Globe a Journal of Language, Culture and Communication
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Globe A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication Theme: Places and (dis)placement Editors of this volume: Christina Schoux Casey, Marie Møller Jensen Vol. 5 2017 Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication Editors-in-Chief Rita Cancino, Aalborg Universitet Aase Voldgaard Larsen, Aalborg Universitet Lotte Dam, Aalborg Universitet Editorial Board Lise-Lotte Holmgreen, Aalborg Universitet Inger Lassen, Aalborg Universitet Anne Grethe Julius Pedersen, Aalborg Universitet Jeanne Strunck, Aalborg Universitet Marie Møller Jensen, Aalborg Universitet Christina Schoux Casey, Aalborg Universitet ISSN 2246-8838 URL http://journals.aau.dk/index.php/globe/ Copyright The authors of the individual articles retain copyright © 2017 Published by Aalborg University Press Skjernvej 4A, 2. DK-9220 Aalborg Ø Denmark Managed by LangLing Research Group, Aalborg University ProCom Research Group, Aalborg University Secretariat Lisbeth Rieshøj Amos Department of Culture and Global Studies Aalborg University Kroghstræde 1, room 2.023 DK-9220 Aalborg Ø Denmark Tel. +45 9940 9150 E-mail: [email protected] Table of contents Thematic Section: Places and (dis)placement The discursive positioning of the Falkland Islands (las Islas Malvinas): 1-31 A corpus-based collocational analysis of British and Argentinian websites Ray Chung Hang Leung The foregrounding of place in Trainspotting: A discourse-stylistic analysis 32-47 Cassandra Herrmann, Marie Møller Jensen, Tine Myrup Thiesson What can Google Trends data tell us about dialect labels: An exploratory study 48-76 Marie Møller Jensen Open Section The Twitter Age: Communication across genders in the Arabian Gulf 77-101 Muna A. Balfaqeeh A research framework for second nonverbal code acquisition 102-134 Mariel Lee Schroeder Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 5 (2017) Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 5: 1-31 (2017) The discursive positioning of the Falkland Islands (las Islas Malvinas): A corpus-based collocational analysis of British and Argentinian websites Ray Chung Hang Leung, Department of English and American Studies, University of Potsdam1 Abstract: Considering “discursive positioning” to be a form of “placement,” this study examines how the Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas, a place which has long been politically controversial, are discursively positioned on British and Argentinian websites. The data came from two reference corpora: namely the Corpus of Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) and the Corpus del Español: Web/Dialects. The 388-million-word British section of the former and the 183-million-word Argentinian section of the latter were selected for analysis. Attention was paid to the 20 most frequent collocates of “Falkland Islands”/“Islas Malvinas.” Semantic prosody, collocation networks and word clusters were also investigated. It was found that the Falkland Islands are positioned differently in the two corpora. While the collocates of “Falkland Islands” in the British corpus (e.g., “government” and “population”) position the Islands as a territory with “self-determination,” the collocates of “Islas Malvinas” in the Argentinian corpus (e.g., “nuestras ” [our (feminine plural)], “territorio” [territory] and “recuperación” [recovery], together with the 5-gram “las Islas Malvinas son argentinas” [the Falkland Islands are Argentinian]) subsume the Islands under the ownership of Argentina. Not only are the Falkland Islands “discursively positioned,” Britain and Argentina are also subject to positioning. For instance, in the British corpus, Argentina is construed as an invader (as suggested by the collocates “invasion” and “1982”) whereas in the Argentinian corpus, Britain is given this demonized role (via the collocates “militar” [military] and “británica” [British (feminine singular)]). Such findings add strength to van Dijk’s (2011) discussion of “positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.” As an example of corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS), the current research also offers solid evidence on the social phenomenon of “classification” proposed by Bourdieu (1990)—i.e., “a vision of the world is a division of the world.” Keywords: Corpus-assisted discourse studies, discursive positioning, Falkland Islands, Argentina and Britain, collocation. 