1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Language and Politics
  4. Volume 24, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article falls within the conceptual framework of critical discourse studies and cognitive linguistics whose attention has focused on the discourse found in the public sphere on the topic of migration. I will demonstrate the results of my analysis of a corpus composed of 74 opinion articles that were published in a Spanish regional newspaper between August 2020 and February 2021. All of them focus on the same issue: the mass arrival of irregular migrants at one of Europe’s outermost borders, the Canary Islands, and the social, political and economic strain that this is generating. The results of this analysis indicate that the periphrastic auxiliary verb (can/could/might) constitutes an essential resource for the way in which knowledge is managed by the authors whose intention is to fuel the debate by guiding the conceptualisation of reality of readers who do not have perceptual access to the events described.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.22012.dia
2024-03-29
2025-06-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jlp.22012.dia
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, Paul
    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 & Society19 (3): 273–306. 10.1177/0957926508088962
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bañón Hernández, Antonio
    2007 “El discurso periodístico a propósito del viaje de los inmigrantes pobres”, InDiscursos sobre la inmigración en España. Los medios de comunicación, los parlamentos, y las administraciones, edited byR. Zapata-Barrero and T. A. Van Dijk. 45–68, Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
    1989 “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect”. Text9 (1): 93–12.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boogaart, Ronny, and Egbert Fortuin
    2016 “Modality and mood in Cognitive Linguistics and Construction Grammars”. InThe Oxford handbook of Modality and mood, edited byJ. Nuyts. and J. Van Der Auwera. 514–659. Oxford: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Buonfino, Alessandra
    2004 “Between unity and plurality: the politicization and securitization of the discourse of immigration in Europe”. New Political Science26 (1): 23–49. 10.1080/0739314042000185111
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0739314042000185111 [Google Scholar]
  6. Burguers, Christian
    2012 “Verbal irony: Differences in usage across written genres”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology31 (3): 290–310. 10.1177/0261927X12446596
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X12446596 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coates, Jennifer
    1983 The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Casero Ripollés, Andreu
    2007 “Discurso mediático, inmigración e ilegalidad: legitimar la exclusión a través de la noticia”. InDiscursos sobre la inmigración en España. Los medios de comunicación, los parlamentos, y las administraciones, edited byR. Zapata-Barrero and T. A. Van Dijk. 69–92, Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Collyer, Michael
    2014 Introduction Transit Migrations and European Spaces. InTransit Migrations in Europa, edited byF. Düvell , 1–33. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cornillie, Bert
    2005 “On modal grounding, reference points, and subjectification. The case of the Spanish epistemic modals”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics31: 56–77. 10.1075/arcl.3.05cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.05cor [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi)Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110204483
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110204483 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2010 “On conceptual semantics and discourse functions. The case of Spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics8 (2): 300–320. 10.1075/ml.8.2.03cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.2.03cor [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois, John
    2007 “The stance triangle”. InStancetaking in discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, edited byR. Englebretson. 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  14. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2006 “Britain as a container: immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign”. Discourse & Society17 (5): 563–581. 10.1177/0957926506066345
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506066345 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2018 Analysing political discourse. Rhetoric, discourse, and metaphor. London: Palgrave.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Chilton, Paul
    2004 Analysing Political Discourse Theory and practice. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
    2014 Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitneva, Stanka
    2001 “Epistemic marking and reliability judgments. Evidence from Bulgarian”. Journal of Pragmatics331: 401–420. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00010‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00010-2 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fuentes, Catalina
    1991 “Adverbios de modalidad”. Verba181: 275–231.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. García-Miguel, José
    2005 “Verbos aspectuales en español. La interacción de significado verbal y significado construccional”. In Estudos em Homenagem ao Professor Doutor Mário Vilela, edited byG. M. Rio-Torto, , 405–418, Porto: Universidade do Porto.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gómez Torrego, Leonardo
