Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This Special Issue expands on the ongoing dialogue on the decolonial project by bringing together thought-provoking papers that examine the communication of female political leaders in the Global South. It draws on data from West Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Middle East to elucidate how female politicians deploy language (including multimodal forms) to position themselves in the political arena and utilize linguistic resources to navigate the discursive practices associated with their political roles and responsibilities. The issue offers a critical discursive perspective on the complex interplay of gender, culture and political leadership, and holds implications for how key issues such as voice, agency, solidarity and empowerment are conceptualized and enacted in specific sociocultural contexts. It also contributes to overcoming epistemicide by decentring knowledge production and underscoring the importance of valuing and engaging with different knowledge systems, especially non-Western epistemologies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Achugar, Mariana
    2021 “Understanding racist discourse practices from the Global South: (re)scaling power and meaning making”. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 76–108. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1754872
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1754872 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed, Yunana
    2021 “Political discourse analysis: a decolonial approach”. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 139–155. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1755707
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1755707 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahrens, Kathleen
    ed. 2009Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors. Palgrave- MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230245235
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahrens, Kathleen and Lee, Sophia
    2009 “Gender versus politics: When conceptual models collide in the US senate”. InPolitics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, edited byKathleen Ahrens, pp.62–82. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alam, Zainab
    2021 “Violence against women in politics: The case of Pakistani women’s activism”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(1): 21–46. 10.1075/jlac.00052.ala
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00052.ala [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, Jemimah, Diabah, Grace and hMensa, Patience
    2011 “Powerful women in powerless language: Media misrepresentation of African women in politics (the case of Liberia)”. Journal of Pragmatics43(10): 2509–2518. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Archakis, Argiris
    2014 “Immigrant voices in students’ essay texts: Between assimilation and pride”. Discourse & Society25(3): 297–314. 10.1177/0957926513519539
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513519539 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981 “Discourse in the novel”. InThe Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, edited byMichael Holquist, pp.269–422. University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1986Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bardall, Gabrielle
    2018Violence, politics and gender. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.208
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.208 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bhatia, Aditi
    2020 “Exploring the Englishes of world politics”. World Englishes39(4): 544–549. 10.1111/weng.12495
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12495 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolívar, Adriana
    2018Political discourse as dialogue: A Latin American perspective. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bonnin, Juan
    2019 “(Des)afiliación y (des)alineamiento: Procedimientos interaccionales para la producción de voz”. Pragmática Sociocultural7(2): 231–252. 10.1515/soprag‑2019‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2019-0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2021 “Discourse analysis for social change: Voice, agency and hope”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language267/2681: 69–84. 10.1515/ijsl‑2020‑0081
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0081 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1971 “Une interprétation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber”. Archives Européennes de Sociologie12(1): 3–21. 10.1017/S0003975600002174
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600002174 [Google Scholar]
  16. Broughton, Sharon and Palmieri, Sonia
    1999 “Gendered contributions to parliamentary debates: The case of euthanasia”. Australian Political Studies Association34(1): 29–45. 10.1080/10361149950443
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10361149950443 [Google Scholar]
  17. Butler, Judith
    1990Gender trouble. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Charteris-Black, Jonathan
    2005Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230501706
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2009 “Metaphor and gender in British parliamentary debates”. InPolitics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, edited byKathleen Ahrens, pp.139–165. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_7 [Google Scholar]
  20. Corbetta, Christianne, Voelkel, Jan, Cooper, Marianne, and Willer, Robb
    2021 “Pragmatic bias impedes women’s access to political leadership”. PNAS119(6): 1–11. 10.31219/osf.io/5rtbu
    https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/5rtbu [Google Scholar]
  21. de Melo Resende, Viviane
    2021a Decolonizing critical discourse studies – An introduction. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 3–9. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1754870
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1754870 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2021b “Decolonizing critical discourse studies: For a Latin American perspective”. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 10–25. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1754869
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1754869 [Google Scholar]
  23. de Sousa Santos, Boaventura
    2014Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Diabah, Grace
    2022 “Bloody widows? Discourses of tradition and gender in Ghanaian politics”. Discourse & Society33(2): 154–174. 10.1177/09579265221088160
    https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221088160 [Google Scholar]
