Suchergebnisse

"Ziel dieses Artikels ist es zum einen, mit dem Begriff der diskursiven Exklusion eine Konzeptualisierung von Exklusion zu unterbreiten, welche den theoretischen Anforderungen an einen soziologisch-analytischen Begriff gewachsen ist und zum anderen, methodische Hinweise zur Erforschung von Exklusionsprozessen zu bieten. Ich werde hierzu die drei emergenten Forschungsperspektiven der Diskursanalyse 'nach dem Strukturalismus', der Dispositivanalyse, und der wissenssoziologischen Diskursanalyse vorstellen und jeweils danach fragen, welches Analysepotenzial von ihnen ausgeht, um soziale Exklusion soziologisch zu fassen. Dabei wird sich zeigen, dass jede dieser Perspektiven bestimmte Aspekte in den Vordergrund rückt, dabei aber wiederum andere vernachlässigt. Am Ende des Artikels werden Möglichkeiten einer Kombination der Ansätze diskutiert." (Autorenreferat)

This article analyzes discursive strategies of China and Japan to integrate newly emerging Central Asian (CA) states into their internal and external policies, norms and concepts, according to which they justify both their actions in CA and CA responses to these policies. This article elaborates the concept that to a certain extent, the interests of China and Japan in CA are similarly focused on mineral resources and political stability. However, these countries employ different discursive strategies to frame their approaches and goals. This article also emphasizes that the discourse of competition for regional domination prevalent in the English language, Russian and some CA media is largely an imposition of a zero-sum vision of international relations that is not proven by any empirical evidence. On the contrary, many of the projects conducted both by China and Japan are compatible – if not supplementary – and do not necessarily imply exclusivity of interest. At the same time, both China and Japan have different ways of reasoning their CA engagements, resulting in a rivalry of discourses for the 'hearts and minds' of the CA population. (Pac Rev/GIGA)

The article seeks to add to the growing contribution of discursive approaches to the study of political institutions by analysing the possibilities for cross-fertilisation between discursive institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory. Analysing Vivien Schmidt's version of discursive institutionalism, it argues that Schmidt's concept of discourse results in a model of explanation of institutional change that overlooks questions about the relations between power, politics and discourse. It further argues that while post-structural discourse theory has made important contributions to the understanding of the discursive nature of social practices, it has so far failed fully to take on board the institutional dimension of politics. It concludes that an integration of Schmidt's insights on discursive institutionalism with post-structuralist discourse theory allows a more rounded analysis of the political dimension of institutions and of the institutional dimension of politics, as well as a better understanding of institutional change. To illustrate our arguments we draw on our own research to analyse the relations between discourse and institutions in the 2002 presidential electoral campaign in Brazil and in Argentina's poverty reduction policies in the 1990s. Adapted from the source document.

The article seeks to add to the growing contribution of discursive approaches to the study of political institutions by analysing the possibilities for cross-fertilisation between discursive institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory. Analysing Vivien Schmidt's version of discursive institutionalism, it argues that Schmidt's concept of discourse results in a model of explanation of institutional change that overlooks questions about the relations between power, politics and discourse. It further argues that while post-structural discourse theory has made important contributions to the understanding of the discursive nature of social practices, it has so far failed fully to take on board the institutional dimension of politics. It concludes that an integration of Schmidt's insights on discursive institutionalism with post-structuralist discourse theory allows a more rounded analysis of the political dimension of institutions and of the institutional dimension of politics, as well as a better understanding of institutional change. To illustrate our arguments we draw on our own research to analyse the relations between discourse and institutions in the 2002 presidential electoral campaign in Brazil and in Argentina's poverty reduction policies in the 1990s.

