228 ‘Terrorist Feminist’: Gate-Keeping Strategies

Poszler, Gy. (1986) Az évszázad csapddi. (The Traps of the Century). Budapest: Magvetó. Poszler, Gy. (1998) Duna-völgyi realfantasztikum (Real-phantasy in the Danube Valley). Budapest: Liget. Spivak, G. C. (1996) A ‘Subaltern talk: interview with the editors’, in D. Landry and £ G. Maclean (eds), The Spivak Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 287—308. Probyn, E. (1997) ‘New traditionalism and post-feminism: TV does the home’, in Television Criticism: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford Lesbians as Discursive Subjects in a Portuguese Newspaper Carlos A. M. Gouveia

Introduction

This chapter sets out to examine how gays and lesbians have been socially represented in one of the most important quality daily news papers published in Portugal, Diário de NotIcias, in a particular set of texts that was released over a week, under the general title ‘Gay Power’ (‘Poder Gay’). The texts appeared from Sunday, 22 April to Saturday, 28 April 2001 and were announced in a previous edition of the newspaper, on Friday, 20 April, as ‘The Gay Power: an in-depth report starting Sunday in DN’ (‘0 Poder Gay: Uma grande reportagem a partir de Domingo no DN [Diário de NotIcias]’). Confirming the importance the newspaper was attributing to this specific news coverage, on Sunday, 22 April the entire front page was dedicated to it, as well as pages 2 and 3, and the editorial on page 5. Under the heading ‘State of the nation’ (‘Estado da Nacao’), in small capital letters, the front page presented readers with the large headline ‘State promotes “gay” tourism’ [‘Estado promove turismo “gay”], together with the following two sentences in small print: ‘Lisbon City Council and ICEP edit catalogue for homosexuals, Poll reveals that “gays” have little influence in Portugal’ [‘Câmara de Lisboa e ICEP editam catálogo para homossexuais. Sondagem revela que “gays” são pouco influentes em Portugal’]. The headline and the text are followed by a large photograph (and its caption) where in the foreground one can see two men in drag. The remaining texts in the serial appeared over the following days and were spread over two inside pages of the newspaper, though always

229 230 Gays and Lesbians as Discursive I Subjects Carlos A. M. Gouvela 231

(with the exception of the last day, Saturday, 28 April) with a brief text Language use is, moreover, constitutive both in conventional ways on the front page calling the reader’s attention to them. These texts which help to reproduce and maintain existing social identities, rela were part of the ‘Society’ section of the newspaper (one section among tions and systems of knowledge and belief, and in creative ways others, such as ‘National’, ‘International’, ‘Education’, ‘Sports’, ‘Sci which help to transform them. Whether the conventional or the ence’, and so on). Apart from the ones published on the first day, all the creative predominates in any given case will depend upon social texts were presented under the general heading ‘Feature: Gay Power’ circumstances and how the language is functioning within them. [‘Documento: Poder Gay’]. These headings were numbered between brackets and in roman numerals, from two to six, plus the conclusion. CDA is a textually-oriented discourse analysis (cf. Chouliaraki and All the texts were about Portugal, except the ones on Wednesday, Fairclough 1999: 152), thus departing from other versions of discourse which were dedicated to Spain, and those on Thursday, which were analysis. Its analytical claims about discourses and social life are dedicated to Brazil, France and Germany. The total number of words in anchored in close analyses of texts, using instruments and the texts was 13,600. concepts from linguistic theories that share with CDA some of its assumptions In what follows I will begin by locating the present study in terms of about language, particularly the linguistic theory of systemic functional the theoretical and methodological framework used, then move to a grammar (SFG), as this theory is seen as the one that has most in discussion of the socio-political context of Portugal in relation to the common with CDA (cf. Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999: 139). particular social group I am working with, gays and lesbians. This is SFG is a theory of grammatical description that views language as a followed by an analysis of the representation of gays and lesbians as semiotic system structured in terms of strata and that looks at grammar discursive subjects in the newspaper in question. Finally, I will conclude in terms of how it is used. It describes languages in functional terms by summarizing the findings of the analysis and suggesting some lines with the aim of providing a general grammar for purposes of text of interpretation for the overall news coverage in relation to the socio analysis and interpretation. SFG is functional in several different but cultural context that motivated it. interrelated senses: for instance, in the way it looks at the linguistic system and at its description,, in the way it looks at linguistic elements Theoretical and methodological framework and structures, and in the way it looks at texts and at their interpretation (that is, in the description of how language is used). SFG is, thus, as From the eclectic perspectives of analysis of public culture and of Halliday (1994: xiv, xxvi) puts it: discourse in late modern social life, the frameworks for this study are Fairclough’s theory and method of CDA (Fairclough 1989; 1992; 1995a; a theory of meaning as choice, by which a language, or any other 1995b; 1998; Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999) and Halliday’s theory of semiotic is interpreted grammatical description, system, as networks of interlocking options systemic functional grammar (Halliday 1994). CDA is as a resource for making meaning. Each system in the network repre defined by Fairclough (1995b: 57) as the analysis of relationships sents a choice: not a conscious decision made in real time but a set of between the three dimensions or layers of a communicative event: the possible alternatives. text, the discourse practice, and the socio-cultural practice. In this framework, texts may be either just spoken or written, or spoken or written and visual; Since choice is moved by intentionality, it ultimately means that speakers discourse practices are processes of text production and text consumption; and word and organize their texts according to and in order to fulfil the socio-cultural practices are the social and cultural activities of which expectations they put in them as conveyers of messages. Echoing Leap the communicative events are a part. The theoretical assumptions (1996: xvii), and keeping the idea of text-as-choice in mind, we may say supporting the framework stress the fact that language use is always then that ‘meaning is not inherent in text but is instead a product of constitutive of social identities, of social relations and of systems of knowledge situated, social action that must be studied accordingly’. and belief, in the sense that it helps shape these aspects of society and SFG has multiple applications and there are many purposes for using culture. As Fairciough (1995b: 55) puts it, the way this process it. For a critical discourse analyst to use it, for instance, SFG needs ‘to takes place will depend upon different factors: include considerable social contextual information to facilitate informed 232 Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects Carlos A. M. Gouveia 233

text deconstruction’ (Martin, Matthiessen and Painter 1997: 2). But no lesbians and gay men choose to remain ‘in the closet’. As stressed by matter what its application, SFG doubtlessly provides analysts with the several activists interviewed for this specific news coverage, Portuguese tools for understanding why a text is the way it is, and in that respect it gays and lesbians are still afraid of disclosing their sexual condition and stands as the most relevant theory of grammatical description to be of fighting for their rights, as they regard society as still too homophobic: used in a textually-oriented discourse analysis, as is the case with CDA. ‘Social [ear is what prevents people from coming Out, because they feel As socially constructed systems, gender, power and opportunity are they will be discriminated against, if their sexual orientation becomes products of representations and social constructions of individuals and known’ [‘0 medo social é o que faz corn que as pessoas não se queiram relations between individuals that are interwoven with processes of assumir, porque sentem que vão ser prejudicadas, se a sua orientaçäo for cultural and historical reproduction, in which tradition plays a funda conhecida’j. In this respect, the situation has similarities to that of Austria, mental role. The stability or variability of those — systems that is, the as reported by Bunzl (2000: 215—16), where gay and lesbian activism maintenance or modification of the social, gender and power positions has shifted ‘from working toward large-scale social transformations of individuals in the community — depends on how tradition evolves (which would fully emancipate lesbians and gay men along with other over time. From the point of view of CDA, analysing assumptions about oppressed peoples) to carefully targeted, ideologically flexible, efforts gender and opportunity as they are presented in the representation of intended to subvert and disrupt the reproduction of heteronormative gays and lesbians as discursive subjects in a Portuguese newspaper is regimes’. A result of this shift was the organization of a Pride/Rainbow therefore a reflection on the stability or variability of the systems in Parade almost at the same time in both countries (in 1996 and subsequent relation to their traditional configuration. years in Austria, in 1997 and subsequent years in Portugal). But a major difference between Austria and Portugal is that despite the fact that the Tradition and the cultural context population of Austria is around 80 per cent of the size of Portugal’s, in Austria the ‘Rainbow Parades have drawn up to 50,000 marchers and The main characteristic of the news articles under analysis seems to be spectators to Vienna’s Historic Ringstrale — the symbolically-laden site the willingness of the newspaper to make gays discursive subjects of of such political mass convergences as the annual labor day parades news for a week. This is a fairly important aspect, considering that in held on May 1st’ (Bunzl 2000: 216), whereas in Portugal the parades have Portugal homosexuality is not a theme found regularly in the news when never had that many marchers and have been confined to low-visibility compared with other countries, and in particular with other EU countries. sites, such as Jardim do PrIncipe Real and Praça do MunicIpio. For instance, in terms of legislation, one may say that in Portuguese The symbolic repertoire of a community is not yet fully present in laws there are more omissions concerning homosexuality than explicit whatever binds lesbians and gay men together in Portugal. In fact, the references. These omissions give way to multiple situations of exclusion, ideological integrity that constitutes a community and informs the which are made possible not only by the long tradition of socially expression of its symbolic repertoire is non-existent if we consider that silencing the homosexual condition, but also (and mainly) by the legal the reality of difference manifested by both gays and lesbians and by vacuum that frames that condition in terms of social rights. the members of each group in isolation consistently refuses to construct As has been stressed by Santos and Fontes (2001: 175—6), this way of the appearance of similarity. While it is necessary to unite members in acting has been characteristic of the Portuguese state, which has tried to their opposition, this appearance of similarity may be in the process of silence discrimination and harmonize consciences, while legitimizing formation but is not yet close to being totally expressed (for an a rigid morality that is heir to centuries of religious puritanism and to a appraisal of this process, see Meneses 1998). The growing numbers lack of critical contestation.’ of bars and places of cultural animation one may label ‘gay friendly’ has Due to these factors, Portuguese gay and lesbian activism is a reality helped develop a sense of identity, a sense of belonging to a community, that was only made possible in 1995, when ILGA-Portugal (Interna but the community, in the precise sense of the notion, simply does not tional Lesbian and Gay Association—Portugal), the first lesbian and gay exist as it is not visible to the larger community. association, was founded. And though other similar movements were It is a fact that in almost every country in the world there is fervent set up afterwards, it is a fact that to this day the majority of Portuguese discussion about sexuality, its regulation and its equality. In Giddens’

vida na membros, seus

sexuais. as ou de beneficiar proteger a objectivo corn preferências orgariizada suas

das independentemente circunstâncias,

as

todas forca corno em gay

comunidade da

direitos ao de funcionamento

Referimo-nos igualdade plena a cidadão urn a garantir

de

capazes

medidas as todas

a apoio no e a discriminaçao combate

no

situar-se deve

equilibrado e a in moderno democracy’. action social posicionamento Urn

of frontiers the admissible surpass to sometimes, ‘tends, and aspects’

transparent ‘less has that a it (c) power is and uncovered; be must veil that editorial

same the in

stresses whose

features’, yet newspaper unclear of domain the is ‘a they have (b) mind, power the in principle this Keeping

décadas’].

ültimas das

social solidarity’; of irreversIvel plane noble more the on even or realidade uma é politics in life, sexual

orientacao na

a

diferença

direito

chamado [‘0

in professional its members, decades’ or benefiting few of aim last protecting the the with during reality ible

irrevers

an

become has

orientation force organized an ‘as sexual functions in community gay the (a) different be to assumption: right called

so-

‘The that

news of day

first the on the validate that the in editorial editorial stated the in premises negative following stated principle the

on

based

is

action

This

week. entire an the on for also but that power), have limelight not the group should in the then negative, homosexuals

put

will

that

coverage

news a

proposes is power if NotIcias that and de power has a (if group Diana it they have that position newspaper the

in

Portugal,

practice

the

been

has what the on from presup only based is itself not they have power the distance to have not should Aiming

gays that assumption the argument, that to pursue are we If power.

Analysis that have not should gays that assumption read can the one position

presup from that because second, and terms; in social power siderable

terms. social in as con has that well gays, group, a as social of the existence academic presuppose in simply them

bring

may

research

their

that consequences coverage news this in negative texts the remaining of the and the editorial because fear their

and

against,

discriminated

still is that a group with first, positioning: social an is associated find to unbalanced are readers being what of

fear

their

‘community’,

non-visible a towards “gay”], 2 poder [‘0 researchers Gay of Power’ entitled ‘[The] ing editorial, same this interest of

lack the

to

due

also but

orientation, sexual their hiding consider contrary, the On and positioning’. social balanced lives and modern their

living

silently

lesbians

and

gays

of tradition a long to ‘a consider to may only want text, the not highlighted following due readers, is what

This

exceptions).

the

somewhat are 2001 Fontes and be to seem not Santos does data the the 2000; texts in we constituting have what 1998;

Meneses

1998;

(Gameiro

countries other to compared newspaper, of by when the director the written the Portugal editorial in with Beginning

lesbians and

gays

about

studies scientific and academic of absence

total

The editorial

almost

the is

above

mentioned aspects the of some with Concordant

practices. social

case.

the

in

and

text legal the

in

difference

the

destroying

at

aims that discourse

is not see, that shall we as

but,

in

question; grodp the

social towards

a

through than

society of

rest

the to

in

relation

difference their of ation

of

any

form

discrimination fighting and condemning

positioning’ social

confirm a

through

constructed mostly is

identity

of

discourse the is, that

balanced and ‘a of modern as an is, example

serves it That natural.

discrimination; of

history

their and

condition

homosexual their of basis

and unproblematic seems coverage the

news

which from position

the

on

discursively

constructed

community a

of

members

as than styles

a

reading providing is then

the its of editorial ideal reader,

construction

life of

globalization

and

modernity of the

part

as

more themselves see

of

process the In a in

column. separate as

is the

it

repeated text

Portugal

in

lesbians

and gays that

consider

may

we

them,

with concordant

in

one only is foregrounded the

last

this sentence because

particularly

entirely not

but 954),

(2000: of Meneses

lines

the

along Furthermore,

the of of

view to newspaper, the be,

the start, from point

seems This

place.’

take

they

which in

context cultural the to according and degree

in

only

varying

everywhere,

almost

trends

parallel find

We

country. lar . .

his/her sexual of

preferences.)

independently

particu any

of

borders the

beyond far go spheres

emotional

and

personal

in

every circumstance, rights equal full citizen of a

guaranteeing capable

the affecting

transformations ‘the 52), (1999: out points

also

Giddens

measures of the all and

support the in fight

against discrimination

as But

others.’ with

connections and ties form we how and

ourselves

of

in

the located be must

social (a

positioning balanced modern and

think we

how

in on

going

revolution global is a ‘There 51), (1999: words

A. M. Gouveia Carlos 235

Subjects Discursive as Lesbians and 234 Gays 236 Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects Carlos A. M. Gouveia 237

profissional, na polItica ou ainda no piano mais nobre da solidariedade This process is made clear by an analysis of the data social. from the point of view of the transitivity processes used. For instance, counting only the 0 DN inicia hoje a publicaçao de urn conjunto de trabaihos que 20 processes in which the noun gays3 is used as subject, without any procura levantar o véu sobre esse mundo de contomos ainda difusos que é type of modification to the noun, one finds that it is mainly a participant a poder gay. . . não nos inibiremos de abordar os pontos menos transpar in relational processes, totalling 65 per cent of the occurrences, as entes de urn poder que tende, POT vezes, a extravasar as fronteiras de acção shown in Table 10.1. aciniissIveis nurna dernocracia. (my emphasis) Table 10.1 Transitivity processes in which ft is rather surprising to find stated as facts what, de facto, is a matter the subject is the noun gays of opinion. What one can read in this editorial are serious accusations Processes Occurrences Percentage that portray a community as putting unwarranted pressure on society and other social and institutional groups so as to favour its interests. Material 4 20 There is nothing wrong with the assertions, particularly if one is to find Mental 0 0 them substantiated in the texts that constitute the news coverage, Relational 13 65 Verbal 0 0 which in turn is guided by ‘the seriousness and rigour that are the trade Behavioural 0 0 mark of journalism’ produced by the newspaper, as stated in the same Existential 3 15 editorial: ‘Fá-Io-emos corn a seriedade e o rigor que são a imagem de Total 20 100 marca do jornalismo desta casa.’ Contrary to expectations, what the readers find in the texts is not a substantiation of the assertions stated in the editorial. Furthermore, these assertions are, in most cases, denied It is rather striking that as discursive subjects, gays are represented in by the people interviewed, m6stly politicians and defenders of gay the newspaper mainly as participants in attributive relational processes rights, and particularly by the informants of the poll presented by the (Halliday 1994). Considering that ‘Strictly speaking, neither of the basic newspaper on the first day of its report: ‘Homosexuals are discriminated experiential terms, “process” and “participant”, is completely appropri against by Portuguese society. According to the results of the DN/ ate for this category [relational processes]’ (Thompson 1996: 86), one Marktest poli, most Portuguese think that gays are not favoured and that may say that gays are not entirely participants in the actions represented they have little power of decision.’ (‘Os hornossexuals são discriminados in the texts of the newspaper. In fact, they are represented mainly as pela sociedade portuguesa. De acordo corn os resultados da sondagem Carriers of Attributes, as in: DN/Marktest, a maior parte dos portugueses considera que os gays não são favorecidos e tern pouco poder de decisão.’). os gays não são favorecidos e tern pouco poder de decisao (gays are not favoured and have little power of decision) Transitivity processes Tudo parece indicar que os gays tern cada vez mais poder Another important but dubious aspect that deserves attention is (It seems that gays have increasingly more power) related to the decision to make gays into discursive subjects for an entire week. It seems to have been called for by the necessity to portray As real participants in transitivity processes, gays are mainly the gay community as ‘an organized force’, thus warning society Existents in existential processes, or goals in material processes. As one about the dangers they represent. Despite the fact that, as stated in the can see from the processes below, exemplifying, respectively, an Existential pro editorial, ‘we have come a long way from the days when the life of a cess and two material ones, gays are affected participants in agentive homosexual was confounded with the existence of outcasts in the dark processes. On the other hand, cases of representation where ages’ [‘estamos já muito longe dos tempos em que a vida de urn gays are Actors, exemplified by the last example in this series, are rather homossexual se confundia corn a existência dos párias da idade das rare: trevas’], the newspaper seems to suggest that the gay community is a Ha gays em todo dangerous one. o sItio (There are gays everywhere)

a direct as

work not a

does clause

which in

relation

logical-semantic

all

almost

fact, In

coverage.

news

overall

the by

transmitted

power

gay

the

projection, of cases are

here

dealing with are we what model,

tional

of

idea general

the and

texts

the

in

gays

to

given Attributes

the

between

func

systemic Halliday’s following and view, of

a

point From clausal

discrepancy a

note may

one

clauses,

relational attributive in

Carriers

are

the of

journalist. that discourse, in another

integrated actors social

gays that

Attributes the at

looks

one

if

Furthermore, society.

