Journal of Language and Politics - Volume 18, Issue 3, 2019

Abstract

This paper puts forward an argument about the relation between utopian thought and political discourse. It demonstrates how utopias frame normative discourse in general and political discourse in particular. The argument is informed by Kenneth Burke’s theory of the negative command and its place at the basis of all human language. I argue that utopias are necessarily based in the hortatory negative and are, in literary terms, like religious texts in general being ‘words about words’ designed to coordinate “the tribe”. Burke calls such texts ‘logological’. The argument I put forward here points to a rapidly crumbling utopia that has beset much of the world and all of the West since at least the Reagan-Thatcher era in which a new corporatist political economy was given global impetus.

Abstract

On August 25, 2017, student members of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a right-wing conservative organization who advocates for smaller government and free market enterprise, recruited on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) campus. Members of the UNL community protested nearby. Part of the protest was recorded on video and released to social media leading to harsh public criticism that accused the university of restricting free speech and being an unsafe environment for conservative students. Drawing on cognitive linguistics (e.g. metonymy, framing) and multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA), this paper explores how the TPUSA incident at UNL was recontextualized in local and national media discourse, the ways in which the social actors and events were framed, and its consequences. The authors show how these representations reinforce dominant neoliberal discourses (which correlate with right-wing discourses) that negatively impact public education, providing a necessary counter to a populist political climate in which anti-intellectualism reigns.

Abstract

The present paper deals with the use of deliberate metaphors in the political discourse. The potential of dehumanising metaphors to create derogatory descriptions used to disparage one’s political opponents is analysed. Also, metaphorical descriptions prove to be very productive in creating polysemy in previously monosemous items which are used in a new capacity in order to create an effect of novelty and surprise. This function appears especially useful in the language of politics in general, and the language of British politics in particular. The paper is maintained within the methodological framework of cognitive linguistics, focusing on the theories of conceptual metaphor and conceptual metonymy.

Abstract

This paper seeks to apply a cognitive-linguistic approach to critical discourse studies in an investigation of epistemic stancetaking and types of inter/subjectivity of the speaker in political discourse. More specifically, the paper presents an analysis of responses by three different politicians, i.e. John Kerry, Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin, to the chemical weapons attack in Syria in August 2013. By incorporating cognitive-linguistic theories in a critical investigation of language, I address diverging representations of the same event and their discursive functions in representing underlying ideologies and motifs of the respective politicians. Specifically, I propose a more nuanced incorporation of epistemic stance in a spatio-cognitive representation of discourse. My analysis shows that type of inter/subjectivity has bearing on the epistemic quality of a proposition. The more prominently a speaker construes him-/herself as evaluator of an event, the stronger his/her assertions become, which is equally visible in a discourse space model.

Abstract

Previous conversation analytic work on the use and function of laughter in broadcast talk has mostly focused on its affiliative use as response to something the participants had constructed as humorous (Eriksson 2009, 2010; Ekström 2009, 2011; Baym 2013). Fewer studies have focused on its disaffiliative use as a response to something that has not been constructed as humorous (Clayman 1992; Romaniuk 2009, 2013a, 2013b). This paper contributes to this second line of research by investigating the use of laughter by a specific politician, namely Alexis Tsipras, in interview openings in three out of four one-on-one election campaign interviews he gave during the 2012 double Greek general elections campaigns. I will argue that Alexis Tsipras’ laughter is not only disaffiliative, undermining the journalists’ questions and projecting either an evasive answer or a counterchallenge, but that it also establishes a “cool but assertive” persona for the ears of the overhearing electorate.

Abstract

The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is a deliberative process that has been used in the United States to involve panels of citizens in producing balanced and easily understandable accounts of proposed ballot measures and their potential effects. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the CIR process is shaped by evaluative framing in which the rational component cannot be clearly separated from the emotive base of assigning responsibility. We analyze the argumentative dynamic of advocates’ presentations during the 2010 CIR on Measure 73 and discuss emotional claims as products of narrative structures that define problem situations. We explore how the distinction between manipulative and valid emotional claims within the context of public deliberation can be made with the help of three categories of analysis: Themes, Ideals, and Scenarios.

This article reviews Constructions of migrant integration in British public discourse. Becoming British978-1-3500-2920-0

This article reviews Regional Language Policies in France during World War II

This article reviews Globalizing Language Policy and Planning: An Irish Language Perspective978-1-137-00560-1£ 109.99