Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discursive Construction of “Others” in the Semiotic Space of Political Communication

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Functional Approach to Professional Discourse Exploration in Linguistics

Abstract

The paper is devoted to the presentation of linguo-semiotic and linguo-pragmatic means of discursive construction of “otherness” in modern British political communication. “Others” in political communication are viewed in two perspectives: intracultural (“others” are in the same country as the speaker/writer) and intercultural (“others” are the representatives of the countries different from the addressant’s). The idea of discursive construction of reality reflects the tendencies in modern linguistics and is defined in the paper as an instrumental-analytical method that allows to categorise a fragment of reality in discursive terms. The research is conducted in the context of a pragmatic approach to the study of political communication involving the methods of critical and multimodal discourse analysis. The authors present linguo-communicative model of constructing “otherness” with the four basic strategies (identification of “otherness”, justification and retention of the status of the “others”, transformation and destructive strategies) and twenty-one discursive-semiotic techniques which display “otherness” through the range of linguistic, discursive and multimodal means. The presented model of the discursive construction of “otherness” in British political communication can provide a basis for a comparative analysis of political systems in different countries which is topical in the contemporary cross-cultural interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baranov, A. N., & Kazakevich, E. G. (1991). Parliament debates: Traditions and innovations. Moscow: Znanie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazhenova, E. A., & Lapcheva, E. A. (2003). Opposition self-other in political discourse. In Modern Political Linguistics: Materials of International Research Conference (pp. 16–18). Ekaterinburg: Ural. State. Ped. Univ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakar, R. M. (1987). Language as an instrument of social power. In Language and building of social interaction (pp. 88–125). Moscow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodrunova, S. S. (2010). Modern strategies of British political communication. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo nauchnyh izdanij KMK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chau, D., & Lee, C. (2017). Discursive construction of identities in a social network-educational space: Insights from an undergraduate Facebook group for a linguistics course. Discourse, Context and Media, 18, 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (2002). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 1–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis in organizational studies: Towards an integrationist methodology. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1213–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudinov, A. P. (2007). Political linguistics (2nd ed.). Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delarue, S., & Lybaert, C. (2016). The discursive construction of teacher identities: Flemish teachers’ perceptions of standard Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 28(3), 219–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demjankov, V. Z. (2002). Political discourse as the subject of political philology. Political Science. Political Discourse: History and Modern Research, 3, 32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Detinko, I. I., & Kulikova, L. V. (2017). Political communication: The experience of multimodal and critical discourse analysis. Krasnojarsk: Sib. Feder. Univ.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (2013). Discourse and power: Representation of domination in language communication. Moscow: Knizhnyj dom “LIBROKOM”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drugoveyko, K. O. (2014). Discursive mechanisms of constructing historical memory (on the material of Russian and Latvian press). Political Linguistics, 3, 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as a social interaction. Vol. 2. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filinskij, A. A. (2002). Critical analysis of political discourse of election campaigns 1999–2000. Author’s thesis of doctoral dissertation. Tver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J. (2004). The discursive construction of a world-class city. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 579–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galasinska, A., & Galasinski, D. (2003). Discursive strategies for coping with sensitive topics of the other. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(5), 849–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graber, D. A. (1982). Political language. In D. D. Nimmo & K. R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 195–223). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Bridging differences: Effective intergroup communication (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1995). Social semiotics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Karasik, V. I. (2002). Language circle: Personality, concepts and discourse. Volgograd: Peremena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasik, V. I. (2011). Emblems of modern mass culture: The image of an enemy. In T. G. Kuchina (Ed.), Existence in language: Selected papers for V. I. Zhelvis’ 80th birthday (pp. 239–257). Jaroslavl: Izd-vo JaSPU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazula, F. P. (2009). Theory and discourse: How ideas and symbols form politics. Political Science: Selected Papers, 59–78 (Moscow: INION).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolosov, S. A. (2004). Construction of social hate in discourse. Author’s thesis of doctoral dissertation. Tver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (1990). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2009). What is mode? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 54–67). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images. The grammar of visual designs. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzyzanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The politics of exclusion: Debating migration in Austria. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulikova, L. V. (2004). Intercultural communication: Theoretical and practical aspects. On the material of Russian and German cultures. Krasnojarsk: RIO KSPU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulikova, L. V. (2009). Communicative style in the intercultural interaction. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulikova, L. V., & Detinko, I. I. (2014). Construction of political “others” through multimodal texts (cartoons) in British press. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(8), 1381–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T., & Kress, G. (2011). Discourse semiotics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed., pp. 107–125). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontovich, O. A. (2005). Russians and Americans: Paradoxes of intercultural communication. Moscow: Gnozis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontovich, O. A. (2009). Discourse analysis and the sphere of its use. In M. J. Oleshkov (Ed.), Discourse, concept, genre (pp. 50–67). Nizhnij Tagil: NTGSPA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontovich, O. A. (2011). Methods of communicative research. Moscow: Gnozis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddicoat, A. J. (2013). Language-in-education policies: The discursive construction of intercultural relations. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog, R., & Olausson, U. (2013). To spray or not to spray: The discursive construction of contested environmental issues in the news media. Discourse, Context and Media, 2, 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilleker, D. (2010). Political communication. Key concepts. Harkov: Izd-vo “Gumanitarnyj Centr”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Discursive construction of scientific (Un)certainty about the health risks of China’s air pollution: A corpus-assisted discourse study. Language & Communication, 60, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotman, J. M., & Uspenskij, B. A. (1982). “Alien” and “alienation” as a social-psychological position in the Russian culture mostly pre-Peter’s period (“self” and “other” in the history of Russian culture). Research Notes, 576, 110–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse: A critical introduction. Oxton: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machin, D., & van Leeuwen, T. (2016). Multimodality, politics and ideology. Journal of Language and Politics, 15(3), 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarov, M. L. (2003). Foundation of theory of discourse. Moscow: Gnozis.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Halloran, K. L. (2004). Visual semiosis in film. In K. L. O’Halloran (Ed.), Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives. London, New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Companion to discourse. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://multimodal-analysis-lab.org/_docs/pubs14-OHalloran(in%20press%202011)-Multimodal_Discourse_Analysis.pdf.