Portuguese

in

of the the discourses

of

a

thus

mediation are the of texts

Most speech.

presence its

on

insists

newspaper

the

power, this

of existence the

denying

reported free and speech reported

speech, direct

grammar,

traditional

interviewees the of

most

despite

that,

though, awkward,

rather

is

It

in called, is

what using ‘voices’ of

their by or by reports quotes

direct

power. 6

of

economy an called is

what as

is

made

discourse actors’ social

the of

representation The

journalistic

regarded

be

may

that

society

a in

degree,

lesser or greater a to

have

can

said.

actually

was of what a to

representation

process,

group

a social

thing

of sort the

as

concept,

monolithic a as power

treats

a to

selection

the

to discourses is submit whose practice

journalists,

newspaper the

readers, the

of

minds

the in

fear

of

construction

this

by the is

represented discourse of their time the Most

for example).

towards Tending

power. 5

have

they that

assumption

naturalized the

texts, opinion or to

editor no the letters

are

(there for speak

themselves

via

gays, with

associated

threat of

sense a

construct

to

helps that

power)

seldom

in categories three these The considered entities gay people.

have

(gays

process relational

attributive

another of

nominalization 4

and

gay for rights

advocates actors: social of politicians,

three categories

a

itself

is

texts

the for

header

a as serves

that

power’

‘gay Group

into

mainly fall

that the say

interviewees

may speaking, we Generally

Nominal

the fact, In

power.

have

gays society

Portuguese

in

that affirming

by

the are given to interviewees.

above referred

of the Most Attributes

constantly of

process

the to

homologous is analysed just process The

identities).

other

verbs and

projecting memberships, Quotes

other from is, (that groups social

other

from

them

differentiate to helps

which and identity and

membership

activities. concrete performing entities,

indicate that

characteristics

of

a set to

consideration

under

group social the

as

concrete are say not that

represented gays may on, actually we

so

confining

of

purpose

the serves

representation of type

This

possession. of or

and

positions’, world’,

‘political

placed’,

‘lobby’,

‘entrepreneurial ‘well

circumstance

of

quality, of

matter a by

either again gays,

identify to entity

of

decision’, as

‘power map’, ‘influential’, such expressions ‘political

another

using of be may

it or

possession; a as or

a circumstance

quality,

in In

mind bearing fact, a to

domain. material,

causative

not domain,

a as either

attributes,

certain

gays to ascribing of

that

be

only can

as to abstract to an refer may we

what belong processes

transitivity

constructed

being

representation

the of terms in result

final

the

processes),

in the with representation lexical associated choices the

Moreover,

relational

(identifying

symbolization

and processes)

relational

(attributive

no cargos em politicos’]. ou meio

bern

empresarial colocadas,

membership

class

represent to used

is process of type this

that

Considering

in [‘estão positions’ political in and the

‘well world placed

entrepreneurial relational.

than

other

processes in participants as

more

them

represent

[‘tern

are forca’l muita and

‘quite

are gays as: such powerful’

Attributes

to

chosen

have could texts

the of

authors the

characterization, and

a

few are the in only the by

there headlines, but

newspaper highlighted

definition to

open

category

social

available an also but

subjects

cursive

idea,

the de [‘Os

opposite são gays Transmitting

direita’]. wing’ dis politicos

only

not

them

makes

which

gays, about are texts the

that

fact

the

they

are be ‘right they

politicians, to happen and, if polIticas’], escoihas despite

Indeed,

important. very is processes relational

in

participants

tern

de em

matéria diversas, opçOes as naturalmente,

riomeadamente mainly

gays of

representation the analysis, under

texts

the

In

of que, [‘são in choices’ pessoas terms options, political particularly

have are

who lobby’ diverse “lobby”], são (‘não naturally ‘people

discrimination)

against fight to I have adolescents

(Homosexual

[‘tern

a

de ‘not are pouco

decisao’], poder decision’ of power ‘little have

discriminaçao a

contra

bater

se de tern homossexuais

adolescentes

Os

são atacados’l, [‘não are [‘são favorecidos’], ‘not favoured’ constantemente

attacked’ are pela [‘são ‘constantly

sociedade portuguesa’], discriminados

priority)

homosexuals

gave that bank a of instance,

for

(1 know,

by

society’ against are em

Portuguese Portugal’], influentes ‘discriminated

a hornossexuals

prioridade

dava que banco urn de

exemplo,

por

Sei,

in is pouco [‘são not are Portugal’ very ‘are that texts gays influential

the in

that only find we What idea. of a minority with confirming them

map)

political

our

on gays put who Soares Joao

was

(it

gays have the

that power, the

assumption general Attributes contradict

polItico

mapa

nosso no gays os pÔs que Soares Joao foi

239 M. A. Gouveia Carlos

Subjects Discursive as Lesbians and Gays 238 240 Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects 1 Carlas A. M. Gouveia 241

representation of non-linguistic experience but as a representation ‘Quem of a pôs os gays no nosso mapa politico foi Joao Soares’, diz Manuel linguistic representation. Projection varies according to the characteristics Monteiro. ‘Mas nao ha homossexuais na Cãmara’, contrapOe o autarca. of its discursive function, to the interdependency between clauses and according to the projecting process that motivates it; thus projection (‘The one who put gays on our political map was Joao Soares’, may result in a quote, a report says or a fact. Manuel Monteiro. ‘But there are no homosexuals The on the City Council’, establishment of obvious or oblique frontiers between the dis counterargues the Mayor.) course that represents/projects and the discourse that is represented! projected, whether we are facing quote cases or report cases, is in itself The difference between the two extracts, or should one say an important variable for analysing the data (Fairclough 1995: 81); it is the differ ence between the two versions of the same quote, apart even more important when it is looked at in relation to the projecting from being a difference in wording, is most of all a difference in the way verbs, as the overall result activates a particular framing that informs of rendering meaning. In the paragraph beneath the title the way the represented discourse is interpreted. of the text, the whole thing is represented as a verbal fight between two politicians, with As faithful representations of linguistic representations, quotes are an accus ation and a subsequent defence. In fact, the Mayor is abundantly used in the general data under analysis. However, their represented as defending himself. Note for that matter the projecting frequency of use is much lower than that of report cases. This is probably verb used to project his quote, ‘contrapOe’ (‘counterargues’). The relevant because the report, being a summarizing process, is more open to the thing about the paragraph beneath the title of the text is that transformation of the represented discourses, thus becoming more the Mayor’s quote is different from the one in the final part of text. From easily integrated in the discourse and the ideological purposes of the one quote to the other the Mayor’s team on the City Council has journalists. In that respect it is important to note that the transforma become ‘the City Council’, that is, from a reduced spatial location circumstance tion of quotes into reports, when moving from what people say to we pass into a large one. This transformation helps to represent a different headlines or leads reporting what people say, is more often than not a Mayor, one that either has imposed a restrictive policy on the employment transformation of both the spirit and the letter of what was actually said. of gays and lesbians in the City Council, a discriminating For instance, in one of the texts, the Mayor of Lisbon one, or a Mayor (known for being that claims to have control supportive over something that is far from being towards gays and lesbians) is quoted as having said that in controlled. his team at the City Council there are no gays and lesbians. This is The example above is not an isolated one as the process underlying quoted as a confirmation of his sympathy for gays and lesbians and to it is used several times in this news coverage. For instance, the make the point that this sympathy does not lead him same process to favour gays serves to connect gays to right-wing (that politics and to portray them as a is, to discriminate positively towards: gays and lesbians). reactionary group. Considering that in Portugal, a country that was niled by a fascist dictatorship for almost 50 years, the word reactionary ‘Mais do que o BE (Bloco de Esquerda), foi Joao Soares quem pôs os has a high negative status, bringing into the reader’s mind the fascist gays no nosso mapa politico’, anota Manuel Monteiro. 0 autarca con regime and the struggle for freedom, its use is not innocent at all. Furthermore, firma. Mas acrescenta: ‘Na minha equipa da Cãmara Municipal, näo the word is used as part of an Attribute ha gays nem lésbicas’. in a relational clause in which gays are construed as Carriers. This clause, a quotation, is presented as the title of a text together with the verbal process that projects (‘More than BE (Left Coalition Party), it was Joào Soares who put gays it: on our political map’, notes Manuel Monteiro. The Mayor confirms. BE acusa: But he adds: ‘In my team on the City Council there are neither gays ‘Gays são reaccionários’ nor lesbians.’) (BE accuses: ‘Gays are reactionaries’)

It is interesting to note how these projections, which constitute the The Sayer in the verbal process is BE, the Left Coalition of small political last paragraph parties that of the text in question, give readers a different reading has publicly defended gay and lesbian rights. It is interesting to from that of the paragraph beneath the title of the text: note how this title frames not only the text in itself but the entire news

of

out cent) per (9.4 6 oniy year, same In the 25). of out (5 cent per 20

Parliament,

European the to elected

of

women percentage lowest the with gay) (lobby

and

of 230),

out (40 10 cent per 17.4 Parliament, its national lobby gay to elected

women

of

percentage lowest the with countries the of was one

Portugal

gay)

(comunidade

Union,

the European in

1999 in

instance, For posts. 14 decision-making to community gay

access have that

women of number

low the in

particularly but women,

gay)

(poder

towards harassment

sexual and

violence domestic

of cases of

number 15

power

gay

high

the in only

not revealed domain, a male is power Portugal, In

Occurrences

group Nominal

gender and Opportunity

‘gay(s)’

word

the

for

coiJocates

society.

Portuguese in

lobby gay a of

existence the to

due facing all are recurrent Most 10.2

Table

we that

dangers the about readers the warning realm’, of the ‘defender

of

the

position

the in

itself

puts

newspaper The

readers. to

newspaper’s used

devices

ideational

the of

matter

a is

one

dangerous a

as

force’

the in fear

of

sense a

promote

to is

coverage the of

objective main

the ‘organized

that of

construction The

society.

Portuguese in

present

force

that

clear

it

make

together, seen

when

occurrences,

these unacceptable,

organized an of

idea the

construct helps

groups

noun

these

of

use The

is

that

movement

of

freedom certain

a with force organized as an

sified

10.2.

Table in

see can

we

clas

to construct,

helps it that

a of community

the idea

as besides

In Classifier, fact, a is

gay

where groups noun in

as Thing

function

collocates

gays. to

all favourable at

not

is analysis

this

through

disclosed is

These

lobby.

