Suchergebnisse

This article proposes to apply Steen's (2008) 3D model of metaphor analysis in communication to a corpus of political discourse, in this case citizen discourse. Our corpus has accordingly been analysed by making a distinction between three layers of metaphor, respectively at the linguistic (direct vs. indirect metaphors), conceptual (novel vs. conventional metaphors) and communicative levels (deliberate vs. non-deliberate metaphors). Our results suggest that making the distinction between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphors lead to meaningful political insights, notably pointing to differences in saliency of the source domains in terms of which citizens make sense of Belgian federalism. In this regard, the family domain, and more especially the metaphor BELGIAN FEDERALISM IS A LOVE RELATIONSHIP appears to function as an important conceptual reference point for the citizens' understanding of the political relations in the Belgian context. ; Peer reviewed

The book approaches law from the legal-linguistic perspective. Its aim is to clarify the processes in which the meaning of law emerges in legal discourses. In order to enable the understanding of law as a discursive practice, professional and non-professional discourses are analyzed. With this aim in mind, the author focuses on the epistemological consequences of the discursiveness of law. Other relevant legal-linguistic operations such as legal interpretation or legal translation are scrutinized in terms of their theoretical prerequisites and their practical consequences. Their analysis also

This second edition reviews the field of business discourse, centring on the investigation of business language and communication as practice. It combines research-based discussions with innovative practical applications and promotes debate and enquiry on a range of competing issues, emerging from business discourse research and teaching practice

This article concentrates on the discourse employed in Homeland, a television show produced in the United States. After a discourse analysis of three characters and the set- tings of the third season, it is easy to conclude that the show encourages and display stereotypical portrayals of not only the US and the government's secret-service agencies, but also of Iran and the Middle East in general. It foments an Orientalist image of the Middle-East (the near Orient) as both an exotic place (as explained by Said's 1978 book Orientalism) and a chaotic, underdeveloped one full of terrorists that must be saved and purged by the United States. ; This article concentrates on the discourse employed in Homeland, a television show produced in the United States. After a discourse analysis of three characters and the set- tings of the third season, it is easy to conclude that the show encourages and display stereotypical portrayals of not only the US and the government's secret-service agencies, but also of Iran and the Middle East in general. It foments an Orientalist image of the Middle-East (the near Orient) as both an exotic place (as explained by Said's 1978 book Orientalism) and a chaotic, underdeveloped one full of terrorists that must be saved and purged by the United States.

In recent years, neo-institutional sociologists, political scientists and geographers have engaged in a lively set of theoretical debates about how policy ideas move from one place to another. This paper seeks to engage with claims about global norm diffusion or policy transfer by studying policy discourses on agricultural development in the East African country of Tanzania. Using documents produced by international donors and research institutions, the Tanzanian government, and national and transnational civil society organizations; transcripts of parliamentary debates; and over 30 interviews with policy actors in Tanzania, we identify and compare three discourses that are currently circulating on African agricultural development policy: a global discourse, a dominant national discourse, and a subordinate national discourse. Based on an analysis of these discourses' similarities and differences—and of the policy coalitions that are promoting them—we advance arguments about (a) the role of national contexts and historical legacies in shaping the diffusion of a global discourse; (b) power dynamics and political contention within the state itself; and (c) the transnational networks of both dominant and subordinate discourse coalitions.