Discourses of terror: The U.S. from the viewpoint of the ‘Other’

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-42
Author(s):  
Sinfree Makoni
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
Single Event ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Interpretive Framework

AbstractDiscourses on terror have been encrypted in the events of 9/11 in 2001 perhaps more than any single event since the end of the Cold War. Even though these discourses are projected as a global phenomenon, very few studies have analysed how they are framed by non-U.S. actors, especially by al-Qaeda and to some extent al-Shabaab. An analysis of discourses of terror by al-Qaeda is invaluable in determining how the U.S. is represented from the perspectives of the “other.” Using Critical Discourse Analysis as an analytic and interpretive framework, this article analyses al-Qaeda declassified intelligence reports captured by the U.S. in order to establish a view of “terror” from an al-Qaeda insider perspective. The article argues that there is a convergence of ideas and overlap in terms of the discourses of terror between the U.S. and al-Qaeda, which is ironic because of the firm distinction made by the U.S. government between “us” – the civilized nations – and “them” – the barbarian, evil murderers of innocent civilians.

scholarly journals Current Nuclear Strategies and Arsenals of the United States of America and the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 23-44
Author(s):  
Adam Potočňák
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nuclear Forces ◽  
Nuclear Strategy ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S

The article holistically analyses current strategies for the use and development of nuclear forces of the USA and Russia and analytically reflects their mutual doctrinal interactions. It deals with the conditions under which the U.S. and Russia may opt for using their nuclear weapons and reflects also related issues of modernization and development of their actual nuclear forces. The author argues that both superpowers did not manage to abandon the Cold War logic or avoid erroneous, distorted or exaggerated assumptions about the intentions of the other side. The text concludes with a summary of possible changes and adaptations of the American nuclear strategy under the Biden administration as part of the assumed strategy update expected for 2022.

scholarly journals Rural as Periphery Per Se? Unravelling the Discursive Node

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bianka Plüschke-Altof
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Hegemonic Discourse ◽  
Spatial Inequalities ◽  
Urban Rural ◽  
Per Se

Despite often being used interchangeably, the dominant equation of the rural with the peripheral is not self-evident. In order to critically scrutinize the discursive node, the aim of this article is twofold. On one hand, it argues for overcoming the prevalent urban‒rural divide and dominant structural approaches in sociological and geographical research by introducing discursive peripheralization as a conceptual framework, which allows the analysis of the discursive (re-)production of socio-spatial inequalities on and between different scales. On the other hand, this article explores how rural areas are constituted as peripheries within a hegemonic discourse naturalizing the ascription of development (non-)potentials. Following a critical discourse analysis approach, this will be illustrated in the case of periphery constructions in Estonian national print media.

Critical Electronic Discourse Analysis

2013 ◽  
pp. 191-209
Author(s):  
Bob Hodge
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Electronic Media ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Electronic Discourse ◽  
Research Traditions ◽  
Social Forms ◽  
The Social

This chapter investigates and endorses the integration of two existing research traditions, electronic discourse analysis (EDA) and critical discourse analysis (CDA), into a more powerful and comprehensive form of analysis of electronic discourses, Critical Electronic Discourse Analysis (CEDA). It sets this analytic project against the massive, unpredictable changes in culture and society which are associated with the electronic media revolution. It argues for innovative forms of analysis, in which ‘electronic discourse analysis’ acquires two over-lapping interpretations: electronically enabled analysis of discourses in all media; and all forms of analysis of electronic discourses and the social forms they express. It uses McLuhan and multi-modality theory to argue for major continuities and significant breaks in semiotic modes over long periods. It argues that powerful innovations in analysis and technology need to recognize and incorporate the two fundamental semiotic modes, digital and analogue, and not seek to replace one with the other.

Debating the 2015 Islam law in Austrian Parliament: Between legal recognition and Islamophobic populism

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 392-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farid Hafez
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
The Political ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Legal Recognition ◽  
Parliamentary Debates

This article analyses the two national parliamentary debates on the new Islam law of 2015 using a Viennese School of Critical Discourse Analysis. It asks how the new Islam law was framed from the perspectives of the political parties in power and of those in opposition. It also shows in detail which arguments were raised to defend, alter or support the proposed law by identifying the list of topoi used. It asks especially how racist arguments were debated between on one side a comparably tolerant Austrian system of laws on religion, and on the other, the dominant right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria, which aimed to foster Islamophobia.

Counter-discourse corpora, ethical subjectivity and critique of argument

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran O’Halloran
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Political Change ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Argument Evaluation ◽  
Corpus Linguistic ◽  
Ethical Subjectivity

In the article, I model an alternative critical discourse analysis (CDA) pedagogy which is based on an ethical subjectivity instead of a political subjectivity. Aimed at undergraduates, it facilitates critical purchase on arguments which attack the standpoint of relatively powerless groups/organizations (who seek political change). Via corpus linguistic analysis of appropriate web-based data, I show how the analyst can rigorously find out at scale the recurrent key concerns of a relatively powerless Other with whom they were previously unfamiliar. They use this counter-discourse information as a lens on an argument which criticises the relatively powerless group, ascertaining whether or not the argument has distorted the group’s key concerns. Should this be the case, I highlight how the analyst can go on to explore whether any mischaracterisation has implications for the argument’s credibility because it loses coherence relative to the outlook of the Other. The approach is grounded in Jacques Derrida’s ‘ethics of hospitality to the Other’. It is in being hospitable to the outlook of a relatively powerless Other, and adopting it for purposes of argument evaluation, that the analyst effectively creates an ethical subjectivity. That said, the ethical and political are, in principle, relatable with this method as I indicate.