  25. Diabah, Grace and Agyepong, Dorothy
    2022 “‘The mother of all nations’: Gendered discourses in Ghana’s 2020 elections”’. Social Dynamics48(3): 509–532. 10.1080/02533952.2022.2105568
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2022.2105568 [Google Scholar]
  26. Eckert, Penny and McConnell-Ginet, Sally
    1999 “New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research”. Language in Society281: 185–201. 10.1017/S0047404599002031
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002031 [Google Scholar]
  27. Escobar, Arturo
    2007 “Worlds and knowledges otherwise”. Cultural Studies21(2): 179–210. 10.1080/09502380601162506
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162506 [Google Scholar]
  28. Esposito, Eleonora
    2017 “The mother’s picong: A discursive approach to gender, identity and political leadership in Trinidad and Tobago”. Discourse & Society28(1): 24–41. 10.1177/0957926516676692
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516676692 [Google Scholar]
  29. Esposito, Eleonora and Zollo, Sole
    2021 “‘How dare you call her a pig, I know several pigs who would be upset if they knew’: A multimodal critical discursive approach to online misogyny against UK MPs on YouTube.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(1): 44–75. 10.1075/jlac.00053.esp
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00053.esp [Google Scholar]
  30. Esposito, Eleonora and Breeze, Ruth
    2022 “Gender and politics in a digitalized world: Investigating online hostility against UK female MPs.” Discourse & Society33 (3): 303–323. 10.1177/09579265221076608
    https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265221076608 [Google Scholar]
  31. Esposito, Eleonora
    2022 “The visual semiotics of digital misogyny: female leaders in the Viewfinder”. Feminist Media Studies1–17. 10.1080/14680777.2022.2139279
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2139279 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fairclough, Isabella and Fairclough, Norman
    2012Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fishman, Pamela
    1978 “Interaction: The work women do”. Social Problems251: 397–406. 10.2307/800492
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800492 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gilligan, Carol
    1982In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Henaku, Nancy and Pappoe, Ruby
    2022 “African rhetoric as an emergent subfield: A review of literature and reflections on critical issues. InA Companion to African Rhetoric, edited bySegun Ige, Gilbert Motsaathebe and Omedi Ochiengpp.171–194. Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Holmes, Janet
    1992 “Women’s talk in public contexts”. Discourse & Society3(2): 131–150. 10.1177/0957926592003002001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hughes, Jessica
    2018 “Progressing positive discourse analysis and/in critical discourse studies: Reconstructing resistance through progressive discourse analysis”. Review of Communication18(3):193–211. 10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018.1479880 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jagger, Alison
    2002 “Challenging women’s global inequalities: Some priorities for Western philosophers”. Philosophical Topics30(2): 229–252. 10.5840/philtopics20023022
    https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics20023022 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kathlene, Lyn
    1994 “Power and influence in state legislative policy making: the interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates”. American Political Science Review88(3): 560–576. 10.2307/2944795
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2944795 [Google Scholar]
  40. Koller, Veronika and Semino, Elena
    2009 “Metaphor, politics and gender: A case study from Germany”. InPolitics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, edited byKathleen Ahrens, pp.9–35. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_2
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kopytowska, Monika
    2021 “Xenophobia, misogyny and rape culture: Targeting women in cyberspace”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(1): 76–99. 10.1075/jlac.00054.kop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00054.kop [Google Scholar]
  42. Kuperberg, Rebecca
    2021 “Incongruous and illegitimate: Antisemitic and Islamophobic semiotic violence against women in politics in the United Kingdom”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(1): 100–126. 10.1075/jlac.00055.kup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00055.kup [Google Scholar]
  43. Lakoff, Robin
    1975Language and women’s place. Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lazar, Michelle
    2007 “Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis”. Critical Discourse Studies4(2): 141–164. 10.1080/17405900701464816
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900701464816 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lim, Elvin
    2009 “Gendered metaphors of women in power: The case of Hillary Clinton as Madonna, unruly woman, bitch and witch. InPolitics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, edited byKathleen Ahrens, pp.259–269. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245235_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245235_12 [Google Scholar]
  46. Macedo, Litiane and de Carvalho Figueiredo, Débora
    2021 “‘I can’t use this word feminism because I think it is too strong’: Discourse and evaluative language on feminism in narratives of gender produced by Cape Verdean academics”. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 109–138. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1755708
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1755708 [Google Scholar]
  47. Macgilchrist, Felicitas
    2014 “Media discourse and de/coloniality: A post- foundational approach”. InContemporary Critical Discourse Studies, edited byChristopher Hart and Piotr Caps. pp.385–405. Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2016 “Fissures in the discourse-scape: Critique, rationality and validity in post-foundational approaches to CDS|”. Discourse & Society27(3): 262–277. 10.1177/0957926516630902
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630902 [Google Scholar]
  49. Maltz, Daniel. and Borker, Ruth
    1982 “A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication”. InLanguage and Social Identity, edited byJohn Gumperz, pp.196–216. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Maniglio, Francesco and da Silva, Rosimeire Barboza
