Suchergebnisse

"The battle over Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination was described by the media as a "turning point' in America's history of female witnessing" (Time), a "tale of two internets" (Wired), and a "duel with tears and fury" (NYT). Each of these headlines highlighted a significant aspect of what the hearings revealed about American culture: the triumph of women's voices in the age of #MeToo; anxieties around echo chambers that divide political communication; and the hyperemotional nature of politics in the era of far-right populism. None, however, captured the deepest, and perhaps most insidious, character of this event as a battle over who is a victim. While these accounts describe or explain victimhood as a dominant discourse of Western cultures at large, they do not address what kind of world is a world of proliferating victims where two sides compete to establish their suffering as more legitimate than that of others? How did it come to be as it is today? What are the benefits of living in it? And, more importantly, what are the costs? In Wronged!, Lilie Chouliaraki's grapples how the proliferation of victims produces its own victims by obfuscating truth itself, and populating public discourse with too many voices of pain while selectively authorizing some of those voices over others. Just like the spread of fake news blurs the boundary between fact and rumor, competing claims to pain blur the line between systemic and tactical suffering. Chouliaraki examines this distinction to navigate the difference "between fighting for victimized people," which demands an account of the conditions of their suffering, and "promoting a victimhood culture," which encourages claims to pain. Fighting for the victimized is the moral drive of her argument, while promoting a victimhood culture is the object of her analysis"--

Our concern in this paper is to analyse public discourse from the point of view of "functional perspective" on speech in Eugenio Coseriu's sense, considering language as a phenomenon that must be explained in finalistic terms. With its distinction of three functional levels of language (universal, historical and individual) and departing from the knowledge of the speaker and the activity of speech, Coseriu's framework offers very adequate instruments for understanding what we can generally call public discourse (as well as other types of discourse). The aim of the present work is to show how we can describe the finality of a text taking into account different types of textual functions involved within discourse. We will focus on political and advertising discourses, two of the most dominant types within public discourse nowadays, and we will concentrate on examples from Romanian. ; Our concern in this paper is to analyse public discourse from the point of view of "functional perspective" on speech in Eugenio Coseriu's sense, considering language as a phenomenon that must be explained in finalistic terms. With its distinction of three functional levels of language (universal, historical and individual) and departing from the knowledge of the speaker and the activity of speech, Coseriu's framework offers very adequate instruments for understanding what we can generally call public discourse (as well as other types of discourse). The aim of the present work is to show how we can describe the finality of a text taking into account different types of textual functions involved within discourse. We will focus on political and advertising discourses, two of the most dominant types within public discourse nowadays, and we will concentrate on examples from Romanian. ; Our concern in this paper is to analyse public discourse from the point of view of "functional perspective" on speech in Eugenio Coseriu's sense, considering language as a phenomenon that must be explained in finalistic terms. With its distinction of three functional levels of language (universal, historical and individual) and departing from the knowledge of the speaker and the activity of speech, Coseriu's framework offers very adequate instruments for understanding what we can generally call public discourse (as well as other types of discourse). The aim of the present work is to show how we can describe the finality of a text taking into account different types of textual functions involved within discourse. We will focus on political and advertising discourses, two of the most dominant types within public discourse nowadays, and we will concentrate on examples from Romanian. ; Our concern in this paper is to analyse public discourse from the point of view of "functional perspective" on speech in Eugenio Coseriu's sense, considering language as a phenomenon that must be explained in finalistic terms. With its distinction of three functional levels of language (universal, historical and individual) and departing from the knowledge of the speaker and the activity of speech, Coseriu's framework offers very adequate instruments for understanding what we can generally call public discourse (as well as other types of discourse). The aim of the present work is to show how we can describe the finality of a text taking into account different types of textual functions involved within discourse. We will focus on political and advertising discourses, two of the most dominant types within public discourse nowadays, and we will concentrate on examples from Romanian. ; Our concern in this paper is to analyse public discourse from the point of view of "functional perspective" on speech in Eugenio Coseriu's sense, considering language as a phenomenon that must be explained in finalistic terms. With its distinction of three functional levels of language (universal, historical and individual) and departing from the knowledge of the speaker and the activity of speech, Coseriu's framework offers very adequate instruments for understanding what we can generally call public discourse (as well as other types of discourse). The aim of the present work is to show how we can describe the finality of a text taking into account different types of textual functions involved within discourse. We will focus on political and advertising discourses, two of the most dominant types within public discourse nowadays, and we will concentrate on examples from Romanian.

It is widely believed that open and public speech is at the heart of the democratic ideal. Public discourse is instrumentally epistemically valuable for identifying good policies, as well as necessary for resisting domination (e.g. by vocally challenging decision-makers, demanding public justifications, and using democratic speech to hold leaders accountable). But in our highly polarized and socially fragmented political environment, an increasingly pressing question is: Do actual democratic societies live up to the ideal of inclusive public speech? In this essay, I explore Maxime Lepoutre's defense of discursive democracy from the challenge of defective public discourse. I argue that political ignorance, dogmatism, and social fragmentation present more formidable challenges to discursive democracy than Lepoutre acknowledges.

AbstractA growing, English‐language literature analyzes the public discourse of international education and students. One large set of studies highlight the discursive marginalization of non‐western, international students in western, host societies. They draw on critical discourse analysis (CDA) and meta‐narratives of western, White, and elite dominance, which diminish the theoretical importance of discourse in non‐western and non‐elite settings. A second, smaller set of studies analyze the public discourse of international education in non‐western, specifically Asian, countries; they generally reference educational discourse in both Asian and western countries. Relatively few studies critically examine patterns of discursive domination in Asian discourse; but the ones that do so compare both Asian and Western countries. Even rarer are studies of social media discourse among international students. We find a few studies of social media discourse among Asian students who studied abroad, but none of foreign students studying in host, Asian countries. Attention to multiple discourses and theoretical narratives offers a fruitful, research agenda and underlines the complex, dynamic, global nature of contemporary public discourse on international education.

International audience ; European integration has raised hopes and concerns about its effect on the distribution of power among different actors, and in particular on the role of the civil society. Focusing on the Europeanization of public discourse in Italy as a case study, this article addresses the specific problem of the formation of supranational public spheres. On the basis of content analyses of daily press and interviews, we argue that various forms of Europeanization of the public discourse are indeed on the rise, with a growing presence not only of purely European actors but also of European targets and frames. Europeanization appears to have been traditionally a 'top-down' process: in fact the more Europeanized is a policy, actor, target or issue scope, the less civil society actors seem to have access to the public sphere. However, some changes across time emerge, with the development of (conflictual) forms of 'Europeanization from below'.

This article provides a critique of the self-validating public responses to the international crisis of legitimacy facing the banking industry and professional politicians since the economic crisis of 2009. It compares the failure of economic conscience within Establishment institutions with the public culture of intrinsic economic conscience found in some developing economies and similar embryonic developments in Western economies. It highlights the way this alternative economic conscience might contribute to public discourse about economic and political governance, and thereby to democratic renewal in more supposedly advanced societies.