journal of Youth Studies 11(6): 671-684.
    44. Willig, C. (2001). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    45. Wilson, H. and Huntington, A. (2006). Deviant mothers: The construction of teenage motherhood in contemporary discourse. Journal of Social Policy 35(1): 59-76.
    46. Wright, E.R., Gronfein, W.P. and Owens, T.J. (2000). Deinstitutionalization, social rejection, and the self-esteem of former mental patients. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41: 68-90.
    47. Wylie, R.C. (1979). The Self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

 

EXTREMIST CAPITALISM: THE DISCOURSE OF GET RICH BOOKS Pages 41-61

Annabelle Mooney


Download Full Text

  • Get rich books are a staple part of the self-help genre. Like many exponents of this genre, get rich books encourage readers to adopt new practices, worldviews and identities. In particular, the texts examined here all invite readers to exploit the power of positive thinking. Focussing on textual features and construing ‘discourse’ from the point of view of critical discourse analysis, I examine the rhetorical features of these texts. Specifically I argue that narrative, repetition and assertion all have a role in persuading readers to adopt an entirely new world view and a related view of the self. This worldview has ontological and epistemological consequences. That is, the laws of cause and effect found in these texts locate responsibility for financial success entirely at the (often subconscious) level of the individual. I further suggest that these texts advocate and encourage a form of extremism: extremist capitalism. While capitalism is not normally thought capable of being extremist, I argue that the extremism of these books is a consequence of the way the texts extend the values of dominant neo-liberal ideology to their logical and individualistic conclusion. The violence of this extremism is not directly physical; however through its endorsement and erasure of structural inequalities and its construction of a particular subject position and identity that supports and enforces capitalism, it is violent nevertheless.

    1. Aldred, L. (2002). ‘Money is just spiritual energy’: Incorporating the new age. Journal of Popular Culture 35(4): 67-74.
    2. Aristotle. (1991). The Art of Rhetoric (H.C. Lawson-Tancred, trans.). London: Penguin.
    3. Askhave, I. (2004). If language is a game – these are the rules: A search into the rhetoric of the spiritual self-help book. Discourse & Society 15(1): 5-31.
    4. Bielo, J.S. (2007). ‘The mind of Christ’: Financial success, born-again personhood, and the anthropology of Christianity. Ethnos 72(3): 315-338.
    5. Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    6. Chertoff, M. (2008). The ideology of terrorism: Radicalism revisited. Brown Journal of World Affairs 15(1): 11-20.
    7. Coleman, S. (2011). Prosperity unbound? Debating the ‘sacrificial economy’. In L. Obadia and D.C. Wood (eds.), The Economics Of Religion: Anthropological Approaches (Research In Economic Anthropology, Vol. 31). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group. pp. 23-45.
    8. Eker, T.H. (2005). Secrets of the Millionaire Mind. London: Piatkus.
    9. Elkins, K. and L. Kane (2015). 19 books to read if you want to get rich. Business Insider UK. [online]. Available: http://uk.businessinsider.com/books-to-read-to-get-rich-2015-5/#w-that-you-know-what-to-read-get-a-preview-of-what-youll-learn-20. Last accessed 26 July 2017.
    10. Ellis, J. (2015). 10 Books to inspire you to get rich. Menprovement: Building Better Men. [online]. Available: http://www.menprovement.com/10-books-to-inspire-you-to-get-rich. Last accessed 26 July 2017.
    11. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
    12. Gauntlett, D. (2008). Self help books and the pursuit of a happy identity (extra material). Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction (2nd ed.). [online]. Available: http://www.theoryhead.com/gender/MGI2008-extra4.pdf. Last accessed 01 December 2016.
    13. Graeber, D. (2015a). Is this even capitalism anymore? (Interview with Chuck Mertz, 21 March, This is Hell! Radio). aNtiDoTe Zone. [online]. Available: https://antidotezine.com/2015/03/25/is-this-even-capitalism-anymore. Last accessed 17 July 2017.
    14. Graeber, D. (2015b). The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. London: Melville House.
    15. Hanegraaff, J.W. (1996). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Leiden: Brill.
    16. Heelas, P. (1996). The New Age Movement: Religion, Culture and Society in the Age of Postmodernity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    17. Hill, N. (2004). Think and Grow Rich (revised and expanded by A.R. Pell). London: Vermillion.
    18. Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    19. Hunt, S. (2000). ‘Winning ways’: Globalisation and the impact of the health and wealth gospel. Journal of Contemporary Religion 15(3): 331-347.
    20. Iannaccone, L.R. and Berman, E. (2006). Religious extremism: The good, the bad, and the deadly. Public Choice 128(1/2): 109-129.
    21. Jackson, B.G. (1999). The goose that laid the golden egg? A rhetorical critique of Stephen Covey and the effectiveness movement. Journal of Management Studies 36(3): 353-377.
    22. Johnstone, B. (1987). Introduction: Perspectives on repetition. Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 7(3): 205-214.
    23. Kiyosaki, R.T. (2011). Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Scottsdale, AZ: Plata Publishing.
    24. Kress, G. (1990). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11 (1990): 84-99.
    25. Labov, W. and J. Waletzky (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press. pp. 12-44.
    26. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    27. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    28. Lansley, S. and J. Mack (2015). Breadline Britain. London: Oneworld.
    29. Lauricella, S. (2011). Making sense of spiritual media: An audience study The Secret DVD, book, and website. Nebula 8(1): 181-198.
    30. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    31. Lin, T.T.R. (2013). The gospel of the American dream. The Hedgehog Review 15(2): 34-43.
    32. McKenna, P. (2007). I Can Make You Rich. London: Bantam Press.
    33. Mohr, B. (2001). The Cosmic Ordering Service: A Guide to Realizing your Dreams. Newburyport, MA: Hampton Roads.
    34. Mooney, A. (2004). Showing who you are: Witnessing texts. ARC, Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill 32: 187-211.
    35. Nadesan, M.H. (1999). The discourse of corporate spiritualism and evangelical capitalism. Management Communication Quarterly 13(1): 3-42.
    36. Perelman, C.H. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver, trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
    37. Prentice, S., Rayon, P. and P.J. Taylor (2012). The language of Islamic extremism: Towards an automated identification of beliefs, motivations and justifications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(2): 259-286.
    38. Rimke, H.M. (2000). Governing citizens through self-help literature. Cultural Studies 14(1): 61-78.
    39. Salazar, P-J. (2016). A Caliphate of culture?: ISIS’s rhetorical power. Philosophy and Rhetoric 49(3): 343-354.
    40. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. (2008). ‘Those are only slogans’: A linguistic analysis of argumentation in debates with extremist political speakers. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27(4): 345-358.
    41. Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. London: Routledge.
    42. Whitney Griswold, A. (1934). New thought: A cult of success. American Journal of Sociology 40(3): 309-318.
    43. Woodstock, L. (2006). All about me, I mean, you: The trouble with narrative authority in self-help literature. The Communication Review 9: 321-346.
    44. Woodstock, L. (2007). Think about it: The misbegotten promise of positive thinking discourse. Journal of Communication Enquiry 31(2): 166-189.

