Polarisation in Venezuelan presidential tweets

References

1. Adrián, Thays
   2013 “Divide y Vencerás: La Antonimia Como Estrategia Ideológica de Polarización En El Discurso de Hugo Chávez Frías.” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Del Discurso (): –. 10.35956/v.13.n1.2013.p.9‑32
   https://doi.org/10.35956/v.13.n1.2013.p.9-32 [Google Scholar]
2. Ahmed, Mervat
   2021 “Polarization and Negative-Other ‘China’ Presentation in US President Trump’s COVID-19 Tweets: A Critical Discourse Analysis.” Cairo Studies in English (): –. 10.21608/cse.2022.48320.1079
   https://doi.org/10.21608/cse.2022.48320.1079 [Google Scholar]
3. Al-Ghazzi, Omar
   2021 “We Will Be Great Again: Historical Victimhood in Populist Discourse.” European Journal of Cultural Studies (): –. 10.1177/1367549420985851
   https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420985851 [Google Scholar]
4. Álvarez, Alexandra, and Irma Chumaceiro
   2010 “¡Con La Iglesia Hemos Topado…! Aspectos de Una Interacción Polémica Entre El Presidente Chávez y El Cardenal Urosa Savino.” ALED (): –.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Arcimavičienė, Liudmila
   2019 “Self and Other Metaphors as Facilitating Features of Populist Style in Diplomatic Discourse: A Case Study of Obama and Putin’s Speeches.” InPopulist Discourse: International Perspectives, edited byMarcia Macaulay, –. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑97388‑3_4
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97388-3_4 [Google Scholar]
6. Baider, Fabienne H., and Maria Constantinou
   2014 “Language of Cyber-Politics: ‘Imaging/Imagining’ Communities.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics (): –. 10.1515/lpp‑2014‑0012
   https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2014-0012 [Google Scholar]
7. Boeynaems, Amber, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen
   2017 “The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review.” Metaphor and Symbol (): –. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623
   https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623 [Google Scholar]
8. Bolívar, Adriana
   2013 “Los Pronombres Personales En La Dinámica Del Discurso Político.” Estudios Del Discurso En América Latina. Homenaje a Ana María Harvey, no.: –.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bouvier, Gwen, and Judith E. Rosenbaum
   eds. 2020 Twitter, the Public Sphere, and the Chaos of Online Deliberation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑41421‑4
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41421-4 [Google Scholar]
10. Breeze, Ruth
    2019 “Emotion in Politics: Affective-Discursive Practices in UKIP and Labour.” Discourse and Society (): –. 10.1177/0957926518801074
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518801074 [Google Scholar]
11. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2004 Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230000612
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612 [Google Scholar]
12. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2011 Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. 2nd edn.Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230319899
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899 [Google Scholar]
13. Chilton, Paul
    2004 Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
14. Chun, Christian W.
    2016 “Exploring Neoliberal Language, Discourses and Identities.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and Identity, edited bySiân Preece, –. 10.4324/9781315669816
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669816 [Google Scholar]
15. Coesemans, Roel, and Barbara De Cock
    2017 “Self-Reference by Politicians on Twitter: Strategies to Adapt to 140 Characters.” Journal of Pragmatics: –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005 [Google Scholar]
16. Conger, Kate
    2023 “So What Do We Call Twitter Now Anyway?” The New York Times 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/technology/twitter-x-tweets-elon-musk.html
    [Google Scholar]
17. Connett, Ricardo
    2022 “La Construcción de Las Identidades Políticas En El Discurso Populista de Hugo Chávez . Un Análisis Basado En Los Estudios Del Discurso Asistido Por Corpus.” Ñemitỹrã. Revista Multilingüe de Lengua, Sociedad y Educación (): –. 10.47133/NEMITYRA2022d30A7
    https://doi.org/10.47133/NEMITYRA2022d30A7 [Google Scholar]
18. Darics, Erika, and Veronika Koller
    2019 “Social Actors ‘to Go’: An Analytical Toolkit to Explore Agency in Business Discourse and Communication.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly (): –. 10.1177/2329490619828367
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619828367 [Google Scholar]
19. Deignan, Alice
    2005 Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
20. Deignan, Alice
    2010 “The Evaluative Properties of Metaphors.” InResearching and Applying Metaphor in the Real World, edited byGraham Low, Zazie Todd, Alice Deignan, and Lynne Cameron, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.26.21dei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.26.21dei [Google Scholar]
21. Donohue, William, and Mark Hamilton