What and

community power, are texts of set entire the in gay(s)

processes.

existential in word

the Existents for

collocates

recurrent most the

words,

non-content

and

are

that

groups

noun in

post-modifier,

or an

Existent, as and function gay’],

counting Not

group. dangerous and

powerful

a as

sentation

comunidade

da

obstáculo

maior {‘o

community’

gay

the of repre their obstacle to

homologous is reactionaries as gays of

representation

The

‘the major group noun the in a post-modifier

as used

is it

organizada’];

groups noun

and

Collocates

força corno gay da comunidade [‘o funcionarnento force’ organized an

as community gay the of

functioning

‘the and gay’]

comunidade pela

generalization.)

absurd

this made

ever has

manifestada

movimentos

de

liberdade

[‘esta

gay

community’

the by

Left

Coalition

the of

leaders

the of

None

wrong. is

headline news

(The

manifested movements of freedom ‘this processes relational nominalized

the in Carrier is a it

community’, ‘gay group

noun

the

Concerning

generalizacäo.

absurda

essa

vez alguma fez

Carrier.

the

is

party

Esquerda de

Bloco

do

dirigente

Nenhum

errado.

é

notIcia da

tItulo

0

Coalition Left the which of process relational negative a of attribute an

in is itself which gay’), do lobby [‘prisioneiro lobby’

gay of

the

‘prisoner

saying:

title the

against

ing

group

noun the in

post-modifier as a and

organizado’

bern (‘está

protest

newspaper

the to

letter a

wrote

question in

party

coalition

the

organized’

well

as ‘is such

process

a

relational in

Carrier as a

processes,

as

coverage

news

this in

text

extra

an

to led

headline

this of

use

The

in existential Existent as construed is it gay’], lobby [‘poderoso

‘powerful’

them?

from itself

Epithet by

the instance

one

in least at

pie-modified

lobby’, ‘gay

group

distance

to

trying

is

Coalition

Left the

even

when gays

from

then

expect

noun

of the

case

In the

politicos’].

comportamentos

os

[‘condiciona

one

can what is:

text

the

and

title the

of

implication

The itself.

distance

behaviours’ political

‘conditions

process

abstract

material the

in

to trying is

rights,

gay of

defender

traditional a

Coalition,

Left

the even

an Actor as

and difusos’],

[‘e ainda

contornos de

mundo urn

world’

of

lobbying

methods

and

positions

whose

from

entities

dangerous

as

a

shadowy still ‘is and

rosto’] sem [‘continua

face’

no

has ‘still

as

such

of gays

construction

the

helps

It

important.

very again

is

(‘accuses’),

processes

relational in Carrier as

a

construed is it

title), its

general as

‘acusa’ used,

verb

projecting

particular

The

power’.

‘gay group noun

the

coverage news the

throughout (repeated

‘gay

power’

group noun

of the

in

nominalized

power’, have

‘gays

coverage,

news

the of

theme

entire

case

In the community’.

‘gay

and lobby’

‘gay

power’,

‘gay groups

noun

the

synthesizes

that

process

relational the to

relation

close

irs

stands

the

in

modifications and

processes

transitivity it:

namely, represent

that

gays

to

attribute general a

provides title the fact, In coverage.

243 M. Gouveia A. Carlos

Subjects Discursive as Lesbians and Gays 242 I, 244 Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects CarlOs A. M. Gouveia 245 the 64 government members (ministers and secretaries of state) and social construction is not exclusive to the reporters, considering the fact only 2 (15.4 per cent) out of the 13 members of the Constitutional that even the way gay men talk about homosexuality is male-specific Court were women (Canco and de Castro 2000: 95—100). and male-oriented, as it is marked by the masculine grammatical gender, What these numbers reveal is that in Portuguese society, men, including despite the fact that in certain circumstances a neutral meaning could gay men, have access to opportunities in ways that are not available to have been worded as in the following example, women, and the newspaper already quoted, produced reflects this social stratification and dis by a gay rights activist: crimination in these specific news articles. For instance, the majority of the interviewees that fall into the social category of gay people are really 0 medo social é o que faz corn que as pessoas não se queiram gay men. In fact, lesbians are a social assumir, category that hardly appears in porque sentem que vSo ser prejudicadas, the entire news coverage. se a sua orientaçào for con hecida. (my emphasis) After analysing the occurrences of the word ‘lesbian(s)’ in the texts, either as nouns or as adjectives, we come to the conclusion that the (Social fear is what prevents people from coming out, because word occurs only 22 times while the word they ‘gay(s)’ occurs 197 times. Fur feel they will be discriminated against, thermore, seven if their sexual orientation of the occurrences of the word lesbian happen to be becomes known.) adjectives associated with the adjective gay in complex noun groups, such as ‘gay and lesbian film festival’ or ‘gay and lesbian bookshop’, The absence of any explicit references to lesbians as agents of power, which are standard designations which the newspaper has to comply with. at the same level as gay men, ultimately mirrors the systems of gender In 11 of the remaining uses of the word, ‘lesbian(s)’ stands in relation and opportunity that are at play in Portuguese society. In fact, the use either to ‘gay(s)’ (6 occurrences) or to ‘homosexual(s)’ (5 occurrences), of the noun ‘gays’ as a way to signify both gay men and lesbians is con in each case forming a copulative noun group that represents women cordant with the use of ‘Man’ [Homem], for instance, to refer to both and men separately. The noun group ‘homosexuals and lesbians’, men and women,8 a use that is generalized in Portuguese society. though, is a problem as it represents women and men differently, with the concept of homosexuality being applied only to men. Gay males as effeminate beings Of the remaining four uses, two of them refer to concrete examples, Texts in the last day of the news coverage are all about the presence of but they are not expressive, as they refer to the French tennis player gays and lesbians in the arts. The first page opens with a lead covering the Amélie Mauresmo, who publicly announced her homosexual orientation, entire page of texts as follows: ‘whereas in cinema, theatre, music, litera and to the activist movement Delas, a lesbian movement in Brazil. ture or in fashion, there is greater openness in relation to homosexuality’ What we can extract from all these numbers is that only two instances (“Nas artes, seja no cinema, teatro, misica, literatura ou moda, existe uma of the word are used to actually represent differences between the maior abertura em relacao a homossexualidade”). This lead is used to women and men. One is in relation to the social situation in Spain, of introduce the texts but it serves another purpose: that is, to justify the which it is said that ‘the change in mentalities [concerning gay men] newspaper’s incursion into the culture and fashion industries. Instead does not seem to cover lesbians who continue to say they still are being of actually questioning the stereotyped assumption that equates gays and discriminated against’ [A mudanca de mentalidades parece nao abranger as lesbians with the field of the arts in general, the lésbicas, que continuam newspaper chooses to a dizer-se discriminadas]. The other is the perpetuate that stereotype quotation by providing readers with a reading position of a Portuguese politician who says that ‘there is more tolerance that validates the stereotype. Despite gays being ‘in all places’, as said by in society towards male homosexuality than towards lesbians’ [Ha mais an interviewee, who is an activist for gay rights, the newspaper tolerância da sociedade em relaçao homossexualiclade chooses to a masculina do focus their readers’ attention on the arts, culture que quanto as lésbicas]. and fashion industries. Moreover, in these pages composing the last of the sequence, the The representation of different systems of opportunity in relation to newspaper also validates the social construction of gay males as effem gays and lesbians does not seem to be important for the newspaper. It is inate beings. That construction was already present in the words of two as if whatever is said about gays is also true about lesbians. But that politicians quoted in a previous edition of the newspaper:

prerogative. male a

still

is

power of

exercise the where and life heterosexuality. by daily their in dominated longer guaranteed no definition

rights by

their is

having content

no from far has are which they where Sexuality but world the reproduction. in legislation from sexuality of

female-rights

severance the

of advanced most outcome the to logical a have It claims is tolerance. which to society liberal in a tribute a as

undergo

just

not women

homosexuality of discrimination the acceptance discrimination increasing the of see process the of should We

all.

at

forefront them

to the to brings connection little ultimately has This now power. of legitimacy, agents and as to marriage referred

to

explicitly relation

in not strictly are so lesbians defined be to that shows used analysis which power’, Sexuality, ‘gay altered. group

noun

the in

moulded,

lesbians and discovered, be to gays both something of time power the first the to for reference is a see Sexuality

may

one although

fact, In male-directed. is homophobia the shown,

been

has

hope I as it: puts 57) Furthermore, (1999: expect. would As Giddens one decades. than few power

last

the

over

political

and changed social have more of sexuality have elements lesbians and main gays the that West, the In assertion the

via

homosexuality, with associated fear of sense a of construction the

Conclusions

also

is there time same the at but lesbians, and gays against negatively

discriminate

to refusal explicit an is there representation specific this

in

say that can

we

presented,

just

analysis the account into Taking products. cosmetic of sellers

and

designers, different. accessories rather being fashion outcome hairdressers, models, top designers,

the

despite

lesbians,

and gays

fashion against professions: discriminate not to following the willingness orientation gay a with associating by

an

initial

was

there

cases up both ends

in that journalist considering particular one discussion, the moda’), de artigos diversos os vender

during

notice could one e

apresentar what to criar, homologous missSo is por coverage tern the que in daqueles personalidades as

see

can

one

what

sense, cosern

that se in

And que corn Parliament. linhas in as Law conhecidas Unions Civil demais por (‘são known’ well are

the

of

discussion of

time

at the products, place fashion of took sorts that sell all discussion and public present the create, to is mission whose

in

motivation its

found

those of coverage news personalities this the that say can together one fact, In sowing threads ‘the is, that known’,

it. by

informed

and

well

is framed of thus was made are and they discussion stuff this of after ‘the months idea the transmit to process

a

few

produced was relational

a chapter this Using in analysed industries. fashion coverage and news arts The the in gays of resentation

rep

its in counterparts. construction heterosexual their this as social rights same the perpetuating couples by the further it develop

gay

from and

guaranteeing far that is stereotype the out Law to Unions is pick Civil to a was do outcome chooses final newspaper the What

The discussion. public the during raised expectations the not fulfil did

and reduced substantially was activists, and

associations

gay by

forward general.) in homosexuals

put

claims

the of

most to

favourable

thus being

the status),

(no the matter of image the to harmful up being ends that way showy rather

partnership

domestic of

type

any against

not

discriminate a

did in

it do which sometimes orientation sexual that admit openly some who

Party,

Socialist the by

presented bill,

initial The

against.

