Journal of Language and Politics"
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
<TARGET "jlp" DOCINFO AUTHOR "" TITLE "Journal of Language and Politics" SUBJECT "Volume 3:2" KEYWORDS "" SIZE HEIGHT "220" WIDTH "150" VOFFSET "4"> Journal of Language and Politics volume 6 3� number 23� 20042007 Editors Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton University of Vienna/UniversityLancaster of East Anglia Editorial Assistant Usama Suleiman University of Vienna [email protected]@univie.ac.at [email protected] John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam� /� Philadelphia UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs <TARGET "jlp" DOCINFO AUTHOR "" TITLE "Journal of Language and Politics" SUBJECT "Volume 3:2" KEYWORDS "" SIZE HEIGHT "220" WIDTH "150" VOFFSET "4"> Journal of Language and Politics Editorialvolume Board 3�number 2�2004 Hayward Alker Marcelo Dascal Daniel N. Nelson Los Angeles, CA Tel Aviv Washington Editors Seyla Benhabib Teun A. van Dijk Anton Pelinka RuthNew Haven, Wodak CT and Paul ChiltonBarcelona Innsbruck CarmenUniversity ofRosa Vienna/University Caldas- Norman of East Anglia L. Fairclough Louis de Saussure Coulthard Lancaster Neuchâtel Editorial Assistant Birmingham Cornelia Ilie Ron Scollon UsamaTeresa Carbó Suleiman Stockholm Washington, DC UniversityMexico City of Vienna Sheila Jasanoff Bo Strath [email protected] V. Cicourel Cambridge, MA Florence [email protected] San Diego, CA George Lakoff Jef Verschueren Rudolf de Cillia Berkeley, CA Antwerp Vienna Luisa Martín Rojo John Wilson Paul Danler Madrid Dublin Innsbruck Review Editor Lilie Chouliaraki CBS MediaHub Department of Intercultural Communication and Management Copenhagen Business School Dalgas Have 15 DK–2000 Frederiksberg Denmark [email protected] John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam�/�Philadelphia UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs Table of contents Editorial: Challenges in the Study of Language and Politics, Challenges for JLP 297 Paul Chilton Articles Bill Clinton’s “new partnership” anecdote: Toward a post-Cold War foreign policy rhetoric 303 Jason A. Edwards and Joseph M. Valenzano III What statements do not state: Sine ira et studio 327 Dmitry D. Pozhidaev Presuppositions and strategic functions in Bush’s 20/9/2001 speech: A critical discourse analysis 351 Bahaa-eddin M. Mazid Media-ted political oratory following terrorist events: International political responses to the 2005 London bombing 377 Bernard McKenna and Neal Waddell Investigating language and ideology: A presentation of the ideological square and transitivity in the editorials of three Kenyan newspapers 401 Peter M. Matu and Hendrik Johannes Lubbe What does ‘we’ mean? National deixis in the media 419 Dr Pille Petersoo The political potential of multi-accentuality in the exhibition title ‘gastarbajteri’ 437 Martina Böse and Brigitta Busch Discussion Articles Reframing Moral Politics 459 Zev Bar-Lev UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs iv Table of contents Negatives and positives in the language of politics: Attitudes towards authority in the British and Chinese press 475 Lily Chen UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs Editorial Challenges in the Study of Language and Politics, Challenges for JLP Paul Chilton Lancaster University From time to time it is appropriate in the life of a journal to pause and take stock. The first issue of the Journal of Language and Politics was published in 2002. The intention then was, and certainly still is, to provide a scholarly forum with the highest standards of intellectual inquiry and debate, to create a publishing space in which researchers could respond to pressing contemporary issues, to open an arena in which intellectuals from all parts of the globe could share ideas and learn from one another, and to deepen our understanding of human discourse by de- veloping methodological and conceptual frameworks rooted in a variety of disci- plines. The common ground was and is the human capacity for language and the human capacity for communication and indeed miscommunication. The current issue displays great diversity but revolves in one way or another around topics that are methodologically or theoretically controversial or else at- tract attention because they are politically sensitive or sensational. Among the po- litical events or processes that generate both political discourse and the analysis of political discourse, scholars focus repeatedly on violence and war, on identity (whether national identity or internal political group identity), on the closely re- lated phenomenon of migration, and with critical moments in internal political life such as elections and referenda. It is certainly one of the functions of JLP to reflect contemporary political concerns, although