Content uploaded by John Richardson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Richardson on Mar 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
LANGUAGE AND JOURNALISM
An expanding research agenda
John E Richardson
Since the publication of Roger Fowler's seminal (1991) text, the study of
the language of journalism has increased dramatically. The form, function and
politics of the language of journalism have attracted scholars from a wide
range of academic disciplines, including linguistics, discourse studies, media
studies, sociology and others. It goes without saying that such work has
developed sophisticated and intricate analytic tools in order to describe the
form and content of the news, and has produced detailed and frequently astute
readings of the products of journalism. Nevertheless, such approaches often
said more about the views and methods of the analyst than the language of
journalism qua journalism – that is, about the specific dialectical relations that
exist between journalists and their text genres, these texts and their
audiences, and between journalism (as a trade, profession and constellation of
institutions) and the wider social formation.
Of course, journalism produces texts – texts that can be analysed using
the same linguistic categories, tools and concepts that can be used to study
any other type of text. This observation, alongside the more general and
frequently commented upon ‘linguistic turn’ in social scientific enquiry, has
resulted in a swathe of research which implicitly (and on occasion explicitly)
suggests that newspaper texts can be studied in the same way as magazine
texts, or in the same way as political speeches, or conversations across a
dinner table, or a range of other discourse genres. Such an approach is
appreciably wrongheaded. Each genre of text or talk is the product of a
combination of discursive practices that make it, to the greater extent, unique.
Aside from the differences between journalism and other genres that can be
identified through first-level analysis of newspaper texts (e.g. the unique
narrative sequencing characteristic of hard news reporting), journalism fulfils
particular social functions; has been created by men and women in accordance
with particular production techniques and in specific institutional settings; is
marked by particular relationships between other agencies of political, judicial
and economic power; is characterised by particular interpersonal relations
between writer and reader; and is consumed, interpreted and enjoyed in ways
that are specific. As Fairclough (1995: 204) puts it, journalistic texts are “the
outcome of specific professional practices and techniques, which could be and
can be quite different with quite different results.” However, all too often these
professional practices are lost behind linguistic logocentrism – a failing not
peculiar to discourse analysis – in which analysts are overly preoccupied with
the intricacies of ‘the text’, rather than with the material contexts that bound
and situate journalism. In more detail, Blommaert (1999: 5-6) argues:
Texts generate their publics, publics generate their texts and the analysis
of ‘meanings’ now has to take into account a historiography of the context
of production, the mechanisms and instruments of reproduction and
reception, ways of storage and remembering. The fact is that discourses
[…] have their ‘natural history’ - a chronological and sociocultural
anchoring which produces meaning and social effects in ways that cannot
be reduced to text-characteristics alone.
Journalistic discourses are always socially situated, therefore analysing them
requires more than a list of text-linguistic concepts. And, contrary to the ways
that his work has often been interpreted and used, this observation wasn’t lost
on Fowler. Indeed, he argued explicitly that, since discourse occurs in social
settings (of production and consumption), and the construction of discourse
“relates systematically and predictably to [these] contextual circumstances”
(Fowler, 1991: 36), so these settings, and the values and practices that spring
from and underpin them, should be a factor in our analysis. These aspects of
the study of the language of journalism remain the most under-developed.
Referring specifically to Critical Discourse Analysis – the bundle of approaches
advocated by scholars such as Fairclough (1995, 2003), Graham (2005), van
Dijk (1988, 1991) and Wodak (2001, Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Weiss & Wodak
2003) - Jones and Collins (2006: 30) go as far as to argue that although the
critical interpretation and interrogation of discourse
[…] can only be supplied by experienced, well-informed and critically
minded participants in the relevant field […] this principle has been
ignored or set aside in CDA in favour of a view in which detailed historical,
theoretical and practical knowledge of the relevant spheres is deemed
unnecessary to understanding political and ideological aspects of
discourse.