But be

discriminated way.

dignified very a in behave who homosexuals many

know

(I

not could citizens which of basis on the instance) for condition, social and

language

religion,

race, sex, as

(such

attributes of

list the

to

orientation geral. em homossexuais dos a irnagem para

dicial

sexual

add

would 13) that

(Paragraph

Constitution

the of

preju ser paragraph por acaba que o panfletária, extremamente forma de vezes,

specific a

also but

Law

Unions the

Civil

under

only not rights equal for por

fazem-no, sexual orientaçbo essa assumem que dos alguns

Mas

asking

visible, most

were

and activists

gay associations that

Parliament digna. muito forma de comportam se que homossexuais

Conheço

in discussion this during It was trends. those of outcomes the of one

as be seen

may couples

to heterosexual

be guaranteed to they were

way

women.) with conversation easy-going

in

engage

they

And

the

same

exactly

in

gay couples

to

benefits

partner domestic

guarantee

tendency. artistic an with guys sensitive gentle, suave, are

(Pederasts

would that Law Unions Civil a of in Parliament discussion the Portugal,

In

society.

to

society

from varies with dealt are they

way

the world,

muiheres. as corn amável

diálogo

urn tern

E

artIstica.

the industrialized

in

everywhere

visible be may

trends

these Although

e tendncia

sensibilidade corn suaves, maclos, tipos são pederastas Os

247 A.

Gouveia

M.

Carlos

Subjects Discursive as Lesbians and 246 Gays 248 Gays and Lesbians as Discursive Subjects Carlos A. M. Gouveia 249

The fear the newspaper wants its readers to experience focuses on the technique for categorizing actions and processes that allows the speaker or writer existence of a so-called gay lobby. Once again, it represents a case of to avoid endorsing a particular story about responsibility’, other techniques discrimination ‘build in the long history of discrimination against gays and an impression of agency’. That is the case of the so-called ‘intention- promoting’ lesbians, intended to: (a) prevent gays and lesbians from ‘coming out’ verbs. In the data under analysis, the headline ‘State promotes “gay” tourism’ and from defending their rights; and (b) maintain [‘Estado promove turismo “gay”], on the front page of the first day of the traditional view news has an example of an ‘intention-promoting’ verb. The story concerns the of male homosexuals as effeminate beings and, as such, fitting into production of a leaflet entitled ‘Lisbon Friendly’, produced by the City Council only certain jobs and activities in social life, such as culture and the under a protocol with a Gay and Lesbian Association, and distributed interna fashion industries. tionally by governmental agencies. While it is strictly twe that the action being reported is a promoting, marketing one, the title implies something bigger, that is, that the government/the Acknowledgements state is in fact promoting a bill in Parliament concerning gay tourism (tourism for Portuguese gays). 5 1 am well aware that in English the expression ‘gay power’ is paradigmatic I would like to thank Antonio Avelar, Carminda with Silvestre, Marilia Resende, such expressions as ‘black power’, carrying with it meanings that go far Cecilia beyond Lopes da Costa, EmIlia Ribeiro Pedro, Jonathan Weightman, the ones involved in a restricted sense of the expression. One has to bear in mind, Josênia Vieira, LuIsa Azuaga, Sandra Barcelos and Vicky Hartnack for though, that the meanings associated with such expressions have never reading and commenting on a draft been fully activated in the Portuguese language, namely the of this chapter. 1 also would like to meanings of emancipation or of access to full rights. Portugal only became a thank the editor, Michelle Lazar, both for daring me to write this chapter democracy in 1974, and before that time there was tough censorship and and for her invaluable comments a and suggestions. Needless to say, total absence of freedom. Before the 1974 revolution, and against the opin responsibility for the final version lies with me. ion of the rest of the world, namely the UN, Portugal still had colonies (which only gained independence in 1975), for instance, and women (up till the end of the 1960s) were Notes not allowed to travel, open a bank account or run a business without the consent of their husbands or fathers (see Monica 1996: 218—19). It is not entirely certain that the meaning of ‘emancipation’, 1 This is still true and plays an important part in the for legal text. As Santos and instance, is associated in Portuguese with the expression “gay power” by Fontes (2001: 176) point out, Portuguese law, against most European recommenda of the newspaper’s readers. In fact, the reading of the expression as a tions, not only ‘forgot’ to criminalize discrimination based on sexual orienta nominalization of an attributive relational process seems not only more tion, but has also tolerated, up till now, some adequate legal regulations indirectly but at the light of this clarification but also when considering the effectively punishing the homosexual citizen which may still be active. These manipulation of meaning uncovered by the remaining analysis of the data. include, for instance, specific regulations that 6 prevent their access to Notice for this matter, that the question most of the interviewees were asked a military career or that prevent them from being blood to answer donors. was ‘Is there a gay lobby/power?’, as if the main concern was to get 2 The use of the definite article (even if between brackets) in the expression to know whether gays have or do not have power in Portuguese society. This ‘The Gay Power’ is kept from the original expression in Portuguese, where, in also shows that the interpretation of ‘gay power’ as a nominalization of the this context, and contrary to the English language, its usage is optional. The relational attributive process ‘gays have power’, discussed above and referred fact that the editor chose to use it is thus meaningful, as it contributes to to in the previous endnote, seems correct. emphasizing and discursively establishing 7 in the minds of its readers the Four years before, in 1995, these same figures were as follows: national Parlia power the newspaper refers to. ment: 12.2 per cent (28 out of 230); European Parliament: 8 per cent (2 out of 25); 3 For these statistics, 1 am only considering cases such Government as ‘gays earn wages members: 10.3 per cent (6 out of 58); Constitutional Court: 15.4 above the average’ [‘Os gays recebem ordenados acima da media’], leaving out per cent (2 out of 13) (Canco and Joaquim 1995: 123—5). cases where gays is not the head of the noun group as in ‘Gay consumers 8 The use of the generic ‘he/man’ in English, of course, has been well travel more and choose more expensive destinations’ I’Os consumidores gays documented by feminists (for example, Spender 1985). viajam mais e escolhem destinos mais caros’]. The overall analysis is not restricted to this data, though, which serves here only as an example. 4 Critical linguists such as Roger Fowler, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress and Tony Trew References (1979) have been particularly concerned with nominalization as an effect of the deletions of participants in processes of transitivity, and in that respect their Bunzl, Matti (2000) ‘Inverted appellation and discursive gender insubordination: work has been highly influential for the consideration of techniques for obscur an Austrian case study in gay male conversation’, Discourse & Society, 11 (2): ing agency. But, as stressed by Potter (1996: 182), while nominalization is ‘a 207—36.

251

157—9 149, 157 139, national

143—5,

140, discourse conservative 142 multi-media

158 190 146, 22, government

149,

Arnold.

144—5,

104, 22, London:

conservatism Grammar.

Functional 158—9

Introducing (1996)

Geoff

Thompson,

masculinity also see 150, 146, 22, 139—43, Life Family

Paul.

144

12,

141, 5, 7—8,

R. &

Kegan ConneLl,

Routledge 174

legislation London:

anti-gun

edn. 2nd

Language,

Made Man (1985)

Dale

Spender,

143—4 values

Confucian-Asian

157

173—94. 59:

Sciences),

gay

also see

146, 143,

139,

141, 22, Social advertising of

Review

(Critical

Sociais

Ciências

de

CrItica

Revisfa

133

119, (homo)sexuality’),

university/campus

199 158,

of

challenges

the and

State

Portuguese

(‘The

201

197, (homo)sexualidade’

189—91, da

187, 181,

literacy

desafios

148—50,

144,

140—2,

campaign(s)

os

e

português

Estado

‘0 (2001)

Fernando

Fontes,

and 125 Cristina lesbian Ana Santos, 201, 207 182—3,

242—3 Sage. 236,

86, London:

49, 7, 24, D. 2—3,

Construction. Cameron,

Social

and

Rhetoric

Discourse, 232—4, Reality: 199—200,

133, 131, 125—6,

Representing (1996)

Jonathan

Potter,

119,

117, pp. 5, 18, 14,

7,

J.

community 143

215—31. 115, 12—13, 10, 7, ICSUL,

Butler,

Lisbon:

995).

1960—1

Portugal,

in

56—7 8, 12,

Situation

practice of

Social (The

communities 108 106, 66, 103,

10, P.

1960—1995 Bourdieu, Portugal,

em Social

Situacao

A

(ed.),

Barreto

67

strategies Antonio in

200 1960—1995’),

Portugal, in

habits of

evolution

(‘the

66 64, 56,

skills 1960—1995’

198,

193—4, 184—6, Portugal, em

181—2, 23, Brazil

costumes dos

evolucao

‘A (1996)

Filomena

Maria

Monica,

83

79,

23, 219 6,

2, bias

933—55.

153:

Analysis),

(Social

Social

77, 75, 69,

71, 66,

64,

61—2,

style(s)

187 184, 181,

168, 14, M.

Bakhtin, Andlise

Lisbon’),

in

modernity gay

difference:

and

norm

(‘Intimacy,

Lisboa’

73

resources

214

17,

backlash

em

gay

modernidade a

diferença: e

norma

‘lntimidade,

(2000) Inês

72 63, 61,

Meneses,

practices

ICSUL.

Lisbon:

thesis.

