UDC

81’42:32

DOI

10.17238/issn2227-6564.2019.1.55

Authors

Marina S. Matytsina
Lipetsk State Technical University; ul. Moskovskaya 30, Lipetsk, 398055, Russian Federation;
e-mail: lipmarina@gmail.com

Abstract

EU policy on the freedom of movement for citizens of EU member states became one of the main reasons for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Undoubtedly, such a complex phenomenon as immigration could not but enter into the general sociocultural and linguistic context of the life of society. The relevance of this investigation can be explained by the growing scientific interest in the phenomenology of political discourse and its various aspects. Taking a sample of leading British newspapers Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, the article studies immigration discourse on the eve of the 2016 referendum on the UK membership in the EU, identifies the argumentation strategy and analyses its structure, highlights the main topoi used by the newspapers to construct immigration discourse, and illustrates the use of the argumentation strategy by concrete examples. Within the framework of critical discourse analysis, discourse is considered as a form of social interaction, which, in our opinion, allows us to clarify how ideology sets the formatting rules of discourse and determines its content. The analysis of the publications identified the topos of history and the topos of threat to national interests used by the newspapers to construct their arguments, as well as the linguistic mechanisms that characterize them. The news review showed that Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph use the argumentation strategy to create a negative image of immigrants as posing a threat to European security, while The Guardian employs this strategy to justify their presence, offering arguments in their favour. The analysis of the argumentation strategy and the mechanisms for its implementation made it possible to identify and evaluate the arguments advanced in the newspapers in order to determine their ideological basis and effectiveness of political rhetoric. It should be noted that a holistic understanding of the nature, causes and consequences of immigration requires a systematic analysis of all discursive strategies in a broad social context.

Keywords

immigration discourse, immigrants, topos, discourse analysis, argumentation, discursive strategy

References

1. Reyes A. Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions. Discourse Soc., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 781–807.
2. Edelman M. Language, Myths and Rhetoric. Society, 1998, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 131–139.
3. Wodak R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. New York, 2011. 252 p.
4. van Dijk T.A. Critical Discourse Analysis and Nominalization: Problem or Pseudo-Problem? Discourse Soc., 2008, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 821–828.
5. van Dijk T.A. Cognitive and Conversational Strategies in the Expression of Ethnic Prejudice. Text Talk, 1983, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 375–404.
6. Wodak R., Chilton P. A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Philadelphia, 2005. 320 p.
7. Wodak R. Discourse. Essed P., Goldberg D.T., Kobayashi A. (eds.). A Companion to Gender Studies. Oxford, 2005, pp. 519–530.
8. van Eemeren F.H., Houtlosser P., Snoeck Henkemans A.F. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht, 2007. 234 p.
9. Kwon W., Clarke I., Wodak R. Micro-Level Discursive Strategies for Constructing Shared Views Around Strategic Issues in Team Meetings. J. Manag. Stud., 2014, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 265–290.
10. Fairclough N., Mulderrig J., Wodak R. Critical Discourse Analysis. van Dijk T.A. (ed.). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London, 2011, pp. 357–378.
11. Reisigl M., Wodak R. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London, 2001. 312 p.
12. Kienpointner M. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1992. 447 p.
13. Wodak R., Iedema R. Constructing Boundaries Without Being Seen: The Case of Jörg Haider, Politician. Rev. Canar. estud. ingl., 2004, no. 49, pp. 157–178.
14. Toulmin S.E. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, 2003. 247 p.
15. Billig M. Banal Nationalism. London, 1995. 208 p.
16. Mautner G. Analyzing Newspapers, Magazines and Other Print Media. Wodak R., Krzyżanowski M. (eds.). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke, 2008, pp. 30–53.
17. Deacon D. UK News Coverage of the 2016 EU Referendum. Report 5 (6 May – 22 June 2016). Loughborough, 2016. 17 p.