     

THE DRONE OPERATOR AND IDENTITY: EXPLORING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ETHICAL SUBJECTIVITY IN DRONE DISCOURSES Pages 62-78

Peter Lee

 

Download Full Text

  • Discourses on lethal drone operations in the twenty-first century have commonly focused on the physical effects of drone strikes – usually by the CIA – on populations and individuals, and on associated disputes over the legitimacy of such actions. Until now, the secrecy surrounding drone programmes has excluded the perspective of serving military drone operators from public and academic debate. Drawing on both public discourse and interviews with Royal Air Force Reaper drone personnel, this paper explores two ways in which the identity of the drone operator is formed and self-created. Identity formed through other-representation in public discourse is contrasted with elements of identity as practice in the operators’ own discourse. Foucault identified the objectivizing of the subject as a means by which an individual’s identity is constituted in discourse, while also highlighting technologies of the self that are used when the individual’s identity is self-created (Foucault and Rabinow 1997: 224-5). Further, Foucault’s self-forming ethical subject emerges in two ontologically distinct but entwined trajectories: first, in relation to socially or culturally accepted rules, laws, prohibitions and interdictions, which he calls the moral code; and second, through practices of the self (1984: 5, 25). Drawing on Foucault, this paper provides new insight into the actions and identities of British Reaper drone operators, recognizing the previously-unseen, complex and creative ethical dynamics at work in individuals who routinely take decisions and actions that have life or death consequences.