MA

Lisbon), in

Identity

Gay Lives:

131 118, Private

Spaces,

intercultural (Public 233

106, 100, 98,

Austria

Lisboa

em

Gay

Identidade

Privadas:

Vidas

Ptiblicos, 65 Espacos organizations in (1998) lnës 214—15 212, 209—10, Meneses,

81

79, Arnold.

informal London: 116, 111, 108, Grammar.

argumentation Functional

with

Working

(1997)

65 Clare

and equals Painter,

and M. subordinates I. M.

69 J. 44, Christian approval Matthiessen, R.,

Martin,

with communication good

133—4 122—3,

Press.

Minnesota

of

65

and colleagues

University

employees

118, 16, 20—1,

8, 12, Minneapolis:

androcentric English. Men’s

Gays

Out:

Word’s

(1996) L. Williani

Leap,

between communication good

245, 247

Arnold.

Edward

107

structure and

187,

155, 68, 170, 16, 8,

63,

agent(s) London: edn.

2nd

Grammar,

Functional to

Introduction An

(1994) K.

A.

M.

Halliday,

123 85, 83, 74—9, 62, gender and 249 248, 212, 157, 86, 8,

68, agency

Books.

Profile

London: Lives.

communication

see

campaign

also

our

Reshaping

is

Globalisation

How

World:

Runaway

(1999) 192 172, 22, Anthony citizenship Giddens, 174

174—8 172, 168,

157, 168, ICSUL. 171, 8,

15, 1, 146, Lisbon:

advertising

thesis.

MA

Structuring), Sexual

and

146, 142,

140,

82, 80, Orientation 16, Sexual choice(s) Identity: to

Act

197 (From Sexual.

e

Estruturacao

Sexual

a Orientaçao

195 Identidade:

192—4, 181, 175, Acto 172—3, Do 160—2, (1998) Octávio

Gameiro,

185—6,

142, 159, 22, 20,

childcare

68, 140—58, 14, 22, Paul.

& Kegan advertisement(s) Routledge

London:

Control.

and

Language 218 (1979)

T. 247

Trew, 244—5, 232—3, and 220—1,

Gunther

Kress,

Bob,

Hodge,

Roger,

l:owler,

211,

195, 185, 188—9, 177, 175,

210, 123, 173, 106, activist/activism

142—62.

173,

159—61, 156—7,

149—53,

pp. 145, 248—9

134,

117—19,

Blackwell, Basil

Oxford,

Discourse.

Media to

Approaches

(eds),

Garrett

Peter

142,

146—7, 136, 106,

96,

children 103, 7,

10,

capital

economic

and Bell

Allan

in

media’, the

in

discourse

‘Political

(1998)

Norman

Fairciough, 195—7

political,

social, to

symbolic,

Arnold.

Edward

London:

Discourse. Media

(1995b)

188, 192, Norman 184—5, church Fairclough, Catholic 243—4 223, 207,

173

Longman. 170, relations

public London: 196, 92, 85, 75,

Language.

responsibility

of

Study

Critical The

Analysis.

Discourse

139 Critical pro-natalist (1995a) of and positions

Norman resources to

Fairclough,

Press.

Polity

London:

176 Change. Social pro-choice and

200—1 135, 93, 21—2, Discourse (1992) Norman

Fairclough,

Longman.

175—8 London: 16—17,

employment to Power. education, and

Language (1989)

Norman

Fairclough,

173, Press.

Rifle

Association National

University

Edinburgh access

Edinburgh:

Analysis. Discourse

Critical

Rethinking

Modernity:

Late in

Discourse

(1999) Norman

Fairciough, and Lillie Chouliaraki,

Muiheres. das

Direitos os

para e

Igualdade a para

Comissao

Lisbon:

1999)

Situation Women’s

(Portugal:

1999.

Mulheres das

Situacdo

Portugal:

(2000)

(eds)

Isabel Castro, de and Dma Canco,

Muiheres. das

Direitos os

e para

a Igualdade

para

Comisslo

Index Lisbon:

1995)

Situation Women’s

(Portugal:

1995.

Muiheres das

Situacao

Portugal:

(1995)

(eds)

Teresa Joaquim, and Dma Canco,

Subjects Discursive as Lesbians and Gays 250 252 Index Index 253

construction and hegemony 9—10, 115, 140, ethnography 3, 39, 63, 85, 117, 119 co-construction 12, 143 158, 206 ‘second wave’ 10, 167 European Union 15, 21, 95, 97, 101, ‘third de-construction 2, 232 and heterogeneity 168, 186 wave’ 9, 16 214, 243 feminist discursive 5, 23, 100, 106, 139, 234 and ideology 134, 240 (European) Parliament 21, 95, 98, analytical social construction 6—7, 11—12, 63, and practice 14, 183 resistance 5—6 100—1, 103, 108, 243, 249 conversation analysis 2 123, 232, 245—6 and semiotics 5, 116, 183 see also organizations critical discourse analysis see structuralism and and text 14, 170, 186—7, 197, 230, exclusion constructivism 183 feminist critical discourse 234 of feminism 212, 215, consumerism 23, 220—2 analysis 15, 106, 186, 197, and the social 11, 63, 107, 185 of other sexualities 115, 135, 220, critique 5—6, 141, 144, 208, 218 214 competing, contending 14, 156, 232 contestation 4, 6,8, 11, 17, 22, 48—9, 158—9 linguistics 18, 95, 106—7, 141 of women 9, 19, 21, 24, 63, 75, 83, 53—6, 126, 140, 183, 205, 207, 232 discursive practice 85, 207 pragmatics 2 118, 135 stylistics incontestable 32, 42—3, 45 dual discourses 14, 22, 140—1, 2 context(s) studies 1, 13, 141 143—5, 157—9 Fairclough, N. 2—3, cultural 6—9, 11, 14, 24, feminist critical discourse analysis 1, 11, 214, 232, 234 governmental 22 32, 63, 106, 131, 143, 168, 178, 2—6, 9, 13—14, 17, 20, 24, 109 national 14 multimodal analysis of 5, 143, 145 181—4, 186—8, 192—3, 230—1, firearm(s) 168, 171—2, 174—5, 177 institutional I of conservative gender 240 Foucault, M. 9—10, 143, 168—9, 184 geographical 18, 22 relations 14, 22, 140, 143—6, family classroom/educational 21, 23, 149—60 life 22, 139, 141—3, 146, 149—50, gate-keeping 115—17, 119, 181, 187, 190—1, of egalitarian gender relations 14, 9, 18, 23, 93, 206—9, 153—6, 158—61 216, 222 196 22, 140, 143—9, 158—60 nuclear 148 work(place) 15, 33—4, 50, 61—2, gay(s) 115—16, 118, 229, 232—3, order(s)of 143, 175, 182, 184, 191, fatherhood 22, 139—41, 144—7, 65—7, 71—5, 77, 79—80, 84, 125 197 236—49 149—51, 153—4, 156—60, 162 social 196 discrimination and lesbian(s) 24, 229—30, 232—4, and childcare 20, 22, 96, 139—40, 240—1, social change 181, 190, 198 and gay, lesbian 10, 24, 232—41, 244—5, 247—8 142, 146—7, 149—3, 156—7, and academic 93, 119, 136 244—8 power 229, 235—9, 242—3, 159—60 247—9 socio-political 141, 230—1 and gender 21, 54, 92—3, 97 see also daddyhood as noun 237 family 150 and sex 9, 20 feminine 55, 118, 142, 172, 182, 186, community 10, 233, 235—6, 242—3 historical 178 at the workplace 11, 77, 86, 94 193, 197, 218 and gender couples 247 55, 77, 81—2, 115, 148, discourse of 213, 217 commodities 193—4, 197 182 effeminate/effeminacy 147—8, 245, ‘doing’ ‘feminine’ workplace 49—50 government, political 34, 141 gender 12 248 femininity 7, 74, 123, 141, 215 entities and performance traditional 185 power 12, 33, 35—6, 39, 51, 55 239 feminization of fathers 147 fatherhood, parent racist debate 213 politics 12, 106 identity 144, interactional behaviour 20, 5 1—6, 148 contradictions 144, 146, 158, 183, Dworkin, A. 167, 173, 177 67, 75, 77, 84, 86—7 lobby 187, 191, 198, 207, 213, 219, 239 242—3, 248—9 feminism men 24, conversation analysis 13 education 233, 244—5 andCDA 4—5 position 216 critical discourse analysis (CDA) 1—6, access 16—17, 21, 93, 97, 135, 189 and choice 16, 140, 172, 219 rights 236, 11—13, 24, 31—2, 39, 42, 46, 49—50, adult literacy 23, 181, 187, 189—92, 239, 242—3, 245, 247 and emancipation 4, 10, 15, 17, tourism 56—8, 63, 85, 109, 116, 119, 123, 196, 198—201 229, 249 20, 22—3, 191, 212, 216—17 see also homosexuality 141, 168, 178, 181, 183, 205, 207, and women 23, 20, 62, 65, 142, and freedom 18, 176 Giddens, 230—2 174—5, 184—5, 197 A. 14, 93, 184, 233—4, 246 and its relevance 17—18 Grant,J. critique 5—7, 16—18, 23, 134, 141, class(room) 21—2, 114—18, 120, 6—7, 12, 18 commodified 168 gender 144, 146, 205, 207—8, 218 126, 133 definitions/meanings of 205—9, and class 3, 7, 144, 147, 211, 219 universities 21, 133—4, 192 213—14, 218 daddyhood 139, 144, 149, 162 egalitarianism and ethnicity/race 1, 3, 10, 126—8, 15, 22, 44, 48, 94, discourse of 170, 215 see fatherhood 136, 144, 185, 215, 247 also 140, 143—7, 149, 158—9 ‘first wave’ 178 dialectical egalitarian discourse 144—5, 158 and generation/age 10, 123, 142, liberal feminism, reformist 172, 181, 191 process 108 emancipation 1, 4—6, 10, 15, 17, 20, 176—7, 218—19 relationship and its relevance 3 1—3, 46, 49, 6, 11, 183 22—3, 144, 191, 216—17, 233, 249 ‘me-feminism’ and tension 8 empowerment 54—5, 57—8, 126, 128 10, 15, 23, 123, 125, ‘we-feminism’ 18 directive(s) 33—5, 50, 176, 227 168, 172, 177, 190, 208 and neutrality 5, 22, 96, 117, 123, post-feminism 17—18, 20, 212 discourse disempowerment 23, 146—7, 245 5, 7, 5 1—2, power feminism 17, 171—2, and genre 191 125 177 and sexuality 1, 21—2, 24, 115—20, radical feminism 178, 211, 216 122—3, 125—6, 131—6 L

gay(s)

also see

213

national and

196

politics

identity

and

244

movement

17

15,

216

193,

north/west media and

160

156, 153, 216

position

feminist

17

post-feminism

191

149, 143,

139,

fatherhood

discrimination and see

discrimination

of 186, 8, discourse

inequality neo-liberal

gender and

(ies)