    1999 “Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo”. InGramática descriptiva de la lengua españolaVol.21, edited byI. Bosque, and V. Demonte. 3323–3390, Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hart, Christopher
    2010 Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science. New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230299009
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2011a “Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration”. Discourse Studies13 (6): 751–769. 10.1177/1461445611421360
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011b “Moving beyond Metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA: Construal Operations in Immigration Discourse”. InCritical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, edited byCh. Hart. 171–192, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.09har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.09har [Google Scholar]
  25. 2021 “Animals vs. armies: Resistance to extreme metaphors in anti-immigration discourse”. Journal of Language and Politics20 (2): 226–253. 10.1075/jlp.20032.har
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20032.har [Google Scholar]
  26. 2023 “Frames, framing and framing effects in cognitive CDA”. Discourse Studies25 (2): 247–258. 10.1177/14614456231155071
     https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231155071 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins, Bruce
    2001 Ideology, metaphor and iconographic references”. InLanguage and ideology. Volume II: Descriptive cognitive approaches, edited byR. Dirven , 27–50, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.205.03haw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.03haw [Google Scholar]
  28. Iyengar, Shanto
    1996 “Framing Responsibility for Political Issues”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science5461: 59–70. 10.1177/0002716296546001006
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296546001006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Koller, Veronika
    2005 “Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse”. Discourse & Society16 (2): 199–224. 10.1177/0957926505049621
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049621 [Google Scholar]
  30. Krzyżanowski, Michał
    2018 “Discursive Shifts in Ethno-Nationalist Politics: On Politicization and Mediatization of the “Refugee Crisis” in Poland”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16 (1–2): 76–96, 10.1080/15562948.2017.1317897
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1317897 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2020 “Discursive shifts and the normalisation of racism: imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right wing populism”. Social Semiotics30 (4): 503–527. 10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2020.1766199 [Google Scholar]
  32. Krzyżanowski, Michał, Triandafyllidou, Anna, and Ruth Wodak
    2018 “The Mediatization and the Politicization of the “Refugee Crisis” in Europe”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies16 (1–2): 1–14. 10.1080/15562948.2017.1353189
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1353189 [Google Scholar]
  33. Langacker, Ronald
    1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 1990, Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar”. Cognitive Linguistics12 (2): 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. 2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2010 “Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar”, International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics1 (1): 31–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 “Modals: Striving for control”. InEnglish Modality. Core, periphery and evidentialityedited byJ. Marín-Arrese , 3–57, Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110286328.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328.3 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2019 Levels of reality. Langages4 (22).
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons, John
    1977 Semántica lingüística. Barcelona: Paidós.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Marín Arrese, Juana
    2011 “Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse. Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility”. InCritical discourse studies in context and cognition, edited byCh. Hart. 193–223, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.10mar [Google Scholar]
  43. Martín Rojo, Lucía
    2000 “enfrentamiento y consenso en los debates parlamentarios sobre la política de inmigración en España”. Oralia31: 113–148. 10.25115/oralia.v3i1.8510
     https://doi.org/10.25115/oralia.v3i1.8510 [Google Scholar]
  44. Musolff, Andreas
    2011 “Migration, media and “deliberate” metaphors”. Metaphorik.de211: 1–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 2015 “Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict3 (1): 41–56. 10.1075/jlac.3.1.02mus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.3.1.02mus [Google Scholar]
  46. Nuyts, Jan
    2001 “Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions”. Journal of Pragmatics331: 383–400. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2012 “Notions of (inter)subjectivity”. English Text Construction5 (1): 53–76. 10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy [Google Scholar]
  48. 2016 “Analyses of the modal meanings”. InThe Oxford handbook of modality and mood, edited byJ. Nuyts, and J. Van Der Auwera. 31–49, Oxford: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Palmer, F. R.