    2022 “A Framework for Understanding Polarizing Language.” The Routledge Handbook of Language and Persuasion, edited byJeanne Fahnestock, and Randy Allen Harris, –. 10.4324/9780367823658‑14
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367823658-14 [Google Scholar]
22. Erdogan-Ozturk, Yasemin, and Hale Isik-Guler
    2020 “Discourses of Exclusion on Twitter in the Turkish Context: #ülkemdesuriyeliistemiyorum (#idontwantsyriansinmycountry).” Discourse, Context and Media: . 10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100400
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100400 [Google Scholar]
23. Evolvi, Giulia
    2017 “#Islamexit: Inter-Group Antagonism on Twitter.” Information Communication and Society (): –. 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1388427
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1388427 [Google Scholar]
24. Filardo-Llamas, Laura, Esperanza Morales-López, and Alan Floyd
    eds. 2021 Discursive Approaches to Socio-Political Polarization and Conflict. Preprint. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003094005
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003094005 [Google Scholar]
25. Flusberg, Stephen J., Teenie Matlock, and Paul H. Thibodeau
    2018 “War Metaphors in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol (): –. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1407992
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1407992 [Google Scholar]
26. Gadavanij, Savitri
    2020 “Contentious Polities and Political Polarization in Thailand: Post-Thaksin Reflections.” Discourse and Society (): –. 10.1177/0957926519877695
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519877695 [Google Scholar]
27. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar
    2010 “The YouTubification of Politics, Impoliteness and Polarization.” InHandbook of Research on Discourse Behavior and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction, edited byRotimi Taiwo, –. Hershey: IGI Global. 10.4018/978‑1‑61520‑773‑2.ch035
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-773-2.ch035 [Google Scholar]
28. Goatly, Andrew
    2007 Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
29. Hampe, Beate
    ed. 2005 From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197532
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532 [Google Scholar]
30. Hart, Christopher
    2011 “Moving beyond Metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA.” InCritical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, edited byChristopher Hart, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.09har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.09har [Google Scholar]
31. Hart, Christopher
    2018 “Cognitive Linguistic Critical Discourse Studies: Connecting Language and Image.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, edited byRuth Wodak, and Bernhard Forchtner, –. 10.4324/9781315183718
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315183718 [Google Scholar]
32. Hurst, Luke
    2023 “‘More Toxic, Less Valuable, Less Useful’: Twitter’s Year of Transformation to X under Elon Musk.” Euronews Next 2023 https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/10/27/more-toxic-less-valuable-less-useful-twitters-year-of-transformation-to-x-under-elon-musk
    [Google Scholar]
33. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubícek, Vojtech Kovár, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel
    2014 “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On.” Lexicography (): –. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
34. Koller, Veronika
    2008 “Corporate Brands as Socio-Cognitive Representations.” InCognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, edited byGitte Kristiansen, and René Dirven, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199154.4.389
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.4.389 [Google Scholar]
35. Koller, Veronika
    2012 “How to Analyse Collective Identity in Discourse – Textual and Contextual Parameters.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Koller, Veronika
    2014 “Applying Social Cognition Research to Critical Discourse Studies: The Case of Collective Identities.” InContemporary Critical Discourse Studies, edited byChristopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, –. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781472593634.ch‑006
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472593634.ch-006 [Google Scholar]
37. Kreis, Ramona
    2017 “The ‘Tweet Politics’ of President Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics (): –. 10.1075/jlp.17032.kre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17032.kre [Google Scholar]
38. Krendel, Alexandra, Mark McGlashan, and Veronika Koller
    2022 “The Representation of Gendered Social Actors Across Five Manosphere Communities on Reddit.” Corpora (): –. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/155332/5/The_representation_of_gendered_social_actors_across_five_manosphere_communities_on_Reddit_clean.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
39. Lakoff, George
    1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo3632089.html. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
40. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