247 identity

244—5,

240, 197 191, 197 186,

184,

markets discourse

and

221, 215—16,

211,

132—3,

125,

196—7

discourses

institution(s)

197

194,

186—7,

159,

14,

(ity) 118, 115—16, hybrid

16, 24,

10,

lesbian(s) 23

consumerism

185 140, 123—4,

227

172

219—21, 170,

Amendment(s)

196

95, identities

75, 43, 7—8, 5, 2, commodified

inequality

212—17,

208—10,

205—6,

23,

Hungary

Constitutional

US 162 139,

117 daddyhood and

18—19, inclusion

244—8, 241,

234

247—8 186,

184,

131

global/globalization 125—6, 115,

sexual

238,

236,

232—4,

147—8,

230, 131—3,

generally

laws, 191

188, Portuguese

14, of 140 structures

of

re-enactment

115—16,

23—4,

10,

homosexuality 247

Constitution

Portuguese 196

life public of

208

134, 125,

247

222,

220, 215,

23,

homophobia

222

(Hungary)

Code

Penal

123

music 117, reproduction production,

106

98,

84,

210

177

197, 191,

2

patriarchal

63—4, 42,52,

37,

31,

organizational

187—8, 170-1, 181, 23,

(USA)

gun-control advertisements

125

oppressive

74

63,

power/authority

and 211 texts

(Hungary) newsletter

media, 16

liberal

159

183

Act in

Protection

Fetus interdiscursivity

1,3,7—8,11,120,131

gender

122—4,

119—20,

1,

gender/sexual

247

14

(Portugal)

Law

between Unions

Civil interaction

133 118,

22,

heterosexist

70 15,

12,

differences

249 210 178, 176,

169, (Hungary) 10, Act 7,

Abortion generic

133—4

dominant

hierarchy

199—201 10

(Brazil) valued

literacy adult

culturally

207—8

critique

222—3

191 184, 181—2,

134,

legislation

discourse

and law,

215

asaweapon

219—20, 216,

206—14,

145,

187

literacy

adult and

7

sense

common as

140—1, 23,

10,

hetero-gendered

192 116,

23,

different of

248 192, analyses

117

strategies

speaking

and

246—7

152, 177—8 147, 170,

145, as

120, text

31,

5—6,

G.

advice-giving Kress,

48

society

and

222,

220, 215—16,

205,

148,

184

200—1 119—20,

195,

169, genre(s)

133

androcentric

143—4,

136,

133—4,

129,

120,

118,

141 131, 100,

22, 20, 109, 63,

18, 13,

14,

7—10,

6—7,

structure knowledge

208

practice and

115—16, 10, 16,23, 3,

heterosexuality

152

stereotypes

212

220

215—6,

118,

22—3,

198 193,

181—2,

157—8,

interdiscursivity 149, also see

208,

23, 13,

5, 1,

power and

15, 10,

heterosexism/heterosexist

146—7, 181 143—4, 177, 140—1,

168—70,

115, 32,

intertextuality

133

196

practice

of

24,

22,

14, 8, 11—12, 3,

intertextuality

also relations

see

13, 5—6, 1,

discourse/language

and

190

186,

text and

158 197 143—4, 194,

11—12, 189—91,

186, relationality

183—4, 181,

215 ‘ideology’

aggressive

219

160,

158,

22, 159 14, 150—1,

interdiscursivity

ideology

197,

191,

186, 168,

discourse

and

144,

115—16,

12—13,

performance 107—9

197 194, 191, 186, 184,

traditional

heterogeneity

158 100, 144, 95,

21, 115,

13,

polarity

interdisciplinarity

238

233—4,

222

208, R.

Hennessy,

158

144—5,

186

142,

relations parity

intercultural 230—1, 106, 100—1, 3,

11,

1, social

140 of

re-making

workplace

see 159—60

workplace

223 220,

144,

1,

sexual

141

re-hegemonize

149, 140—2, 220

16—17,

12, marriage

10, 1,

hetero-normative order of

196—7

post-coloniaL

222 219—20,

206—8,

158-60,

14 12,

10,

106—8

100, framing/frameworks

212

105—6,

140—2,

122,

3,

7—10,

hegemony

94—8, 93, 15,

21,

Union mainstream(ing)

100—1, 33, 11, self-

personal)

188

185,

R.

Hasan,

European inequality

see see

Union

inequality European

158—60 97, 22, men’s masculine)

239

237,

identities

see 50, 62

44,

42, identity

(ity) hybrid

see

hybrid

230—1,

191,

145,

K. A.

M.

Halliday,

37, 33,

structures 206—8

authority/power

196—8 190—1,

187,

145,

141,

10,

141 8, hetero-gendered 31,

181,

140—1,

119,

114, 111,

106,

249

247,

243,

216,

209,

parliament

158—9

149,

143—7,

government

140,

politics, state, 94, the and

103,

100, 21,

12—13,

10,

gender

142

22,

masculinist

48, 44, 22,

14—15,

63 egalitarianism 43—5,

194—7

191,

181—7,

190

160,

146,

22,

campaign

244

218, 152,

11,20—1, 140,

structures

and

97, 22—3,

feminine/women’s

249

244,

221,

210,

201,

118, 104—6,

85—6, 64,

government)

also (see difference(s)

236

197 184,

essentialist

198—9,

189—90,

185,

171,

160,

158

149,

144—5, 22,

184,

182, 134,

groups

conservatism

social

and

191

emancipated

158,

146,

141—3, 139,

46,

34,

31,

158

94

blending reform

and

154 139,

sphere

domestic

22—3,

20,

17, 15, 1,

government/state

158

14—15 150—2,

reflexivity and

197—8 191—2,

103—4,

different

162

149,

144,

140,

5, 8—9,

asymmetry

169

196—7 193,

feminine

commodified

153,

150,

148,

145, 101, E.

Goffman,

6—7 structure

8,14—15,85,97,117, ideological

as practices

and

153—4

162

139,

trend

209

196, 185,

93, 86, 220

83, 72,

149,

144,

(professional)