    2001 Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pelyvás, Péter
    2001 “On the development of the category modal: a cognitive view. How changes in image-schematic structure led to the emergence of the grounding predication”. InWort und (Kon)text, edited byP. Kocsány, and A. Molnár. 103–130, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 2019 “On epistemic and deontic grounding”. Argumentum151: 304–315.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Rausis, Frowin
    2023 “Restrictive North versus Permissive South? Revisiting Dominant Narratives on the Evolution of the Refugee Regime”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 10.1080/15562948.2023.2266419
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2023.2266419 [Google Scholar]
  53. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española 2009 Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Reisigl, Martin
    2008 “Rhetoric of political speeches”. InHandbook of communication in the public sphere, edited byR. Wodak and V. Koller. 243–270, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198980.3.243
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198980.3.243 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rheindorf, Markus, and Ruth Wodak
    2018 “Borders, fences, and limits – protecting Austria from refugees: Metadiscursive negotiation of meaning in the current refugee crisis”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16 (1–2): 15–38, 10.1080/15562948.2017.1302032
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1302032 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sanders, José, and Wilben Spooren
    1997 “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View. InDiscourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, edited byW. Liebert , 85–114, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.08san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.08san [Google Scholar]
  57. Sánchez, Cristina
    1999 “La negación”. InGramática descriptiva de la lengua españolaVol.21, edited byI. Bosque, and V. Demonte. 2561–2634, Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Santa Ana, Otto
    1999 “Like an animal I was treated: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse”. Discourse & Society, 10 (2): 191–224. 10.1177/0957926599010002004
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002004 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2019 “The senator’s discriminatory intent. Presenting probative legal evidence of unconstitutional verbal animus”. Language, Culture and Society1 (2): 169–195. 10.1075/lcs.00015.san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00015.san [Google Scholar]
  60. Santa Ana, Otto,
    2020 “’Druggies Drug Dealers Rapists and Killers’. The President’s Verbal Animus against Immigrants”. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies45 (2): 15–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen
    1995 “Contextual conditions for the interpretation of ‘poder’ and ‘deber’ in Spanish”. InModality in grammar and discourse, edited byJ. Bybee, and S. Fleischman. 67–106, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.05sil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.05sil [Google Scholar]
  62. Simaki, Vasiliki,
    2019 “A two-step procedure to identify lexical elements of stance constructions in discourse from political blogs”. Corpora14 (3): 379–405. 10.3366/cor.2019.0179
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2019.0179 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sweetser, Eve
    1982 “Root and epistemic modals: Causality in two worlds”. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics: 484–507
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Talmy, Leonard
    1988 “Force Dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science121: 49–100. 10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  65. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2000 “Ideologies, Racism, Discourse: Debates on Immigration and Ethnic Issues”. InComparative Perspectives on Racism, edited byJ. Ter Wal, and M. Verkuyten. 92–114, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 2001a “Algunos principios de la teoría del contexto”. ALED, Revista latinoamericana de estudios del discurso1 (1): 69–81. 10.35956/v.1.n1.2001.p.69‑81
     https://doi.org/10.35956/v.1.n1.2001.p.69-81 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2001b “Critical discourse analysis”. InThe handbook of discourse analysis, edited byD. Schiffrin , 352–371, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 2008 Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511481499
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 [Google Scholar]
  69. 2011a “Discourse, knowledge, power and politics. Towards critical epistemics discourse analysis”. InCritical discourse studies in context and cognition, edited byCh. Hart. 27–63, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.03van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.03van [Google Scholar]
  70. Van Dik, Teun A.
    2011b Sociedad y discurso, Barcelona: Gedisa.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2014 “Discourse-Cognition-Society. Current state and prospects of the socio-cognitive approach to discourse”. InContemporary Studies in Critical Discourse Analysis, edited byCh. Hart, and P. Cap. 121–146, London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 2016 “Análisis crítico del discurso”. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales301: 203–222. 10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2016.n30‑10
     https://doi.org/10.4206/rev.austral.cienc.soc.2016.n30-10 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2018 “The socio-cognitive discourse studies”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, edited byJ. Flowerdew, and J. Richardson. 26–44, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Wodak, Ruth
    2003 “El enfoque histórico del discurso”. InMétodos de análisis crítico del discurso, edited byR. Wodak, and M. Mayer. 101–141, Barcelona: Gedisa.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 2006 “Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in CDA”. Discourse Studies8 (1): 179–190. 10.1177/1461445606059566
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059566 [Google Scholar]
  76. 2008 “The contribution of critical linguistics to the analysis of discriminatory prejudices and stereotypes in the language of politics”. InHandbook of communication in the public sphere, edited byR. Wodak and V. Koller. 291–316, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198980.3.291
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198980.3.291 [Google Scholar]
  77. Wodak, Ruth and Martin Reisigl
    2001 “Discourse and racism”. InThe handbook of discourse analysis, edited byD. Schiffrin , 372–397, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zapata-Barrero, Ricard, and Teun A. Van Dijk
    2007 “Introducción: inmigración y discurso”. InDiscursos sobre la inmigración en España. Los medios de comunicación, los parlamentos, y las administraciones, edited byR. Zapata-Barrero and T. A. Van Dijk. 9–16, Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.22012.dia
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): cognitive grammar; discriminatory discourse; epistemic control; modality; stance

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error