Political discourse approach applied the current study issue occurred
Keywords:
discourse, domain, method, politics, socialAbstract
The research was to aim at approaching a political discourse as an effort to solve the issues. News reporting assigns meaning to issues by providing a continuous record of public events and visibility to the claims of actors. The public sphere is an important field where social problems are constructed and political alternatives become defined. When one considers these functions, it is hardly surprising that news has become an important source of data for a group of researchers who are interested in studying the nature of political challenges that are mobilized in the public domain. However, there sometimes appears to be a tendency within the social movements field to let theoretical development outrun a discussion on the methods with which we are equipped to address our research questions. In this contribution, our focus will be self-consciously directed to methods, and more precisely we make specific proposals regarding how the important methodological developments that have been made in the field in recent times, might be profitably extended.
Downloads
References
Ahl, F. (2007). Aeneid. Oxford University Press.
Ahl, H., & Nelson, T. (2015). How policy positions women entrepreneurs: A comparative analysis of state discourse in Sweden and the United States. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(2), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.08.002
Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2003). The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics, 41(6; ISSU 388), 1123-1162. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2003.036
Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation. Journal of pragmatics, 36(10), 1781-1805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.005
Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Baker, F. B., & Kim, S. H. (2004). Item response theory: Parameter estimation techniques. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482276725
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. A&C Black.
Bateson, G. (1973). The Logical Categories of Learning and Communication, In, Bateson, 1973. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 250-79.
Biber, D., Douglas, B., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 20, 261-273.
Chafe, W. (1986). Writing in the perspective of speaking. Ch. Cooper y S. Greenbaum, Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches, Beverly Hills, sAge Publications.
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Vol. 20). Norwood^ eNJ NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Vol. 20). Norwood^ eNJ NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: new directions, new methods. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802416582
Dobuzinskis, L. (1992). Is progressive environmentalism an oxymoron?. Critical Review, 6(2-3), 283-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819208443266
Dobuzinskis, L. (1992). Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding. Policy Sciences, 25(4), 355-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138019
Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in society, 27(2), 133-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.01.002
Donati, P. R. (1992). Political discourse analysis. Studying collective action, 136-167.
Dyson, B. P. (2002). Focus on learnable form in a communicative context. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 53-70. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/18337139
Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1981). Reform and Retrenchment.
Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse ofwelfare reform. Journal of sociolinguistics, 4(2), 163-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00110
Fairclough, N. (2007). Language and globalization. Routledge.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043-1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.005
Fetzer, A., & Johansson, M. (2010). Cognitive verbs in context: A contrastive analysis of English and French argumentative discourse. International journal of corpus linguistics, 15(2), 240-266.
Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet?: Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 265-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.04.001
Flowerdew, J. (1997). The discourse of colonial withdrawal: A case study in the creation of mythic discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 453-477. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926597008004002
Flowerdew, J. (1998). The final years of British Hong Kong: The discourse of colonial withdrawal. Springer.
Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.4.323
Flowerdew, L. (1998). Corpus linguistic techniques applied to textlinguistics. System, 26(4), 541-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00039-6
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (AMS Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge, trans. AM Sheridan Smith (New York: Pantheon, 1972), 24.
Foucault, M. (1972). The confession of the flesh. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1977, 194-228.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge: Translated from the french by AM Sheridan Smith. Pantheon Books.
Gamson, W. A. (1988). Political discourse and collective action. International social movement research, 1(2), 219-244.
Gamson, W. A. (1988). The 1987 distinguished lecture: A constructionist approach to mass media and public opinion. Symbolic interaction, 11(2), 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1988.11.2.161
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American journal of sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
Gamson, W. A., Gamson, W. A. G., Gamson, W. A., & Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge university press.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left.
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). “How Do We Become Good Europeans?”: The British Press and European Integration. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 177-205.
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). How does One Become a Good European?': The British Press and European Integration. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 177-205. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926595006002003
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). Only connect: Critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, UCREL technical paper 6. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.
Hardt-Mautner, G. (1995). " Only Connect": Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics. Lancaster: UCREL.
