Европейский миграционный кризис в институциональном дискурсе Великобритании накануне «Брексит»
The study presented in this article is a continuation of research into European institutional discourse at the time of the European migrant crisis. The research is based on a collection of official texts of the British government and the European Union published in 2014 and 2015. The key methods employed are the methods of computational linguistics and critical discourse analysis. The study has revealed significant differences between discourses of the European Union and Great Britain in reference to the evaluation of the current situation concerning refugees and the attitude towards them. Also, the present study proves that in the official discourse of the British government devoted to the issue of excessive migration, there were no prerequisites for "Brexit" due to uncontrollable migration.
The series "Modern Linguistic-and-Didactic Researches" presents the results of the research in the area of teaching foreign languages in view of contemporary concepts of education, intercultural communication, theory and paractice of translation.
This chapter reviews the representations of the Afghanistan war in school textbooks published in Russia. The authors define school textbooks as a document of public cultural memory showing what it is ‘necessary’ to know about the past. The chapter demonstrates the representations of the Afghanistan war in school textbooks published from 1990 to 2010.
The sample included 16 history textbooks. For the analysis, we divided the textbooks into four groups. The division was based on presidential transitions and therefore includes textbooks for the presidencies of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev. The discourse analysis by Laclau and Mouffe (2001) was applied as an analytical framework.
We reveal the diversity of the representations of the Afghanistan war in different political periods. In Gorbachev’s presidency, the Afghanistan war was represented through a discourse of Soviet political dissidents. In the Yeltsin era, a discourse of Soviet political dissidents remained, but the field of discursiveness was significantly expanded. Additional discourses included the public discourse of the first years of post-Soviet Russia and the official discourse of the Soviet Union. Finally, in Putin’s time, the field of discursiveness was reduced; there was no change in the Medvedev period.
This article addresses a subject that can in the broadest sense be stated as interplay of language and ideology in process of instantiating historical knowledge in texts of political significance. It is presumed that historical representations are not static; they are flexible and more than prone to distortion when values come into play. A clash of different political perspectives is a clash of different historical descriptions. And in this clash a power-wielding social agent has the power to reinterpret the history that will fit their political narrative with other interpretations outlawed and rendered unhistorical. The aim is to discuss how history is recontextualized in national political discourse in the framework of biased representation of historical f acts and to see how national historical discourse is reinstantiated vis-а-vis a newly acquired national identity. The evidence for this contention is provided through linguistic analysis of a chunk of texts produced by those claiming to be professional historians. An example of such discourse would be texts by Ukrainian historians writing on Great Patriotic War/World War II. Second, texts of public figures, state leaders among them, instantiating post-Soviet geopolitical situation in the Caucasus, in particular, tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh were looked into. Linguistic analysis is neither meant to substitute historical analysis, nor claims that all historical permutations are of discursive nature solely. Instead, we see the role of discourse analysis in placing a broader question: To what extent that which has really happened is displaced by its recontextualization in discourse, i.e. by its description?
In the next two years, the UK will be faced with a complicated geopolitical situation. The relations with its two key partners – the EU and the USA – will be changed. The USA, when dealing with European issues, will begin to rely on Germany rather than on the UK. It will be necessary to negtiate with the EU a new relationship model that will envisage that the UK should not participate in the decision-making process inside the European Union, and should have no internal inﬂuence there. Simultaneously, there will be a need for negotiations on new trade agreements with a number of countries that are not EU member states, because the UK, once it has withdrawn from the US, will automatically ﬁ nd itself outside of the international trade agreements concluded on behalf of the EU, including those in the framework of the WTO.
This book brings together academics and practitioners from a range of disciplines from more than twenty countries to reflect on the growing importance of transparency, power and control in our international community and how these concerns and ideas have been examined, used and interpreted in a range of national and international contexts. Contributors explore these issues from a range of overlapping concerns and perspectives, such as semiotic, sociolinguistic, psychological, philosophical, and visual in diverse socio-political, administrative, institutional, as well as legal contexts.
The collection examines the ways in which 'actors' in our society - legislators, politicians, activists, and artists - have provoked public discourses to confront these issues.
The research applied for research abilities of critical discourse analysis for new religious movements’ analysis. A long tradition of religion research in social sciences had a lot of theoretical issues. In this paper we show how theory is used for empirical survey.
The article analyzes the frames of representation of collective identity of macro political (national) community the “constitutes” the Russian state in electoral rhetoric of Vladimir Putin. Following the patterns of representation of Us and Others in the seven articles, published during the campaign in the major newspapers, the author reveals the dynamics of the campaign. A special attention is devoted to the public reaction to the article about “national question”.