    1. Alston, P. (2010). Report of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council. Available: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf . Last accessed 4 February 2017.
    2. Alson, P. and H. Shamsi (2010a). A killer above the law?. The Guardian. [online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/08/afghanistan-drones-defence-killing. Last accessed 20 February 2017.
    3. Baggiarini, B. (2015). Drone warfare and the limits of sacrifice Journal of International Political Theory 11(1): 128-144.
    4. Bandura, A. (2004). The role of selective moral disengagement in terrorism and counterterrorism. In F.M. Moghaddam and A.J. Marsella (eds.), Understanding Terrorism: Psychosocial Roots, Consequences and Interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 121-150.
    5. Bandura, A. (2017). Disengaging morality from robotic war. The Psychologist 30: 38-43.
    6. Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    7. Benjamin, M. (2012). Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. New York and London: OR Books.
    8. Callam, A. (2010). Drone Wars: Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. International Affairs Review XVIII(3). [online]. Available: http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/144. Last accessed 21 March 2015.
    9. Cole, C., M. Dobbing and A. Hailwood (2010). Convenient Killing: Armed Drones and the ‘Playstation’ Mentality. Oxford: Fellowship of Reconciliation.
    10. Daborn, D. (2016). Uninhabited aerial vehicles. In D.P. Gradwell and D.J. Rainford (eds.), Ernsting’s Aviation and Space Medicine (5th Ed). Boca Raton: CRC Press. pp. 815-824.
    11. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. Sheridan, trans.). London: Tavistock.
    12. Foucault, M. (1980). The eye of power. In M. Foucault, Power/ Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings by Michel Foucault 1972-1977 (edited by C. Gordon). New York: Pantheon Books. pp. 146-165.
    13. Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader (P. Rabinow, ed.). London: Penguin.
    14. Foucault, M. (1984a). The History of Sexuality Volume 2: The Use of Pleasure (R. Hurley, trans.). London: Penguin Books.
    15. Foucault, M. (1991). Politics and the study of discourse (C. Gordon, trans.). In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 53-72.
    16. Foucault, M. (1997a). The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954 – 1984 Volume 1: Ethics – Subjectivity and Truth (P. Rabinow, ed.). New York: The New Press.
    17. Foucault, M. (1997b). On the genealogy of ethics. In M. Foucault, The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 Volume 1: Ethics – Subjectivity and Truth (P. Rabinow, ed.). New York: The New Press. pp. 253-281
    18. Foucault, M. (1997c). The ethics of the concern for self as a practice of freedom. In M. Foucault, The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 Volume 1: Ethics – Subjectivity and Truth (P. Rabinow, ed.). New York: The New Press. pp. 281-301,
    19. Foucault, M. (1997d). Technologies of the self. In M. Foucault, The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 Volume 1: Ethics – Subjectivity and Truth (P. Rabinow, ed.). New York: The New Press. pp. 223-251.
    20. Jabri, V. (1996). Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    21. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
    22. Knowles, E. and A. Watson (2017). All Quiet on the ISIS Front: British Secret Warfare in an Information Age. London: Remote Control. Available: http://remotecontrolproject.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/03/All-Quiet-on-the-IS-Final.pdf. Last accessed 15 April 2017.
    23. Lee, P. (2010). A Genealogy of the Ethical Subject in the Just War Tradition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, King’s College London, UK.
    24. Lee, P. (2013a). Rights, wrongs and drones: Remote warfare, ethics and the challenge of just war reasoning. Air Power Review 16(3): 30-49.
    25. Lee, P. (2013b). Unmanned aerial vehicles: closer at a distance?. In T.E. Saeveras and M. Eidem (eds.), UAV: Only New Technology or a New Strategic Reality. Norway: Fagbokforlaget. pp. 121-140.
    26. Lee, P. (2015). Drone wars. In P. Lee, Truth Wars: The Politics of Climate Change, Military Intervention and Financial Crisis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 114-129
    27. Lee, P. (2017). Submission of evidence to the all party Parliamentary Group Drones: How are RAF Reaper (drone) operators affected by the conduct of recent and ongoing operations?. Appgdrones.org.uk. [online]. Available: http://appgdrones.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/08/Dr-Peter-Lee-Submission-to-APPG-Inquiry.pdf. Last accessed 16 June 2017.
    28. MacAskill, E. (2017). RAF drone strike disrupted public killing staged by Isis, says MoD. The Guardian. [online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/16/raf-drone-strike-disrupted-public-killing-staged-by-isis-says-mod. Last accessed: 1 August 2017.
    29. Milliken, J. (1999). The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods. European Journal of International Relations 5(2): 225-254.
    30. Pittman, V. (2013). The new face of American serial killers: drone operators. SOTT. [online]. Available: http://www.sott.net/article/261394-The-new-face-of-American-serial-killers-drone-operators. Last accessed 10 March 2015.
    31. Sauer F. and N. Schörnig (2012). Killer drones: The ‘silver bullet’ of democratic warfare?. Security Dialogue 43(4): 363-380.
    32. Singer, P.W. (2011). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin.
    33. Wall, T. and T. Monahan (2011). Surveillance and violence from afar: The politics of drones and liminal security-scapes. Theoretical Criminology 15(3): 239-254.
    34. Williams, B.G. (2010). The CIA’s covert predator drone war in Pakistan, 2004-2010: The history of an assassination campaign. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 33: 871-892.
    35. Williams, J. (2015). Distant intimacy : space, drones, and just war. Ethics and International Affairs 29(1): 93-110.
    36. Wilson, G.I. (2011). The psychology of killer drones – action against our foes; reaction affecting us. Fabiusmaximus.com. [online]. Available: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2011/ 09/28/29263/. Last accessed 17 March 2015.
    37. Woods, C. (2015). Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars. London: C Hurst & Co.