Harris, W. E. (1996). VizieR Online Data Catalog: Globular Clusters in the Milky Way (Harris, 1996). VizieR Online Data Catalog, 7195.
Héritier, A. (2001). Market integration and social cohesion: the politics of public services in European regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(5), 825-852. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110083536
Holmes, J. S. (1988). The future of translation theory: a handful of theses. James S. Holmes (1988). Translated. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 97-102.
Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of pragmatics, 43(11), 2795-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body. In Developmental perspectives on embodiment and consciousness (pp. 35-60). Psychology Press.
Jørgensen, W. (2002). Marianne; and Phillips.
Koller, V., & Mautner, G. (2004). Computer applications in critical discourse analysis.
Kovács, A., & Wodak, R. (2003). ʻPreface’. NATO, Neutrality and National Identity: The Case of Austria and Hungary, Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 7-22.
Krishnamurthy, T. N. (1996). U.S. Patent No. 5,508,043. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Laird, A. (1999). Powers of expression, expressions of power: speech presentation and Latin literature. Clarendon Press.
Leech, G. (1992). Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. Directions in corpus linguistics, 105-122.
Magalhães, R. F. (2006). Instrumental action and rhetoric: rebuilding rational action on linguistic field. In Trabalho apresentado no XVIII International Sociological Association World Congress, Yokohama (pp. 13-19).
Mautner, G. (2005). The entrepreneurial university: A discursive profile of a higher education buzzword. Critical discourse studies, 2(2), 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900500283540
Mertz, E., & Yovel, J. (2010). Metalinguistic awareness. Kluwer.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2011). An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish. Journal of pragmatics, 43(12), 3068-3079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. Cambridge University Press.
O'Halloran, K., & Coffin, C. (2004). Checking over-interpretation and under-interpretation: help from corpora in critical linguistics. Text and texture: systemic functional viewpoints on the nature and structure of text, 275-297. Coffin, C., & O'Halloran, K. (2006). The role of appraisal and corpora in detecting covert evaluation. Functions of language, 13(1), 77-110. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.13.1.04cof
Quirk, R., & Widdowson, H. G. (Eds.). (1985). English in the world: teaching and learning the language and literatures: papers of an International Conference entitled" Progress in English studies" held in London, 17-21 September 1984 to celebrate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the British Council and its contribution to the field of English studies over fifty years. Cambridge University Press for the British Council.
Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The Europeanization of public policy. The politics of Europeanization, 320.
Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The Open Method of Coordination: A new governance architecture for the European Union?. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.
Schmidt, V. A. (2002). Europeanization and the mechanics of economic policy adjustment. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6), 894-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350176022000046418
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and. Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics, 33.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (1996). Image-building through modality: the case of political interviews. Discourse & Society, 7(3), 389-415. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0957926596007003005
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Aijmer, K. (2002). The expectation marker of course in a cross-linguistic perspective. Languages in Contrast, 4(1), 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.03sim
Soler, V. (2002). Analysing adjectives in scientific discourse: an exploratory study with educational applications for Spanish speakers at advanced university level. English for Specific Purposes, 21(2), 145-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00034-X
Stubbs, M. (1994). Grammar, text, and ideology: computer-assisted methods in the linguistics of representation. Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 201-223. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.2.201
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf's children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). British studies in applied linguistics, 12, 100-116.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controveries inthe use of mixed methods in the social and behvioral sciences. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 3-50.
Upton, T. A., & Connor, U. (2001). Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes, 20(4), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00022-3
Verschueren, J. (2000). Understanding pragmatics.
White, H. (2000). A reality check for data snooping. Econometrica, 68(5), 1097-1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00152
White, L., & White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R. (1990). The Waldheim affair and antisemitic prejudice in Austrian public discourse. Patterns of Prejudice, 24(2-4), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.1990.9970049
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2, 1-33.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Sage.
Zurcher, L. A., & Curtis, R. L. (1973). A comparative analysis of propositions describing social movement organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 14(2), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb00852.x
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2017 Linguistics and Culture Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