  • O’Halloran, K. L., & Smith, B. A. (2010). Multimodal text analysis. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from http://multimodal-analysis-lab.org/_docs/encyclopedia/01-Multimodal_Text_Analysis-O’Halloran_and_Smith.pdf.

  • Olianich, A. V. (2007). Presentation theory of discourse. Moscow: Gnozis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotnikova, S. N. (2011). Discursive technologies and discursive weapon as the elements of modern information epoch. In S. N. Plotnikova (Ed.), Technologization of discourse in modern society (pp. 6–43). Irkutsk: ISLU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotnikova, S. N. (2015). Discursive technologies and their role in social world constructing. Bulletin of MSLU, 3(714), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggins, S. H. (1997). The research of othering. In S. H. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse (pp. 1–30). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saito, A. (2014). Is English a nuisance or an asset? Japanese youths’ discursive constructions of language attitudes. System, 44, 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarina, I. V. (2007). Communicative strategies “building the circle of self” and “building the circle of others”: Pragmatic-linguistic aspect. Doctoral dissertation. Moscow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäffner, C. (1996). Editorial: Political speeches and discourse analysis. Current Issues in Language and Society, 3(3), 201–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sego, L. P. (2001). Philistines, barbarians, aliens, et alii: Cognitive semantics in political “Otherness”. In R. Dirven, R. Frank, & C. Ilie (Eds.), Language and ideology. Vol. II: Descriptive cognitive approaches (pp. 107–116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shejgal, E. I. (2000). Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, M. A. (2014). The discursive construction of knowledge and equity in classroom interactions. Linguistics and Education, 28, 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smirnova, D. S. (2011). Discursive construction of intercultural communication experience in biographical narrative: On the material of “Khozhenija za tri morja” by Afanasij Nikitin. Author’s thesis of doctoral dissertation. Tver.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, W. (2008). Folkways. A study of the sociological importance of usages, Manners, customs, mores, and morals. Retrieved April 2, 2018, from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24253/pg24253.txt.

  • Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsivjan, T. V. (2009). Model of the world and its linguistic basics (4th ed.). Moscow: Knizhnyj dom “LIBROKOM”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Yao, M. (2018). The discursive construction of English naming practice in Mainland China: A nationalism and authenticity perspective. English Today, 134, 34(2), 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (Eds.). (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2003). Political discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 398–415). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (1989). 1968: The power of political jargon—A “Club-2” discussion. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power, and ideology: Studies in political discourse (pp. 137–163). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2002). Fragmented identities: Redefining and recontextualizing national identity. In P. Chilton & Ch. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 143–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2008). The contribution of critical linguistics to the analysis of discriminatory prejudices and stereotypes in the language of politics. In R. Wodak & V. Koller (Eds.), Handbook of communication in public sphere (pp. 291–315). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics in action (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhelvis, V. I. (2001). Battle field: Swearing as a social problem in languages and cultures of the world (2nd ed.). Moscow: Ladomir.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russia

    Lyudmila V. Kulikova & Juliya I. Detinko

Authors
  1. Lyudmila V. Kulikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliya I. Detinko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyudmila V. Kulikova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Foreign Languages, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia

    Elena N. Malyuga

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kulikova, L.V., Detinko, J.I. (2020). Discursive Construction of “Others” in the Semiotic Space of Political Communication. In: Malyuga, E. (eds) Functional Approach to Professional Discourse Exploration in Linguistics . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9103-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9103-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9102-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9103-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation