Journal of Language and Politics - Current Issue

Abstract

Leaders of European right-wing populism (RWP) have developed speeches about the state border control required to protect the “people” electing them. Nevertheless, are these RWP narratives necessarily circulated during populist media events that take place in the symbolic locations of European integration? It is argued that border control discourse in these EU places can be mitigated by RWP actors, but also emphasized by the media depending on the separated predispositions of politicians and reporters to address the border issue in a given context. Bourdieusian “field theory” is used in this article to grasp the potential differentiated discursive positioning. Based on a comparative analysis of RWP media events organized in the town of Schengen in Luxembourg, the investigation allows us to shed new light on the specificities of populism in the media.

Abstract

On the 1st October 2017 an independence referendum was organised in Catalonia. The aim of this paper is to analyse the nature of the political debate going on in the Catalan Parliament during the whole process by focusing on the kind of argumentation strategies that were used by each of the leanings to legitimise their political decisions. We do that relying on a methodological distinction that differentiates between sound argumentation and fallacious argumentation. By using a Critical Discourse Analysis approach, this study offers a wide picture of the kind of argumentation used by the main political actors involved in the process of decision making in Catalonia. The results show that there is more emphasis in antagonising with the others, than engaging in sound argument exchange that could facilitate minimal points of consensus. Such results may help explain why the Catalan conflict is still unsolved at the political level.

Abstract

This article examines Mexican return migrants belonging to the 1.5 generation of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Our analysis disaggregates the notions that these return migrants have regarding “being Mexican” and speaking Spanish after spending most of their lives in the U.S. Building on critical citizenship theories (Isin 2008, 2009), specifically on the concepts of status, habitus, and acts, we analyze how these return migrants experience and build notions of citizenship in Mexico while they develop additional linguistic repertoires in Spanish and acquire basic knowledge of Mexican culture. Our findings suggest that return migrants go through various simultaneous learning processes to acquire Mexican habitus in Mexico even though they acquire formal citizenship. This learning process we argue occurs amidst multiple social, linguistic, and cultural tensions that trigger important acts of (linguistic) citizenship through which returnees found their own definition of what it means to be “Mexican”.

Abstract

Analyses on news media data in Conceptual Metaphor Theory have highlighted several frequent metaphors used to understand climate change including climate change is conflict. This article analyses the frequency of that conceptual metaphor in a corpus of UK parliamentary debates on climate change. The language of political decision-makers is important to scrutinise because this group have the social and legislative power needed to deal with the issue. Our analysis shows the conceptual metaphor itself, and all three of its most frequent linguistic realisations (‘challenge,’ ‘impact,’ ‘tackle’), increased in use between 2015 and 2019. Additionally, three notable semantic and pragmatic trends were observed: first, apparently little recognition of human behaviour as a cause of climate change; second, a narrative of Us/People vs Climate Change; and third, that political decision-makers are taking climate change increasingly seriously. Some of these findings challenge existing knowledge and thus beg questions that require future research efforts.

Abstract

The September 11 terrorist attacks emerged as a turning point on security standards, contouring many aspects of public life ever after. Two decades later, the see something, say something campaign stands as one of the New York City trademarks. Its ubiquity across subway platforms intends to raise public awareness by transferring security responsibilities to the general public.

Language is neither innocent nor merely instrumental, any more than is not neutral. This paper disentangles the construction of something in the current context, where the elusive definition of terrorism has enabled distorted perceptions of risk and certainty. The paper adopts a multimodal critical discourse analysis, focusing on the campaign’s use of ambiguity and its lexical and semiotic choices. Ultimately, it intends to crystallize how language resonates with a broader preemptive and never-ending War on Terror rhetoric while paving the way to further analyze the activation of the target of this campaign: you.

This article reviews Dialect and Nationalism in China, 1860–19609781108478281$ 99.99

This article reviews Language in the Trump Era: Scandals and Emergencies

This article reviews Transgender Identities in the Press: A Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis978-1-3500-9754-4

This article reviews Language and Ethnonationalism in Contemporary West Central Balkans: A Corpus-based Approach978-3-030-72176-3£ 49.99