Journal of Language and Politics - Volume 10, Issue 3, 2011

The article analyses the discursive function of graffiti on the separation wall in the contested space of Abu Dis on the boundary between Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories. This study explores the role of graffiti as micro-level, political discourse designed to influence national and international actions concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict over national borders, self determination and human rights. The data for this study consisted of photographic documentation of the Abu Dis graffiti. This data was analysed for its linguistic and informational characteristic, its political functions, and discursive construction. The results of the study reveal that the separation wall is constructed in five different ways that directly interact with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The graffiti on the wall at Abu Dis is a microcosm of the broader conflict and offers an insight into the different chains of political discourse in action in the discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Discourses of war are disseminated and legitimised not only through speeches and written texts, but through visual semiotic resources. One important vehicle for this has been the war monument. Evidence shows that from WW1 in Europe and the US monuments have been used systematically by authorities to recontextualise the realities of war and soldiery, suppressing much of what comprises war, avoiding any critical stance, while fostering celebratory discourses of nation, protection and noble sacrifice. The representation of women on the war monument has been particularly important in this recontexualisation. Using Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the discourses realised by British war monuments, this paper shows that while much of the way women participate in and experience war has been suppressed on war monuments. Their representation has been a key part of the legitimation of one particular discourse of war, a representation that has helped to sideline other possible discourse in British society and which is still used in the commemoration of the death of ‘our boys’ — such as the young men killed in Afghanistan.

In December 2001, Argentina underwent the worst socio-economic crisis in its history. Strong criticisms were raised by society against almost all the social injustices encouraged by the policies promoted by the former governments. Forgiveness of the crimes committed by the dictatorship during the “Dirty War” which took place in the late 70’s, and reconciliation between the members of the dictatorship and society, was the position held by the post-dictatorship governments. However, the official discourse has radically changed since 2003, because of the administration of elected president Nestor Kirchner (2003–2007). The aim of this paper is to explore some of the changes in relation to the creation of two time-frames (TF1/TF2) to represent actors from the past and the present, and reinforce the current exceptionality of Néstor Kirchner’s political stance. To do this, I will analyse four political speeches given by ex- president Néstor Kirchner to commemorate the anniversary of the coup d’état of March 24th, 1976, the date which marks the beginning of the 1976–1983 military dictatorship.

This article analyses the discursive construction of collective memories and the function of commemorative events for national identity. It focuses on how the 30th anniversary of the Portuguese 1974 revolution was portrayed in the government’s Programme of Action issued for the 2004 commemorations and in forty-three newspaper opinion articles also published in 2004. The 1974 revolution ended a 48-year right-wing dictatorship and has shaped subsequent historical events since the 1970s. When the Programme of Action changed the 1974 slogan ‘April is revolution’ into ‘April is evolution’, the written press responded by conducting a debate on this reframing. Using the Discourse-Historical Approach in CDA as the analytical framework, this paper highlights the discursive strategies on which the government’s manifesto was built and explores the opinion articles’ ongoing political and ideological tensions over the revolution, its commemorations, and how it paved the way into Europe, by describing the main macro-discursive strategies and raising issues regarding the (mis)representation of social actors and social action.

In the article, we analyze how names for China are used by five ROC presidents in National Day speeches over 58 years (1949–2007), including “communist bandits”; “Chinese communists”; “mainland” and “opposite shore/both shores”; “China”; and “People’s Republic of China.” Each name registers unique historicity and each displays associated expressions, reshuffling power structures and allowing negotiation of ideological positioning. Sometimes overlapping, sometimes joining at edges, these names cleave to inconsistent layers of meaning, helping presidents negotiate courses of action in Taiwan’s yet-to-be-resolved political identity.

The present study proposes a discourse-immanent view (following Wodak 2001) of political manifestos, examining them as sites for textually negotiating tensions and paradoxes, rather than focusing on their persuasive aspects. This approach is applied to the analysis of two founding documents of the Israeli religious settlers’ movement, where tensions between religious vision and actual politics have increased over time. Findings indicate that in the first manifesto (1974), discursive resources (temporality, point of view construction and terms of reference) are strategically used to contain tensions and maintain the movement’s dialectical vision of the relations between religion and politics. By contrast, the second manifesto (1980) exhibits simpler textual patterns which forgo this dialectical commitment, reflecting the eroding ability to textually reconcile ideological tensions as challenges to the movement’s vision grow. This is discussed as demonstrating the utility of discourse analysis for historical research in providing micro-evidence for the emergence of ideological change.

It is only in recent years, after a surprising long period of neglect, that political theorists began to engage with the evident normative dimension of policymaking on language. Within the body of literature that has emerged in this process, the conceptual framework of language rights maintains a central position. The article examines this emerging debate on language rights, and identifies both advantages and drawbacks of committing the debate on normative language policy primarily to the language of rights. While recognising the valuable contribution of the refined analytical tools of political theory to the debate on normative language policy, it raises concerns about its relatively limited engagement with linguistics and sociolinguistics as distinct fields of inquiry, and therefore the adequacy and relevance of the work it produces. The article argues for the need to develop a new conceptual framework for normative language policy, and concludes with an outline for a more informed theory-building process.