1. Introduction In March 2016, the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) decided that the territory of Argentina ought to be enlarged to incorporate the waters around the Falkland Islands—an archipelago situated in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean. This ruling generated opposing reactions from British and Argentinian political leaders. While the Argentinian representative gladly accepted the decision, the British government brushed it off (Payton 2016). The Falkland Islands, or las Islas Malvinas (the Spanish name used by the Argentinians), have long been a source of tension between leaders of the two countries. Although the current status of the Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory, the Argentinian government maintains the view that the Islands belong to Argentina. Another notable event which happened on the Falkland Islands within recent years is the referendum held in 2013, where the vast majority of the voters on the Islands indicated their wish for the Islands to remain a British overseas territory. Different from the United Nations ruling mentioned above, the referendum result was dismissed by Argentina whereas the British government stressed that the wish of the Islanders had to be honored (Ford et al. 2013). The antagonistic diplomatic relation between Argentina and Britain could be traced to the Falklands War which occurred in 1982. On 2 April 1982, Argentina sent troops to occupy the Falkland Islands. Two months later, the Argentinian soldiers were defeated by the British army and surrendered (Boyce 2005). 1 E-mail: [email protected] ISSN: 2246-8838 Research article The discursive positioning of the Falkland Islands (las Islas Malvinas) Globe, 5 (2017) Despite its defeat in the Falklands War, Argentina has never given up its pursuit of the Falkland Islands. The debates regarding the status of the Islands are still ongoing. Even international law has failed to offer a resolution since the Falklands War ended (Chommeloux 2015). As described by Raimondo (2012: 402), the Falkland Islands are included as part of Argentina’s territory under the Argentinian constitution, while the British law states that the Islands form an overseas territory of Britain. When discussing this issue, both parties have presented conflicting claims. Foregrounding the principle of uti possidetis juris,2 Argentina suggested that the Falkland Islands had been inherited from Spain in 1810 during the South American course of seeking independence from the colonial Spanish regime (Raimondo 2012: 403). On the other hand, Britain claimed that the first person who landed on the Islands was a British captain and a British settlement had already been established on the western island of the archipelago in 1766. Although there were attempts from the then Argentinian government (the United Provinces of the River Plate) to occupy the Islands between 1820 and 1832, Britain reasserted its authority over the Islands in 1833 (Raimondo 2012: 406). In response to the disputes over the Falkland Islands, the British officials have been underlining the idea of “self- determination” since the 1960s (Raimondo 2012: 407). As Boyce (2005: 8) opined, “self- determination” is one of the most frequently employed concepts in contemporary political history. It basically refers to the right of the people who share a common identity based on culture, ethnicity, race or language, etc. to reside in their own “sovereign state” and rule themselves (2005: 8). Britain believes that the Falkland Islanders who share a unique identity should earn their right to “self- determination” so their wish for the Islands to continue being a British overseas territory has to be respected (Raimondo 2012: 410). Another political concept which habitually appears in the discussion about the Falkland Islands is “sovereignty.” Nevertheless, as Heywood (2015: 82) illustrated, the interpretation of this term is subject to many variations, although “sovereignty” itself means “absolute and unlimited power.” Boyce (2005: 8) said that “sovereignty” can be split into the “external” and the “internal.” “External sovereignty” underscores the endorsement of a state as having rights of jurisdiction over a specific group of people and being totally accountable for that jurisdiction amid international law. “Internal sovereignty” focuses on the supreme power exercised over a society and how internal affairs are governed (2005: 8). Given the complexity of the term “sovereignty,” we may wonder what it really means when people are debating about the “sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.” In this study, I would adhere to the postmodernist line of thought (e.g., Potter 1996) and consider the “sovereignty of the Falkland Islands” to be a social discursive construct, which can be analyzed only via examination of relevant discourses.3 The debates over the Falkland Islands involve principally three places (Britain, Argentina and the Falkland Islands) and the stance taken by different parties (e.g., the British and the Argentinian governments, the general public in the two countries, etc.) is reflected or even constituted by the ways they discursively position the Falkland Islands. It is at this point that the