 

 

SPEECH PRESENTATION AND SUMMARY IN THE BBC NEWS ONLINE COVERAGE OF A RUSSIAN TV INTERVIEW WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN Pages 79-96

Brian Walker & Tatyana Karpenko-Seccombe

Download Full Text

  • This article is interested in discourse presentation which, prototypically, refers to the presentation of speech, writing or thought from an anterior discourse in a posterior discourse. More specifically, the focus here is on the presentation of spoken discourse in a BBC website news story about the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, during an interview on Russian television in 2015. The main concern of the article is the way in which the BBC news website presents Vladimir Putin’s speech in the interview and whether it is faithful to the original. Our analysis shows that the discourse presentation includes/reflects the subjective view of the reporter which at times obscures the original discourse, and affects the way in which the Russian president is represented.

    1. Al-Hejin, B. (2015). Covering Muslim women: Semantic macrostructures in BBC News. Discourse and Communication 9(1): 19-46.
    2. Anderson, P.J. and P. Egglestone (2012). The development of effective quality measures relevant to the future practice of BBC news journalism online. Journalism 13(7): 923–941
    3. BBC (2015). Ukraine conflict: Russia’s Vladimir Putin says war ‘unlikely’. BBC. [online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31596634. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    4. Gabor, I., E. Seymour, and L. Thomas (2009). Is the BBC biased? The corporation and the coverage of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah war. Journalism 10(2): 239-259.
    5. Hermida, A. (2009). The blogging BBC. Journalism Practice 3(3): 268-284.
    6. Ikeo, R. (2009). An elaboration of faithfulness claims in direct writing. Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009): 999-1016.
    7. Ikeo, R. (2012). Misleading speech report in the media with a special reference to an Australian defamation case. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (2012): 1183-1205.
    8. Kay, JB. and L. Salter (2014). Framing the cuts: An analysis of the BBC’s discursive framing of the ConDem cuts agenda. Journalism 15(6): 754-772.
    9. Kremlin (2015a). Интервью ВГТРК. Kremlin. [online]. Available: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/47730. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    10. Kremlin (2015b). Interview with VGTRK. Kremlin. [online]. Available: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/47730. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    11. Leech, G., and M. Short (1981 [2007]). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London; New York: Longman.
    12. McIntyre, D., C. Bellard-Thomson, J. Heywood, A. McEnery, E. Semino, and M. Short (2004). Investigating the presentation of speech, writing and thought in spoken British English: a corpus-based approach. ICAME Journal 28: 49–76.
    13. McIntyre, D., and B. Walker (2011). A corpus based approach to discourse presentation in Early Modern English writing: A preliminary corpus-based investigation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(1): 101–30.
    14. McIntyre, D., and B. Walker (2012). Annotating a corpus of Early Modern English writing for categories of discourse presentation. In F. Manzano (ed.), Unité et Diversité de la linguistique (Les Cahiers du Centre d’Etudes Linguistiques). Lyon: Atelier intégré de publication de l’Université Jean Moulin—Lyon 3. pp. 87–107.
    15. Pander Maat, H., and C. de Jong (2012). How newspaper journalists reframe produce press release information. Journalism 14(3): 348-371.
    16. Piazza, R. and P. Lashmar (2017). Jeremy Corbyn according to the BBC: ideological representation and identity construction of the Labour Party leader. CADAAD Journal 9(2): 120-141.
    17. Semino, E., and M. Short (2004). Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.
    18. Short, M. (1988). Speech presentation, the novel and the press. In W. van Peer (ed.), The Taming of the Text. New York: Routledge. pp 61-81.
    19. Short, M. (1996). Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. London: Longman.
    20. Short, M. (2007). Thought presentation twenty-five years on. Style 41(2): 227–57.
    21. Short, M. (2012). Discourse presentation of speech (and writing but not thought) summary. Language and Literature 21(1): 18–32.
    22. Short, M., E. Semino, and M. Wynne (2002). Revisiting the notion of faithfulness in discourse presentation using a corpus approach. Language and Literature 11(4): 325–55.
    23. Thompson, G. (1996). Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics 17(4): 501-530.
    24. Walker, B., and D. McIntyre (2015). Thinking about the news: Thought presentation in Early Modern English news writing. In P. Baker and T. McEnery (eds.), Corpora and Discourse Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 175-191.
    25. Wilson of Dinton (2005). BBC news coverage of the european union: Independent panel report. BBC. Available: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/
      our_work/govs/independentpanelreport.pdf. Last accessed 18 August 2017.