42. Li, Tao, and Yifan Zhu
    2020 “How Does China Appraise Self and Others? A Corpus-Based Analysis of Chinese Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society (): –. 10.1177/0957926519880036
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519880036 [Google Scholar]
43. Musolff, Andreas
    2016 Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/political-metaphor-analysis-9781441160669/
    [Google Scholar]
44. Over, Harriet, and Cade McCall
    2018 “Becoming Us and Them: Social Learning and Intergroup Bias.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass (): . 10.1111/spc3.12384
    https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12384 [Google Scholar]
45. Peterssen, Silvia
    2022 “Ideological Polarisation in the Venezuelan Presidential Crisis.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines (): –. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/journals/cadaad/volume-14-2022/
    [Google Scholar]
46. Peterssen, Silvia, and Augusto Soares da Silva
    2023 “Polarising Metaphors in the Venezuelan Presidential Crisis.” Journal of Language and Politics. 10.1075/jlp.22169.pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22169.pet [Google Scholar]
47. Peterssen, Silvia, and Augusto Soares da Silva
    . In press. Polarising metaphors in far-right populist tweets: A comparative cross-linguistic study. InMetaphor in Social-political Contexts: Critical, Socio-Cognitive Approaches edited by Manuela Romano. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Romano, Manuela, and Maria Dolores Porto
    eds. 2016 Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027267221. 10.1075/pbns.262
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.262 [Google Scholar]
49. Salamurović, Aleksandra
    2020 “Metonymy and the Conceptualisation of Nation in Political Discourse.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (): –. 10.1515/gcla‑2020‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2020-0011 [Google Scholar]
50. Semino, Elena
    2017 “Corpus Linguistics and Metaphor.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, edited byBarbara Dancygier, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.029 [Google Scholar]
51. Sharifian, Farzad
    2011 Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
52. Soares da Silva, Augusto, Maria Josep Cuenca, and Manuela Romano
    2017 “The Conceptualisation of Austerity in the Portuguese, Spanish and Irish Press.” InAdvances in Cultural Linguistics, edited byFarzad Sharifian, –. Singapore: Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_16 [Google Scholar]
53. Squires, Lauren
    2015 “Twitter: Design, Discourse, and the Implications of Public Text.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, edited byAlexandra Georgakopoulou, and Tereza Spilioti, –. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315694344
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315694344 [Google Scholar]
54. Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, and Trijntje Pasma
    2010 A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
55. Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries
    eds. 2006 Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lancaster/detail.action?docID=280194. 10.1515/9783110199895
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895 [Google Scholar]
56. Talmy, Leonard
    1988 “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.” Cognitive Science (): –. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
57. Taylor, Charlotte, and Anna Marchi
    eds. 2018 Corpus Approaches to Discourse. A Critical Review. Abingdon: Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Corpus-Approaches-to-Discourse-A-Critical-Review/Taylor-Marchi/p/book/9781138895805
    [Google Scholar]
58. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage. 10.4135/9781446217856
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217856 [Google Scholar]
59. van Dijk, Teun A.
    2018 “Socio-Cognitive Discourse Studies.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, edited byJohn Flowerdew, and John E. Richardson, –. Abingdon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315739342‑3
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342-3 [Google Scholar]
60. van Leeuwen, Theo
    2008 Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
61. Waisbord, Silvio, and Adriana Amado
    2017 “Populist Communication by Digital Means: Presidential Twitter in Latin America.” Information Communication and Society (): –. 10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328521
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328521 [Google Scholar]
62. Wirth-Koliba, Victoria
    2016 “The Diverse and Dynamic World of ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in Political Discourse.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (): –. cadaad.net/%5Cnwww.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/journals/cadaad/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Volume-8_Wirth-Koliba.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
63. Zappavigna, Michele
    2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum. 10.5040/9781472541642
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472541642 [Google Scholar]