1887
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper presents the results of an empirical study on proximization approached as a dialogue between journalists and readers of Internet media texts and online comments. In this way the paper shows a practical application of the research programme, whose tenets I presented elsewhere (Kowalski 2018), in relation to Polish and Romanian reciprocal media coverage on the winter 2016/2017 protests in the two countries, and follow-up online comments. The analysis shows that participants used proximization for different communicative purposes (descriptive or evaluative), for which they employed different reportoires of proximization strategies (categorization, domestication, construing hybrid IDC/ODC worlds, historical analogies, and references to cultural stereotypes). As a result, there was no consensus on a shared Discourse Space, and alternative Discourse Spaces were negotiated in the online dialogue.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00123.kow
2022-08-08
2022-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bednarek, Monika and Helen Caple
    2012News Discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berrocal, Martina
    2017 “Proximizing the Ukraine Conflict: The Case of the United States and the Czech Republic.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics13 (2): 327–346. 10.1515/lpp‑2017‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2017-0016 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cap, Piotr
    2006Legitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2010aLegitimisation in Political Discourse: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric, 2nd revised edition. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010b “Proximizing Objects, Proximizing Values: Towards an Axiological Contribution to the Discourse of Legitimization.” InPerspectives in Politics and Discourse, ed. byPiotr Cap, and Urszula Okulska, 119–142. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.36.11cap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.36.11cap [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 “Axiological Proximization.” InCritical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. byChristopher Hart, 81–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.43.05cap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.43.05cap [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013Proximization. The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.232 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2014a “Expanding CDS Methodology by Cognitive-Pragmatic Tools: Proximization Theory and Public Space Discourses.” InContemporary Critical Discourse Studies, ed. byChristopher Hart, and Piotr Cap, 189–210. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014b “Applying Cognitive Pragmatics to Critical Discourse Studies: A Proximization Analysis of Three Public Space Discourses.” Journal of Pragmatics70: 16–30. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2015 “Crossing Symbolic Distances in Political Discourse Space.” Critical Discourse Studies12 (3): 313–329. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1013481
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1013481 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2017The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59731‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59731-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 “From ‘Cultural Unbelonging’ to ‘Terrorist Risk’: Communicating Threat in the Polish Anti-Immigration Discourse.” Critical Discourse Studies15 (3): 285–302. 10.1080/17405904.2017.1405050
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1405050 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chilton, Paul
    2004Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2014Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511845703
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845703 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dunmire, Patricia
    2011Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.41 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gavins, Joanna
    2007Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748629909
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748629909 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hampl, Marek
    2019 “‘Now Is the Time to Root out Evil’: the Role of Natural World Metaphors in the Construction of the ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ Dichotomy.” Brno Studies in English45 (1): 57–74. 10.5817/BSE2019‑1‑4
    https://doi.org/10.5817/BSE2019-1-4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kopytowska, Monika
    2015 “Ideology of ‘Here and Now’.” Critical Discourse Studies12 (3): 347–365. 10.1080/17405904.2015.1013485
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1013485 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kowalski, Grzegorz
    2018 “Proximization as Reception.” Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law11 (60): 125–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. MacDonald, Malcolm N. and Duncan Hunter
    2019The Discourse of Security: Language, Illiberalism and Governmentality. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑97193‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97193-3 [Google Scholar]
  22. Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
    2001Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sazonova, Yaroslava
    2020 “Linguistic-Pragmatic Means of Filling-in Ontological Lacunas in Blog Texts of Post-Maidan Ukraine.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines11 (2): 41–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Venuti, Lawrence
    2008The Translator’s Invisibility2nd edition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Werth, Paul
    1999Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wieczorek, Anna Ewa
    2013Clusivity: A New Approach to Association and Dissociation in Political Discourse, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1996Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00123.kow
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00123.kow
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dialogue; Discourse Space; media discourse; online comments; Poland; proximization; Romania
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