LAW AND DISCOURSE ON ANARCHIST ACTIVISM: THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN PRAGUE Pages 97-119

Sylva Reznik

Download Full Text

  • In April 2016, the Municipal Court in Prague sentenced Igor Shevtsov, a student anarchist activist of Russian origin, to two years of expulsion from the territory of the Czech Republic, for the crime of supporting others in spraying anarchist slogans onto a prison wall. Using this case, I analyse the discursive construction of the identity of ‘the accused’ in the criminal proceedings of this particular case. The analysis of the court judgement and the related texts (courtroom speeches and media coverage) is conducted from the viewpoint of the disciplines of linguistics (critical discourse analysis) and law (socio-legal research). I work within the framework of the discourse-historical approach (Reisigl and Wodak 2009: 87-121) and identify the nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivation/framing, and intensification/mitigation strategies (Reisigl and Wodak 2001: 31-90) employed by the prosecution, the judge and the defence. These include, for instance, references to Igor Shevtsov as ‘the accused’ or ‘the guilty’ and the topoi (and fallacies) of recidivism or utilitarianism. It is concluded that the sentence might have been influenced by another (unproven) accusation dealt with by the court: Shevtsov was also suspected of throwing a Molotov onto the family house of the Czech Minister of Defence. The court’s simultaneous dealing with the more serious charge discursively reinforced the construction of Shevtsov’s identity as a criminal, probably ‘guilty’ of a terrorist attack.

    1. Act No 141/1961 Coll., Code of Criminal Procedure of the Czech Republic.
    2. Act No 2/1993 Coll., Charter of Fundamentals Rights and Freedoms.
    3. Act No 40/2009 Coll., Criminal Code of the Czech Republic.
    4. Act No 84/1990 Coll., On the Right of Assembly.
    5. AntiFénix (2016). Igor dostal vyhoštění. Antifenix. [online]. Available: https://antifenix.noblogs.org/post/tag/igor/page/3/. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    6. Čápová, H. (2016). Řádné vyhoštění studenta Ševcova. Respekt, [online]. Available: http://www.respekt.cz/tydenik/2016/18/radne-vyhosteni-studenta-sevcova. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    7. Člověk v tísni. (2016). Prohlášení ČVT k případu Igora Ševcova. Člověk v tísni. [online]. Available: https://www.clovekvtisni.cz/cs/clanky/prohlaseni-spolecnosti-clovek-v-tisni-k-pripadu-igora-sevcova. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    8. Cryer, R., T. Hervey, B. Sokhi-Bulley, and A. Bohm (2011). Research Methodologies in EU and International Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
    9. Dolanský, R. (2016). Ševcov – odsoudit za každou cenu. Bez cenzury. [online]. Available: http://bez-cenzury.com/comment/15289. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    10. Ehlich, K. (1993). HIAT: a transcription system for discourse data. In J. Edwards, and M. Lambert (eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 123-148.
    11. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
    12. iDNES (2016a). Anarchista Ševcov může zůstat v Česku, nesmí se ale účastnit demonstrací. iDNES. [online]. Available: https://zpravy.idnes.cz/rozsudek-vrchniho-soudu-nad-sevcovem-d8j-/krimi.aspx?c=A160720_105905_krimi_cen. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    13. iDNES (2016b). Anarchista Ševcov žádá 1,5 milionů korun jako odškodné za vazbu. iDNES. [online]. Available: https://zpravy.idnes.cz/sevcov-zada-odskodne-za-vazbu-d2m-/domaci.aspx?c=A160927_182200_domaci_pku. Last accessed 20 October 2016.
    14. Krzyżanowski, M. (2008). Analyzing focus group discussions. In R. Wodak, and M. Krzyżanowski (eds.), Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. pp. 162-181.
    15. Kuliš, H. (2016). Komu leží v žaludku student Igor Ševcov? E15. [online]. Available: http://student.e15.cz/agora/honza-kulis-komu-lezi-v-zaludku-student-igor-sevcov-1293341. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    16. Municipal Court in Prague (2016). Rozsudek jménem republiky. Ref No: 41T 3/2016. Issued on 27 April 2016.
    17. Němcová, J., J. Feryna, and O. Mazura (2016). Fotogalerie : Soud Ševcova nevyhostí, ale… A2larm. [online]. Available: http://a2larm.cz/2016/07/soud-sevcova-nevyhosti-ale/. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    18. Novinky (2016). Soud zprostil studenta obžaloby z útoku na dům Stropnického. Za sprejerství byl vyhoštěn. Novinky. [online]. Available: https://www.novinky.cz/krimi/401746-soud-zprostil-studenta-obzaloby-z-utoku-na-dum-stropnickeho-za-sprejerstvi-byl-vyhosten.html. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    19. Pánek, J. and M. Nosek (2016). Obžalovaný ruský anarchista: Ani jsem nevěděl, že Česko má ministra obrany. Soud zprostil Ševcova viny z útoku na dům Stropnického, ale vyhostil ho. [online]. Available: http://video.idnes.cz/?idvideo=V160426_104732_zpravodaj_krr. Last accessed 26 October 2017.
    20. Reisigl, M. and R. Wodak (2001). Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
    21. 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 Publications Ltd. pp. 87-121.
    22. Stoegner, K. and R. Wodak (2016). ‘The man who hated Britain’ – the discursive construction of ‘national unity’ in the Daily Mail. Critical Discourse Studies 13(2): 193-209.
    23. United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    24. Wagenaar, W.A. (1996). Anchored narratives: a theory of judicial reasoning, and its consequences. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran and C. Wilson (eds.), Psychology, Law and Criminal Justice. Berlin: de Gruyter. pp. 267-285.
    25. Wodak, R. (2009). The semiotics of racism: A critical discourse-historical analysis. In I. Renkema (ed.), Discourse, of Course: An Overview of Research in Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publshing Company. pp. 311-326.
    26. Wodak, R., R. de Cillia, M. Reisigl, and K. Liebhart (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    27. Wodak, R. and M. Reisigl (2003). Discourse and racism. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tanen, and H. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 372-397.