This first-of-its-kind volume brings discursive psychology and peace psychology together in a compelling practical synthesis. An array of internationally-recognised contributors examine multiple dimensions of discourse-official and casual, speech, rhetoric, and text-in creating and maintaining conflict and building mediation and reconciliation. Examples of strategies for dealing with longstanding conflicts (the Middle East), significant flashpoints (the Charlie Hebdo case), and current heated disputes (the refugee 'crisis' in Europe) demonstrate discursive methods in context as they bridge theory with real life. This diversity of subject matter is matched by the range of discursive approaches applied to peace psychology concepts, methods, and practice. Among the topics covered: Discursive approaches to violence against women. The American gun control debate: a discursive analysis. Constructing peace and violence in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Discursive psychological research on refugees. Citizenship, social injustice, and the quest for a critical social psychology of peace. The emotional and political power of images of suffering: discursive psychology and the study of visual rhetoric. Discourse, Peace, and Conflict offers expansive ideas to scholars and practitioners in peace psychology, as well as those in related areas such as social psychology, political psychology, and community psychology with an interest in issues pertaining to peace and conflict

In this paper, we show how discursive psychology can be used to show how 'facts' are used rhetorically by politicians. That is, they are more than neutral reflections of an objective reality—these 'facts' are highly attuned to the local context of political argumentation. We draw upon examples from two studies that used discursive psychology to analyse two different political contexts: (1) Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack and (2) debates over Great Britain and the European Union. In both contexts, the analysis uncovers how politicians challenge both the context and the relevance of a fact. The context of 'facts' is reconstructed to undermine their original argumentative strength, whereas questioning the relevance of a 'fact' undermines it both as fact and as a rhetorical tool to be used in a debate. These findings show how discursive psychology can contribute to knowledge about political communication, as well as the benefits of applying discursive psychology to political discourse.

The small nation-state of Singapore has increasingly been referred to in the popular media as the Intelligent Island of the future. With significant state investment in the promotion and dissemination of information-communications technology and attendant social ramifications, this has become an area that can no longer be ignored or taken for granted. This article intends to map the conditions of possibility on which Singapore can be conceived of as an Intelligent Island, in situating the role of information technology and Intelligent Island discourse within the discourses of postcoloniality, technocapitalism, late modernity, and globalization. In particular, this article attempts to show how, in Intelligent Island discourse, the processes of the construction of a Singaporean nation are intricately linked to the shift in political discourse from mobilizing a rhetoric of crisis to one of utopianism.

В статье рассматриваются характеристики дискурсивных категорий оценки и диалогичности в академическом дискурсе. Оценка изучена на материале 5 отзывов о диссертации, размещенных на сайте КубГУ, а дискурсивная категория диалогичности - на материале трех открытых лекций современных лингвистов. В ходе исследования были использованы методы дискурсивного и лингвопрагматического анализа, классификации, систематизации и интерпретации. В результате проведенного исследования мы делаем вывод о том, что оценка в отзыве преимущественно реализуется с помощью обязательных и факультативных компонентов, а также обуславливается коммуникативной ситуацией, заданной параметрами институциональности академического дискурса. Диалогичность, способствующая интерактивному характеру лекции и усиливающая чувство контакта лектора с аудиторией, конструируется средствами, которые объединяют лектора со слушателями в единую коммуникативную плоскость. В анализируемых лекциях нами были выделены тактики диалогизации: управление вниманием; очеловечивание лектора; объяснение лектором своих действий, которые формируют дискурсивную категорию диалогичности. Научная новизна данного исследования заключается в следующем: выявлена специфика категории оценки на материале отзыва о диссертации, в результате чего конкретизируются особенности данного жанра академического дискурса; определены тактики коммуникативной стратегии кооперации, с помощью которой конструируется категория диалогичности в лекции.
The article examines the characteristics of the discursive categories of evaluation and dialogicity in academic discourse. Evaluation is examined in five dissertation reviews available on the website of Kuban State University. Dialogicity is studied in three open lectures by modern Russian linguists. The methodology includes methods of discursive and pragmatic analysis, classification, systematization, and interpreting. The conclusion made is that the category of evaluation in the dissertation review is expressed by means of compulsory and optional components, and by the communicative situation determined by the institutional parameters of discourse. Dialogicity makes the lecture discourse interactive, enhances the speaker's contact with listeners and is constructed with the help of the means that unite the lecturer with the audience during the process of communication. It was discovered that the communication strategy of cooperation is constructed by means of the following tactics: dialogizing, attention management, explaining lecturer's actions, and lecturer's humanizing. The scientific novelty of this study is in identification of the specific features of the evaluation category in dissertation reviews, which allows us to specify the features of this genre of academic discourse; in determining the components of the communication strategy of cooperation that constructs dialogicity in lecture discourse.