careerist

234

revolution

216,

206,

143,

141,

state schools) the (and and

organizations and 197 160, 143,

motherhood and

234 lifestyles

of

continued gender —

255 index

Index 254 256 Index Index 257 literacy 22 narrative 13, 94, 100—3, 145, 161, performance 12—13, 42, 74, 115—16, pragmatics adult 23, 181, 187—91, 195—8, 187, 209 2, 13, 16, 116, 119, 126 139, 141, 143—4, 148—52, 159, praxis 199—201 networks 5—6, 12, 14 185, 206, 215, 239 presupposition and women 197 peer 21, 116, 154, 157, 235 79—81, 83 politics 20, 31, 95, 141, 170, 182, old boy’s 47—8 184, 218, 221, 235, 241 manager 34, 36—7, 39—46, reclamation(s) 122—3, 125—6, 133—4 50, 52, social 61, 78, 82, 85 and consumption 168 54—5, 64, 68 recontexualization(s) 140, 182, support 177 and gender relations 141 see also women 190—2, 196 newsletter 170, 172, 181, 187—8, campus politics 21, 129 management reflexive (ity) 14—15, 18—19, 146, 190—2, 194—6, 199, 210 feminist politics 3, 16—17, leadership 216 158—9 styles 16, 21, 61—5, 69, New Zealand 20, 31, 39, 58 of history 213 critical feminist reflexivity 19 73, 75—9, 84—7, 94 nominalization 238, 242—3, 248—9 of identity and difference 22—3, critical reflexivity 14—15, 18—19 models of 21, 61, 63—5, normative (ity) 10, 22, 105, 107, 122, 196 feminist self-reflexivity 14, 18, 223 74—5, 94 125, 134, 160, 207, 222 of literacy 196—8 institutional 14—15, 146 strategies 49 heteronormativity 140—1, 144, of naming 2, 19 ‘recuperative reflexivity’ 15 styles of 64, 66—7, 70—4, 83 220, 233 of representation 139—40, 158 self-reflexivity 14, 207—8, 223 marriage 142, 161, 218, 220, 246 non-normative 222 see also government/state representations 6 masculinity politically correct (PC) 159—60 absence and presence and discourse patterns 49 oppression 2—3, 5—6, 8—12, 17—18, 23, 158 Portugal 23—4, 98, 184, 195, and feminism and femininity 7 123, 125, 134, 186, 233 18, 208 229—30, 232—4, 238—9, 24 1—5, and gays forms of 8, 12, 141, 144, 146, 148, organizations 24, 230, 232, 237—9, 247—9 242—4, 246—7 159—60 and communication 65, 85 Portuguese 181, 185, 193, 249 and gender 129, 134, 150, gay see gays and men 91,94 post-structural 152, 4, 9, ii, 32 158, 182, 232 government 22, 142 and structure 20—1, 63, 85, 107—9 power and journalism 239 hegemonic 141—2, 159, 160 and women 15, 20—1, 53—4, 66, 75, and ideology 1, 5—6, 13, 23 and lesbians 24, 230, 232, 244, heterosexual see heterosexuality 78, 82—3, 85—6, 93, 95, 103—4, and 247 discourse access 134 and women 21, masculinist 17, 22—3, 142, 207, 213, 221 63, 85, 123, 150, and gays 236—9, 242—3, 247—9 194, 197 220 (see also androcentrism) and work 61—2, 70, 79, 86 and lesbians 245, 247 linguistic 240 modern 139 corporate 31 and masculinity 21, 65, 73—5, 85—6 of men/masculinity New Man 146, 151, 159—60 culture 8, 39, 94, 120 144, 148—9, and politics 210—13, 220, 235 153—4, 157 politically correct (PC) 159—60 glass ceiling see women and glass and solidarity 70 of modern power and 21, 55, 65, 74—5, 85 ceiling father/fatherhood and women 8, 17, 23, 49—50, 52, 139—40, 143—5, ‘real men’ 53, 160 good practices 61, 85—7 148, 151, 158—9 56, 73—8, 93, 103, 123, 125, 158, of parenthood 141, representation of 144 governmental agencies 249 146—7, 159 171, 195, 197 of practice 11, 85, see also fatherhood Hungarian GLBT 220 115, 140—1 asymmetry 1, 10, 126, 152—3 politics of 158 materiality 2, 7, 10, 12, 16—18, 154, meetings 35—6, 38 balance of 126,140-1, 144, 160, textual 10, 12—13 208 models of management see commodified notion of 177 visual 148 media 104—5, 139, 146, 159, 171, management difference 7, 40, 44 (re)production 192—3, 197, 206—10, 212—13, non-governmental 201, 216 dominance 10, 31, 116, 119 and agency 86 215—16, 218—23 NRA 23, 168, 170—8 empowerment see empowerment and choice 178 advertisements see advertisements NARAL 175—6 exercise of 73, 75 and contestation, resistance newspapers 8, 24, 205, 207, 210, peer networks see networks gender 4, 133 and 57, 61, 75, 114, 208, and discourse 2, 10, 229—30, 232, 234—9, 242—6, power and authority 34—7, 41—3, 21, 43, 63, 94, 214 126, 143—4, 248—9 SO, 52, 83 158—9, 183—4 in the workplace 3 1—3, 39, 46, and dissonance political printed media 23, 205—7, practices 21, 45, 106 158 48—9, 83—4, 140 and heternormative 213 transnational 1, 15, 98, 100, 111 regimes 233 of the state 206 and mother/motherhood 103, 106, 140, see also European Union; ideas 119, 129 relations 1—3, 5, 7, 9—13, 31—3, 39, 143, 146—54, 157—60, 173, 185—6, workplace and identity 195, 231 42—3, 46, 49, 57, 63, 82, 119—20, 192, 195, 197 and ideology 117, 125, 134, 208 126, 141, 152, 193, 207—8, 219, and oppression childcare 20, 22, 142, 186, 195 parenthood, parents 147 186 222 and power other-centredness 155 construction of 146—9 9, 11,31, 116 manifestation/forms of 9, 32—6, and see also women patriarchy 222 representation 143, 232 38—9, 44, 66 and sexuality 115 multimodal 5, 143, 145, 162 bourgeoisie 23, 205, 220 structures 20, 42, 126 and social order 11 visual images 5, 13, 144—5, 193 hetero- 140 systemic 32, 46 and social practices 85, 108 see also semiotics heterosexism and 23 workings of 6, 9—10, 45 and social structure 63, 116 j

195—7

176-7

Halliday

see

(SFG)

190, 182, heterosexuality 156,

153, 146, 84—6, see

172—4, 167, 23,

heterosexuality victimhood and

Grammar

Functional

Systemic

79—80,

77, 72—5, 70, 68, 66,

64, 246 of

243 elements 177—8,

173,

147

position

subject

maternal

167

136,

61—2, 56, 54,

125—6,

52, 48—50, 122—3,

46, 167, 22—3, 17, women

9, and women against

195 191,

23,

women’s

31, 37—9, 22, 20, 12, workplace

222—3 violence

236—8

206-7,219—20,

195 136, 190—2, 184,

133—4, writers 131,

Kress see also

232,

230,

191,

subjects

discursive

125—6,

115—20,

1—2, 2 215—16 gender

and 192

197

187,

143,

subjectivity

181, 62—3,

22—3, 17, 233

9—10,

152,

equality 145, 147, 5, and 140, Leeuwen

Van

185

182,

126,

119,

among

diversity and

difference

sexuality

188 134, 119, 116,

117,

114—15,

strategies

speaking

212 197, 73, 135 as workers 22,

43, 18, values 10, 6, 4, 2, A. T. Djik, Van

106

136 132,

244—8

54,

49,

32, 5,

discursive/discourse

233—4,

215, 125, 24,

123, 10, 117, 93, 15, students as

orientation 227 214—15, 211, 174—7,

strategies

131

115, 136

131, ideology 170—2, 168, 162, 153,

132, 151,

95

53,

traditional

222

7, 128—9, 8,

122, 120,

differences professors as 117, 108, 97, 86, 93, 21—3, 19,

72

sexist

82

allusions erhood moth

17, 15, 9, America

of States United

245—6 men gay of

mother! see

sexual mothers as

158 152,

147,

15

98

uses

(MEP)

genre

also see

130,

75,

56,

49—50, 46,

20,

gender

20 Parliament 9, European of

subtle members as

184, 187

religious

245

150,

assumption(s)

stereotypes

see

stereotype(s) 217 94, 229—30 227, newspaper

83

77—8,

123

92, 85, structures 80, 72—8, 69, 66,

social 63—5,

181 newsletter

73,

prejudices/associations

and

56—7

20,

9, 56, 49, overt 20—1,

16, managers as

207

140, 162,

media

86

marginalization

and

219

214, 210, 206, 23,

9,

misogyny 195 159, 185 forensic

245—6

49

15,

language 154,

142, 22,

20,

housework

and

176—7

170, advice-giving

103,

62, 73,

53—6, 51, men

about

20

covert 96 192 162,

148

48 8,

93, attitudes 85,

53, 31, 22,

ceiling glass

and

140,

texts advertisements/visual

73—4,

54—5,

51,

49,

women

about

23

racism and

219 157, 154, 144, types text

stereotypes

220

215,

142,

98, 83—4, 78, 61—2,

career and

231

analysis

249

182, 134,

114, 7, 2,

D.

Spender,

118, 23, 15,

10,

heterosexjsm

and

women

discourse

textually-oriented

244

230,

94, 85,

81,

77—8,

23

classism

and 168 32, 12, 6—7,

4, 2, R.

Wodak,

196 193,

semiotic

73—5,

70, 68,

66,

61—4,

21,

Spain

sexist

sexism, 133 24, 12, C. West, 13, 24

and representation

183

118 22,

to related

topics

230

116, 63,

reproduction

production,

stereotypes

see

stereotype 197 182,

women’s/female

197,

184,

188,

of 108,

production

114 16,

14,

gendered/sexist

247 217,

97, 94, 92, 86,

77, 54,

220

231 196,

133

116,

24,

20,

11—12,

9,

discrimination 215—16, 206,

feminist

reformist

192—3,

reception interpretation,

100,

63,

31, 8,

6,

structures

social

222

7,

‘opposite’

207 22, feminist radical

186 hybrid

234

207,

187,

181—4,

7

physiological

206

of speech

134 119,

146, 140,

116,

114,

106,

85, 63,

sex

213

of journalists

of features/characteristics

33,

21,

11, 8—9, 3—6,

practice(s)

social

196 193,

texts

semiotic

186 victims 24 13,

of dialogicality

order

gender

also see

5

modalities

semiotic

and judges counsel, 232 of

de-construction

222

143 acts

semiotic

defence prosecutor,

culprits, of

the

231 as choice

206—7,

23,

5, 1,

hetero-gendered

231

system

semiotic

a

as

language

19—20 2 academics

of

133

20,

14, 5,

10—11, and talk

86

11, 8—9,

5,

order

social

145

structures

co-semiotic

220 normative non-hetero 216

212—14, 210,

75

closure

social

183

116,

semiotic(s) 16

non-mainstream

discourse) (implied sub-text

and

219

208, 207, 134,

128,

125—6,

239 182,

145,

134,

125,

208—9

non-feminist

10

and

power

56, 49,

42—4,

6—7,

quo

status

and

119—20,

114—15,

93,

13,

semantics 206 sexist

(hetero)

misogynist

186—7

208 200,

198,

190—1,

181,

216 205—6, 23, 4, feminist 181, 168—70, and intertextuality

140, 5,

change/transformation

social

177

143 double-voicedness

107

and institution

177—8

175,

173,

slogans

167,

133,

131,

125,

123, 119,

197 187, 181, of relation

dialogical

234

230,

160

157—8,

49, 23,

21,

9—11,

5—6,

quo status to

voice(s) 197, 170,

186—7, 14,

discourse and

146,

144,

139—42,

22, 14,

Singapore

131

128, 126,

213

206, marginalization

231—2

gender

also see

74—6, 65,

21,

10,

change social

to discrimination! violent 162, 145, 119, 5, 20, of 13, analysis

222

resistance

188

violence police

text

220,

206,

‘outlaw’

non-normative!

230

184,

108,

text

and 186 violence men’s 126, 106, 133 114, 87,

95,

125

lesbigay

108

system

and

215 behaviour

violent implied 81, 79, 64, 62, 32—3, 49, D. Tannen,

homosexuality

see

homosexuality

continued — (re)production

259 Index

Index 258 II’ 260 Index

workplace — continued workplace interaction 21, and gender 46, 49—50, 72, 75, 84, 3 1—3, 35, 39, 46, 48—50, 159, 212 52—3, 57, 62, 64, 66, 79, workplace culture 21, 39, 44, 56—7, 83, 196 72, 142 see also organizations