 

JEREMY CORBYN ACCORDING TO THE BBC: IDEOLOGICAL REPRESENTATION AND IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION OF THE LABOUR PARTY LEADER Pages 120-141

Roberta Piazza & Paul Lashmar

Download Full Text

  • There have been many complaints that the BBC coverage of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn has been partial and biased. This paper is part of an interdisciplinary project on the television representation of Jeremy Corbyn that brings together scholars in the disciplines of linguistics (critical discourse analysis), journalism and politics. The paper is a small scale case study examining the coverage of Jeremy Corbyn’s speech on the 28th September 2016 after he won the leadership by election for the second time in a year. In the first stage we compared the scripting of the reports for the main national UK TV news programmes and the representation of the Labour leader’s identity offered to viewers. In the second, we also evaluate Newsnight, a BBC programme coverage of a slightly different genre, which constructed Corbyn as a particular kind of leader. In addition to the verbal text of the reports, we considered the interplay between the presenter and political correspondent and their tone. This enabled us to broaden our critical discourse analysis to a multimodal investigation and tease out non-textual, nuanced ways of creating partiality. We concluded that some BBC coverage does demonstrate bias and partiality against Corbyn in subtle modes where tone alters the meaning of the script and visuals and the BBC fared badly compared to other mainstream TV news.