    2021 “Critical discourse analysis and the decolonial turn. Why and what for?” Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 156–184. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1754871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1754871 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nartey, Mark
    2021 “A feminist critical discourse analysis of Ghanaian feminist blogs”. Feminist Media Studies21(4): 657–672. 10.1080/14680777.2020.1837910
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2020.1837910 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2022 “Investigating emancipatory discourses in action: The need for an interventionist approach and an activist-scholar posture”. Critical Discourse Studies19(5): 459–464. 10.1080/17405904.2021.1999285
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2021.1999285 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2023aPolitical myth-making, populist performance and nationalist resistance: Examining Kwame Nkrumah’s construction and promotion of the African Dream. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. ed. 2023bVoice, agency and resistance: Emancipatory discourses in action. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003373674
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003373674 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Sabelo
    2018Epistemic freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and decolonization. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429492204
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429492204 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ngula, Richmond
    2021 ‘“If you ride a lame horse into a race’ …: a corpus-based analysis of metaphors in John Mahama’s political speeches”. Language, Discourse & Society9 (2): 157–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nownes, Anthony and Freeman, Patricia
    1998 “Female lobbyists: Women in the world of ‘Good 01’ Boys”. The Journal of politics60(4): 1181–1201. 10.2307/2647737
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2647737 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pérez-Arredondo, Carolina and Graells-Garrido, Eduardo
    2021 “Twitter and abortion: Online hate against pro-choice female politicians in Chile”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(1): 127–154. 10.1075/jlac.00056.per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00056.per [Google Scholar]
  59. Pietikainen, Sari & Dufva, Hannele
    2006 “Voices in discourses: Dialogism, critical discourse analysis and ethnic identity”. Journal of Sociolinguistics10(2): 205–224. 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2006.00325.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00325.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Rasulo, Margaret
    2021 “Are gold hoop earrings and a dab of red lipstick enough to get even Democrats on the offensive? The case of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict9(1): 155–183. 10.1075/jlac.00057.ras
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00057.ras [Google Scholar]
  61. Randour, François, Perez, Julien and Reuchamps, Min
    2020 “Twenty years of research on political discourse: A systematic review and directions for future research”. Discourse & Society31(4): 428–443. 10.1177/0957926520903526
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520903526 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rojas-Lizana, Sol and Dolhare, María
    2021 “What’s in a preamble? Decolonial thinking in the preambles of the Bolivian and Ecuadorean constitutions: A discourse analytic approach”. Critical Discourse Studies18(1): 43–75. 10.1080/17405904.2019.1567363
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1567363 [Google Scholar]
  63. Rutazibwa, Olivia
    2020 “Hidden in plain sight: Coloniality, capitalism and race/ism as far as the eye can see”. Millennium: Journal of International Studies48(2): 221–224. 10.1177/0305829819889575
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829819889575 [Google Scholar]
  64. Shaw, Sylvia
    2002 Language and gender in political debates in the House of Commons. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of London, United Kingdom.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Smith, Angela and Higgins, Michael
    2020 “The mediated communication of gender and sexuality in contemporary politics: From equality of representation to the re-emergence of the masculine”. Journal of Language and Politics19(1): 1–9. 10.1075/jlp.19097.smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19097.smi [Google Scholar]
  66. Spender, Dale
    1980Man made language. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tannen, Deborah
    1990You just don’t understand! Women and men in conversation. Virago.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997 “Gender and language in the workplace”. InGender and Discourse, edited byRuth Wodak, pp.81–105. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Van der Pas, Daphne and Aaldering, Loes
    2020 “Gender differences in political media coverage: A meta-analysis”. Journal of Communication70(1): 114–143. 10.1093/joc/jqz046
    https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz046 [Google Scholar]
  70. Van Dijk, Teun
    1997 “What is political discourse analysis?” InPolitical Linguistics, edited byJan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen, pp.11–52. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
  71. 2002 “Political discourse and cognition”. InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, edited byPaul Chilton & Christina Schäffner, pp.203–237. John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij [Google Scholar]
  72. Walsh, Clare
    2001Gender and discourse: Language and power in politics, the church and organizations. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. West, Candace. and Zimmerman, Don
    1987 “Doing gender”. Gender and Society11: 125–5l. 10.1177/0891243287001002002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wilson, John
    2001 “Political discourse”. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited byIn Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton, pp.389–415. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Wortham, Stanton and Gadsden, Vivian
    2006 “Urban fathers positioning themselves through narrative: An approach to narrative self-construction”. InDiscourse and Identity, edited byEn Anna de Finna, Deborah Schiffrin and Michael Bamberg, pp.314–341. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511584459.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511584459.016 [Google Scholar]
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