Journal of Language and Politics - Volume 16, Issue 2, 2017

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution grants citizenship to every child born on US soil. While most Americans think this 150 year old formulation is permanent, it is actually open to change. We explore the legal debate over the current formulation of US citizenship. Using the research design of the exemplar case study, we undertake a conceptual metaphor-based critical discourse analysis of three contending contemporary legal stances regarding US citizenship. In the light of four current court cases, some legal theorists argue that the formulation is both undemocratic and inadequate, and should be amended to address 21st century national concerns. Others argue to retain the current formulation in spite of these concerns. Our study reveals that the rival stances are argued in terms of irreconcilable conceptual metaphors, and each legal stance in itself is deficient to address these current concerns.

Focusing on the foreign policy discourse of George H. W. Bush and William Clinton, I examine the role the American jeremiad played in conceptualizing the geopolitical change initiated by the ending of the Cold War. I identify “extending the democratic peace” as the nation’s post-Cold War “errand” and argue that this global mission represented the contemporary “re-dedication” of American policy to the nation’s “divine cause.” I demonstrate that a key issue facing the nation was whether the U.S. would reap the benefits of its Cold War victory by extending its political-economic system globally or whether it would turn inward and, thereby, give rein of the future to the forces of “anarchy” and chaos.” As with earlier renditions of the jeremiad, the post-Cold War variant turned this liminal moment into a “mode of socialization” ( Bercovitch 2012 , 25) by deploying the concept of democratic peace to legitimate an interventionist foreign policy.

This study presents a scrutiny of ‘liberal’ discursive constructions of the ‘Enlightenment’ in the Greek public sphere. The study is based on the analysis of articles published in two news/lifestyle websites, ‘AthensVoice’ and ‘Protagon’, during the (ongoing), so-called, ‘Greek crisis’. Discourse theory, informed by critical discourse analysis, is deployed to analyze these discursive constructions. The analysis shows that Greece’s economic/social/political problems are constructed as symptoms that underline Greece’s fundamental deficit, which is the country’s alleged ‘lack of ‘Enlightenment’, as perceived by ‘liberal’ voices in Greece and elsewhere. The article concludes that such discourses are part of a biopolitical, disciplinary framework producing the object to be reformed by austerity: an ‘un-Enlightened’ ‘Greek character’, ‘guilty’ for ‘self-inflicting’ Greece’s crisis. This ‘reform of character’ envisioned by liberals in Greece and elsewhere, is supposed to emerge through the institutional advance of neoliberal restructuring processes that include austerity reforms, privatizations, and loss of labor and civic rights, conditions to foster the neoliberal, entrepreneurial, mobile and austere subject, to potentially meet the socio-political requirements of late capitalist growth.

Public communication practices of executive governments are often criticised by journalists, politicians, scholars, and other commentators. Therefore, government communication professionals routinely adopt various blame avoidance strategies, some of which are meant to ‘stop blame before it starts’ or to reduce their exposure to potential blame attacks. The linguistic aspects of such anticipative strategies are yet to be studied by discourse analysts.

I contribute towards filling this gap by showing how written professional guidelines for government communicators could be interpreted as complex discursive devices of anticipative blame avoidance.

I outline historically and institutionally situated issues of blame that inform the occupational habitus of government communicators in the UK. I bring examples from their propriety guidelines to illustrate how the use of certain discursive strategies limits the possible perceived blameworthiness of individual officeholders. I conclude by explicating the discursive underpinnings of two common operational blame avoidance strategies in government: ‘protocolisation’ and ‘herding’.

This article aims to expose the hegemony of neoliberalism in media discourse through a corpus-assisted discourse study of the representations of the Sino-US currency dispute in two newspapers – China Daily (CD) from China and The New York Times (NYT) from the US. The findings suggest that while neoliberal ideology can be identified in both CD and NYT, it is articulated and appropriated differently in the two newspapers to construct their respective stance towards the issue. Neoliberal beliefs are found pervading different levels of discourse (i.e., thematic, lexical and grammatical) in NYT to construct a combative stance towards China’s exchange rate policies. However, the hegemony of neoliberalism can also be detected through CD’s ambivalent stance towards change and the seemingly contradictory evaluation of the impact of exchange rate changes.

The 2011 UK Census was the first ever to ask a question about language in England. The period during which the census was planned coincided with a period of intense politicisation of the language issue, which had previously not been a major point of controversy.

The census results showed that 98.3% of the adult population either spoke English as their ‘main language’, or could speak it well or very well. In 4% of households no adults spoke English as a main language. These statistics produced an intense media reaction focussed on the number of people who supposedly could not speak English, with some high-level misunderstandings about what the figures meant.

This paper discusses the pervasiveness in the census process of ideologies about language, and how an apparently honest attempt to collect information for service providers was used to justify anti-immigration discourse and the reduction of services for non-speakers of English.

This paper examines how Japanese leading politicians deal with the communicative problems posed to them during broadcast political interviews. Based on data gathered during 14-month period in 2012–2013, the paper replicates and modifies the “Theory of Equivocation” to explore the extent to which national and local level politicians endeavor to affect the content of information distributed to the public and to influence the way people perceive events that take place in the public domain. Differentiating among selected groups of politicians, i.e., ruling and opposition parties’ members, Cabinet ministers and prime ministers, and local level politicians, the paper focuses on the ways Japanese politicians (and for comparison also nonpoliticians) equivocate during televised programs and the conditions underlying this equivocation, thereby also assesses the significance of these talk shows in the broader context of political communication in Japan.

This study investigates the relationship between Russian language use and language planning in the context of newly independent, post-soviet Uzbekistan (1991–1992). It is guided by the question: In what ways does the use of Russian loanwords in Uzbek language newspapers accomplish language planning in newly independent Uzbekistan? The main finding from this analysis is that post-independence use of Russian loanwords from particular semantic classes in particular contexts reinforce overtly stated ideologies about Russian and construct difference between soviet Uzbekistan and independent Uzbekistan. These findings demonstrate the need to reexamine the role of Russian language in post-soviet contexts, and they contribute a unique approach to analyzing links between lexical items and ideology in language planning.