    1. Austin, P. (1990). Politeness revisited – the dark side. In A. Bell and J. Holmes (eds.), New Zealand Ways of Speaking English. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. pp. 276-293.
    2. Barber, L. (2015). Here’s to you, Mr Robinson. The Times. [online]. Available: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heres-to-you-mr-robinson-twkntr0n6qb. Last accessed 31 August 2017.
    3. BBC (2017a). Editorial guidelines – Section 4: Impartiality. BBC. [online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/
      editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    4. BBC (2017b). Sky stops broadcasting Fox News in UK. BBC. [online]. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41087659. Last access 23 October 2017.
    5. Bednarek, M., and H. Caple (2017). The Discourse of News Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    6. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    7. Bubel, C. (2008). Film audiences as overhearers. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 50-71.
    8. Blulmer, J.G., and M. Gurevitch (1995). The Crisis of Public Communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
    9. Cammaerts, B., DeCillia, B., Magalhães J., and Jimenez-Martínez, C. (2016a). Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press: From watchdog to attackdog. LSE. [online]. Available: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/
      Cobyn-Report.pdf. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    10. Cammaerts, B., DeCillia, B., Magalhães J., and Jimenez-Martínez, C. (2016b). Journalistic representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press: From watchdog to attackdog. LSE. [online]. Available: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    11. Coates, J. (2015). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. London & New York: Routledge.
    12. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    13. Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield, and A. Wichmann (2003). Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10-11): 1545-1579.
    14. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London:Rutledge.
    15. Galtung, N., and M. Ruge (1965). The structure of Foreign News: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crisis in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of International Peace Research 1: 64-91.
    16. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    17. Harcup, T., and D. O’Neill (2001). What is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism Studies 2 (2) : 261-280.
    18. Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 345–365.
    19. Jaworski, A., and J. Coupland (2005). Othering in gossip: ‘you go out you have a laugh and you can pull yeah okay but like…’. Language in Society 34, 667–694.
    20. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. New York: Academic Press. pp. 219-249.
    21. Jones, D. (1990). Gossip: notes on women’s oral culture. In D. Cameron (ed.), The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. London: Routledge. pp. 242-51.
    22. Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London/New York: Routledge.
    23. Lachenicht, L.G. (1980). Aggravating language: a study of abusive and insulting language. International Journal of Human Communication 13(4): 607-688.
    24. Leech, G., and M. Short (1981 [2007]). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London/New York: Longman.
    25. Martin, J. (2001). Appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston, and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 142-175.
    26. Martin, J.R., C. Matthiessen, and C. Painter (1997). Working with Functional Grammar. New York: St. Martin Press.
    27. Martin, J.R., and P.R.R. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    28. Mason, R. (2016). BBC may have shown bias against Corbyn. The Guardian. [online]. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/bbc-bias-labour-sir-michael-lyons. Last accessed 31 August 2017.
    29. Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power. London/New York: Continuum.
    30. Media Reform Coalition (2015). Corbyn’s first week: Negative agenda setting in the press. Media Reform. [online]. Available: http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/
      uploads/2015/11/CorbynCoverageUPDATED.pdf. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    31. Media Reform Coalition (2016). Should he stay or should he go? Television and online news coverage of the Labour Party in crisis. Media Reform. [online]. Available: http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf. Last accessed 20 October 2017.
    32. Newman, N., R. Fletcher, A. Kalogeropoulos, D.A.L. Levy, and R.K. Nielsen (2017). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2017. Oxford: Reuters Institute. Available: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdf. Last accessed 4 September 2017.
    33. Piazza, R. (2009). News is reporting what was said: techniques and patterns of attribution. In L. Haarman, and L. Lombardo (eds.), Evaluation and Stance in War News. London/New York: Continuum. pp. 170-195.
    34. Robles, J. (2017). Exclusion in gossipy talk: Highjacking the preference structure for ingroup belonging. CADAAD Journal 9(2): 5-22.
    35. Scholsberg, J. (2016). Should he stay or should he go? Television and Online News Coverage of the Labour Party in Crisis. London: Media Reform Coalition. Available: http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Corbynresearch.pdf. Last seen 4th Sept 2017.
    36. Short, M., E. Semino, and M. Wynne (2002). Revisiting the notion of faithfulness in discourse presentation using a corpus approach. Language and Literature 11(4): 325–355.
    37. Sperber, D., and D. Wilson (1995). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    38. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. International Journal of Press/Politics 13: 228-246.
    39. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction. London/New York: Longman.
    40. Thornborrow, J., and D. Morris (2004). Gossip as strategy: The management of talk about others on reality TV show ‘Big Brother’. Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(2): 246–271.
    41. Walker, B., and Karpenko-Seccombe, T. (2017). What did Putin really say? Discourse presentation in BBC News coverage of an interview with Vladimir Putin for Russian TV. CADAAD Journal 9(2): 76-96.

     

HOW TO CONDUCT A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Pages 142-153

Simon Goodman

Download Full Text

  • This paper provides an overview to conducting discourse analysis (DA) as used in Discursive Psychology. The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap left by there being a lack of useful accounts of how to conduct and write up this type of discourse analysis. It begins by outlining the discursive psychological approach and its claim that analysts should focus on what is accomplished in talk, rather than addressing what this talk may tell us about people’s cognitions. Following this theoretical introduction there is a step by step guide to conducting discourse analysis. This eight-point guide covers 1) deciding on an appropriate question for discourse analysis, 2) picking appropriate data sources for analysis, 3) generating a corpus, 4) transcribing the data, 5) preliminary reading – searching for the action orientation, 6) generating results – discursive devices and rhetorical/interactional strategies, 7) building a case to support the findings, and finally, 8) report writing.