in the future research articles that probe the very nature of the political across a plurality of cultures will be welcome. Discourse analysis in all its various forms and with all its various purposes has spread to many parts of the globe. The particular focus of JLP is whatever is un- derstood by the term “politics”. It is by no means obvious that everyone will agree on a definition but we hazard the guess that the definitions that people may offer from within their own societies, polities and cultures will overlap and that at the intersection there will be a conceptual consensus. Among the theoretical and methodological questions that surface in the cur- rent issue we find several that have for some time bedevilled discourse analysis, Journal of Language and Politics 6:3 (2007), 297–301. issn 1569–2159 / e-issn 1569–9862 © John Benjamins Publishing Company UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs 298 Paul Chilton especially in its “critical” variety. Henry Widdowson’s widely quoted critique of “critical” analyses of discourse has served a fruitful purpose in stimulating scholars in the discourse-analysis business to address the question of objectivity, selectivity and interpretation. There seem currently to be two lines of thought for addressing this problem. One is for the analyst to overtly acknowledge a political or ethical bias in data selection and/or in interpretation and critical assessment. In the present issue of JLP, Pozhidaev’s paper takes this position in a particularly clear fashion, concerned as it is with a political context that is fraught with hazardous polemic. Another response to the problem is to ar- gue, as McKenna and Waddell do, for a methodological separation between two analytic phases, one phase establishing data and describing textual features with minimal selectivity, a second phase acknowledging hermeneutic commitment on the part of the analyst. Even if such a separation is possible — and readers will be the judge — there remains a very wide variety of possible approaches at the level of textual descrip- tion. In some cases, the studies that JLP publishes have minimal reference to the linguistic details of text, and minimal use of a linguistic-theoretic framework. Such analyses are often richly compensated by more detailed accounts at the level of po- litical, historical and contextual description. Sometimes, insightful studies hinge on the analysis of a single word. In the present issue, Böse and Busch focus on a single word in the complex context of migrant workers in Austria. Their analysis of the political implications of irony shows how far one can go within a framework that is in many respects an eclectic postmodern-literary framework rather than a linguistic one. Pozhidaev also draws inspiration from the philosophical-literary tradition of late twentieth-century Europe, using ideas from Foucault and Derrida. In a potentially controversial move, however, Pozhidaev attempts to combine this framework with some of the approach found in Critical Discourse Analysis. In a quite different paradigm, Edwards and Valenzano address the profound historical shift brought about by the end of the Cold War, and seek to elucidate President Clinton’s attempt to redefine US foreign policy in his Africa tour of 1998. This they do by drawing on traditional rhetorical-literary notions of narrative, meshed with a detailed analysis of the historical environment that is in turn informed by American academic approaches to international relations. The LP has particularly called, and continues to call, for discourse-analytic approaches informed by linguistics. Mazid’s paper illustrates an element of this framework, drawing on a number of scholars who have puzzled over the phe- nomenon of presupposition within the disciplines of linguistic semantics and the philosophy of language. Presupposition is of central importance to discourse ana- lysts, and in particular to those concerned with elucidating what is not said, what is taken for granted and what is assumed to hold valid for a political community. UNCORRECTED PROOFS © JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY 1st proofs Challenges in the Study of Language and Politics, Challenges for JLP 299 Matu and Lubbe also adopt a linguistic framework, albeit a different one from that used by Mazid. In common with many other discourse analysts their aim is to unearth ideologies, in this case ideologies in Kenyan newspapers in the run-up to the 1997 Kenyan general elections. The methodology that they advocate to this end is not unfamiliar in the pages of JLP and has the aim of revealing adversarial identities in the political arean by applying Hallidayan systemic-functional gram- mar (SFG). An interesting theoretical point emerges, however, if one compares the different approaches