Counter-discourse corpora, ethical subjectivity and critique of argument: An alternative critical discourse analysis pedagogy

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-813 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Corpus Linguistics ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Argument Evaluation ◽  
Ethical Subjectivity ◽  
Online Comments ◽  
Text Cohesion

In the article I model an alternative critical discourse analysis (CDA) pedagogy which is based on an ethical subjectivity instead of a political subjectivity. Aimed at undergraduates, it facilitates critical purchase on arguments which attack the standpoint of relatively powerless groups/organizations (who seek political change). Via corpus linguistic analysis of appropriate web-based data, I show how the analyst can rigorously find out at scale the recurrent key concerns of a relatively powerless Other with whom they were previously unfamiliar. They use this counter-discourse information as a lens on an argument which criticises the relatively powerless group, ascertaining whether or not the argument has distorted the group’s key concerns. Should this be the case, I highlight how the analyst can go on to explore whether any mischaracterisation has implications for the argument’s credibility because it loses coherence relative to the outlook of the Other. The approach is grounded in Jacques Derrida’s ‘ethics of hospitality to the Other’. It is in being hospitable to the outlook of a relatively powerless Other, and adopting it for purposes of argument evaluation, that the analyst effectively creates an ethical subjectivity. That said, the ethical and political are, in principle, relatable with this method as I indicate. Keywords: absences; argumentation; change.org; corpus linguistics; counter-discourse; critical discourse analysis; ethical subjectivity; Jacques Derrida; online comments; text cohesion.

Representation, conceptualization and positioning in Critical Discourse Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 272-294
Author(s):  
Piotr Cap
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Space Theory ◽  
Discourse Studies

Abstract The present paper explores the current nexus between Cognitive Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), focusing on theories of conceptual positioning, distancing and perspective-taking in discourse space. It assesses the strengths, limitations, and prospects for further operationalization of positioning as a valid methodology in CDA, and political discourse studies in particular. In the first part, I review the cognitive models of positioning that have made the most significant contribution to CDA. Discussing Deictic Space Theory and Text World Theory, among others, I argue that these models reveal further theoretical potential which has not been exploited yet. While they offer a comprehensive and plausible account of how representations and ideologically charged worldviews are established, they fail to deliver a pragmatic explanation of how addressees are made to establish a worldview, in the service of speaker’s goals. The second part of the paper outlines Proximization Theory, a discursive model of crisis and conflict construction in political discourse. I argue that, unlike the other models, it fully captures the complex geopolitical and ideological positioning in political discourse space, providing a viable handle on the dynamics of conflict between the opposing ideologies of the space.

Speaking But not Being Heard: Two Adolescents Negotiate Classroom Talk about Text

2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen A. Hinchman ◽  
Josephine Peyton Young
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
The Other ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
Classroom Talk ◽  
Written Text ◽  
School Year ◽  
Field Notes

This article is a critical discourse analysis that explored how two students participated in classroom talk about written text. We analyzed field notes and transcripts from classroom videotapes and student interviews according to three dimensions, description, interpretation, and explanation, and with concern for three contexts, situational, institutional, and societal. The students participated in talk in complicated, devolving ways over 1 school year - ways that seemed tied to a variety of social constructions inside and outside the classroom. One participated in classroom talk about text with an assumption of expertise, only to lose credibility when his teacher expected richer interpretive insights. The other participated in such talk from an assumption of equality, yet no one listened to what she said until it diverged from the supportable, in which case they derided her. Our analysis suggests that we should be vigilant in our setup and monitoring of individuals' participation in classroom talk, about text and otherwise, looking to disrupt ways it is embedded with hurtful institutional and societal discourses. Such attention may help us to develop more equitable literacy pedagogy.

Critical Discourse Analysis

1990 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 84-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunther Kress
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
International Communication ◽  
The Other ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
Editorial Statement ◽  
The Media ◽  
The One

The label Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is used by a significant number of scholars with a diverse set of concerns in a number of disciplines. It is well-exemplified by the editorial statement of the journal Discourse and Society, which defines its envisaged domain of enquiry as follows: “the reproduction of sexism and racism through discourse; the legitimation of power; the manufacture of consent; the role of politics, education and the media; the discursive reproduction of dominance relation between groups; the imbalances in international communication and information.” While some practitioners of Critical Discourse Analysis might want to amend this list here or there, the set of concerns sketched here well describes the field of CDA. The only comment I would make, a comment crucial for many practitioners of CDA, is to insist that these phenomena are to be found in the most unremarkable and everyday of texts—and not only in texts which declare their special status in some way. This scope, and the overtly political agenda, serves to set CDA off on the one hand from other kinds of discourse analysis, and from textlinguistics (as well as from pragmatics and sociolinguistics) on the other.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document