    1. Abell, J., and E.H. Stokoe (2001). Broadcasting the royal role: Constructing culturally situated identities in the Princess Diana panorama interview. British Journal of Social Psychology 40(3): 417-435.
    2. Atkinson, J.M., and J. Heritage (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    3. Augoustinos, M., and D. Every (2007). The language of contemporary racism. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(2): 123-141.
    4. Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D. Middleton, and A. Radley (1988). Ideological Dilemmas: A Social Psychology of Everyday Thinking. London: Sage.
    5. Braun, V., and V. Clarke (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77-10.
    6. Clarke, V., and C. Kitzinger (2004). Lesbian and gay parents on talk shows: resistance or collusion in heterosexism? Qualitative Research in Psychology 1: 195-217.
    7. Clarke, V., C. Kitzinger, and J. Potter (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway’: lesbian and gay parents talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology 43(4): 531-550.
    8. Coolican, H. (2009). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. London: Hodder Education.
    9. Dixon, J., M. Levine, and R. McAuley (2006). Locating impropriety: Street drinking, moral order, and the ideological dilemma of public space. Political Psychology 27: 187–206.
    10. Edwards, D., and A. Fasulo (2006). ’To be honest’: sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in-interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction 39(4): 343-376.
    11. Edwards, D., and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
    12. Forrester, M. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research in Psychology: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
    13. Goodman, S (2007). Constructing asylum seeking families. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1(1): 35-49.
    14. Goodman, S (2008). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology 5: 265-275.
    15. Goodman, S (2010). ‘It’s not racist to impose limits on immigration’: Constructing the boundaries of racism in the asylum and immigration debate. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 4(1): 1-17.
    16. Goodman, S., and S. Burke (2010). ‘Oh you don’t want asylum seekers, oh you’re just racist’: A discursive analysis of discussions about whether it’s racist to oppose asylum seeking. Discourse and Society 21: 325–340.
    17. Goodman, S., and S. Speer (2007). Category use in the construction of asylum seekers. Critical Discourse Studies 4: 165-185.
    18. Goodman, S., and S. Speer (2015). Natural and contrived data. In C. Tileaga, and E. Stokoe (eds.), Discursive Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Abingdon: Routledge. pp. 57-69.
    19. Harper, D.J., J. O’Connor, P. Self, and P. Stevens (2008). Learning to use discourse analysis on a professional psychology training programme: Accounts of supervisees and a supervisor. Qualitative Research in Psychology 5(3): 192-213.
    20. Lea, S., and T. Auburn (2001). The social construction of rape in the talk of a convicted rapist. Feminism and Psychology 11: 11-33.
    21. Leudar, I., J. Hayes, J. Nekvapil, and J. Turner Baker (2008). Hostility themes in media, community and refugee narratives. Discourse and Society 19: 187-221.
    22. Lynn, N., and S.J. Lea (2003). ‘A phantom menace and the new apartheid’: The social construction of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. Discourse and Society 14: 425-452.
    23. Lyons, E., and A. Coyle (2007). Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology. London: Sage.
    24. Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and the constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In J.E. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: BPS Books. pp. 125-140.
    25. Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage. pp. 144-160.
    26. Potter, J., and A. Hepburn (2010). Putting aspiration into words: ‘laugh particles’, managing descriptive trouble and modulating action. Journal of Pragmatics 42(6): 1543-1555.
    27. Potter, J., and M. Wetherell (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Sage.
    28. Seymour-Smith, S., M. Wetherell, and A. Phoenix (2002). ‘’My wife ordered me to come!’: A discursive analysis of doctors’ and nurses’ accounts of men’s use of general practitioners. Journal of Health Psychology 7: 253–267.
    29. Silverman, D. (2011). Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
    30. Smith, J., P. Flowers, and M. Larkin (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method, Research. London: Sage.
    31. Speer, S. (2002). ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: a sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies 4: 511-525.
    32. Speer, S., and J. Potter (2000). The management of heterosexist talk: Conversational resources and prejudiced claims. Discourse and Society 11: 543-572.
    33. Stokoe, E. (2003). Mothers, single women and sluts: Gender, morality and membership categorization in neighbour disputes. Feminism & Psychology 13: 317-344.
    34. Stokoe, E., and D. Edwards (2006). Story formulations in talk-in-interaction. Narrative Inquiry 16: 56–65.
    35. Teräsahjo, T., and C. Salmivalli (2003). ‘She is not actually bullied’: the discourse of harassment in student groups. Aggressive Behaviour 29: 134–154.
    36. Wetherell, M., and N. Edley (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology 9(3): 335–356.
    37. Wetherell, M., and J. Potter (1992). Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
    38. Wiggins, S., and J. Potter (2007). Discursive psychology. In C. Willig, and M. Stainton-Rogers (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage. pp. 73-90.

     

BOOK REVIEWS Page 154-160

Download Full Text

Arianna Maiorani:

Way, L.C.S., and S. Mckerrell (eds.) (2017). Music As Multimodal Discourse: Semiotics, Power and Protest. London/New York: Bloomsbury. 229 pages; ISBN: 9781474264426 (hbk); Price: £95 (hbk).

    1. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
    2. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Londond: Routledge.
    3. Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
    4. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) (revised by C.M.I.M. Matthiessen). London: Edward Arnold.
    5. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practices (2nd ed.). Oxford: OUP.
    6. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.
    7. Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    8. Kress, G., and T. van Leeuwen. (2006). Reading Images. London: Routledge.
    9. Machin, D. (2007). Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Hodder Arnold.
    10. Machin, D. (2013). What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies 10(4): 347-353.
    11. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. pp. 63-94.

     

Sam Browse:

Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury. 208 pages; ISBN: 9781441160669 (pbk); Price: £27.99 (pbk).

    1. Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    2. Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
    3. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
    4. Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 1: 123-131.
    5. Gavins, J. (2007). Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    6. Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.
    7. Koller, V. (2005). Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: The evidence from business media discourse. Discourse and Society 16(2): 199-224.
    8. Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    9. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    10. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    11. Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    12. Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
    13. Stockwell, P. (2002) Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction. London; New York: Routledge
    14. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    15. Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. New York: Longman.
    16. Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches to CDA. Discourse Studies 8(1): 179-190.