At this point in the study of the language of journalism, this is undoubtedly
a salient argument. This special issue is founded on the belief that we, within
the various fields of study interested in the language of journalism, need to
develop “a type of materialism which should replace the current idealism […]
but which should not lapse into too rigid interpretations of Marxism as
economism” (Blommaert, 1999: 7) that limited the applicability of some
Marxian analysis published in the sixties and seventies. As Berglez (2006: 18)
points out, some earlier Marxian work “tended to ignore the potential power of
discursive practices, and in many cases incorrectly classified language use as
strictly determined by material structures.” Instead, our materialist approach
should be guided by
[…] an ethnographic eye for the real historical actors, their interests, their
allegiances, their practices, and where they come from, in relation to the
discourses they produce – where discourse itself is seen as a crucial
symbolic resource onto which people project their interests, around which
they construct alliances, on and through which they exercise power.
(Blommaert, 1999: 7)
Focusing on journalistic discourse in particular, Cotter (2001: 428) argues
that current research has not analysed news texts as the “outcome of a
discourse process […] A process- or practice-orientated approach would allow
new insights into the integrated examination of news practice, news values and
audience role”. Such concerns, and others, about the current state of CDA are
spelt out most clearly and thoroughly in the opening article of this collection,
by Anabela Carvalho.
The principal focus of Carvalho’s article is CDA – an approach to the
analysis of mediated language use that has risen in prominence in recent
years, and now dominates the field. She argues that, despite the goals that
CDA has set itself, “of looking beyond texts and taking into account institutional
and sociocultural contexts […] a research programme that encompasses all the
moments in the ‘life’ of a particular news text as well as the wider picture of
the media discourse produced on a given topic” is still unaccomplished (p.XX
[2]). More specifically, Carvalho examines three aspects of CDA that currently
lack satisfactory examination: first, longitudinal studies and diachronic analysis
examining how the reporting of a particular story, theme or issue develops over
time. Second, the discursive strategies adopted by sources and other social
actors outside the newsroom in their efforts to gain access to the pages of the
news, and the extent to which the discursive strategies of each (relevant)
social actor are reproduced, challenged or excluded by journalists need closer
consideration. Whilst journalists’ discursive interventions regarding particular
subjects have been examined at length (e.g. Blackledge, 2005, on immigration
and citizenship; Richardson, 2004, on Islam and Muslims), the interventions of
sources have thus far escaped systematic analysis. And third, CDA should pay
greater attention to the effects of mediated discourse over specific fields of
action (e.g. the political field) and, concomitantly, the influence of such fields
upon the practices and products of journalism. Following this account, Carvalho
presents an analytic framework, and a way of operationalising this framework,
in order to start plugging some of these holes in the CDA oeuvre. Her approach,
which starts by examining the text as a unit of analysis, expands this out to an
examination of the wider context and attempts to draw out the dialectical
relations between text and context, provides an extremely useful account of
the practice of doing CDA, which should be of interest to both the novice and
veteran alike.
Although directed towards CDA, much of Carvalho’s discussion is relevant
and potentially stimulating for other approaches to the analysis of journalistic
discourse. Indeed, some of the neglected issues she identifies are discussed in
other articles later in this issue. And, although the papers that follow shouldn't
be viewed as explicitly taking up the challenge of addressing these lacunae of
mediated discourse analysis, they certainly contribute to the debates. For
instance, Martin’s article, on the “discursive transformation in labour news in
the second half of the twentieth century”, takes a historic and comparative
sample of the prestige press of Canada and the USA (the New York Times, the
Washington Post and the Toronto Star) and traces a decisive shift in the ways
that they report striking workers. The aim of the article is to demonstrate how a
newspaper’s target readership demographic, and their class in particular, can
have profound effects on the language of news reporting. In more detail, Martin
first details the historic “shift in the target market of U.S. and Canadian
newspapers from a mass audience of the working and middle class to a niche,
‘upscale’ audience of the upper middle class” (p.XX [28]). Second, the article
critically analyses the ways that the sampled newspapers report transportation
strikes (of, for example, rail, bus and airline workers) and “how the framing of
those strikes dramatically switched from a pre-1970s orientation of worker
struggles to a post-1970s orientation of high consumer inconvenience” (p.XX
[28]). He concludes by arguing the
consumer-oriented approach to news harms the working class and labour
in two ways. First, targeting upscale consumers contributes to class
inequality, as the working class is excised from news discourse. […]
Second, consumer-oriented discourse is “an expression of a profoundly
fragmenting individualism,” with significant political consequences (Cross,
2000, p. 191). Instead of news stories that refer to labour’s long collective
movement for economic and social justice, newspapers began to focus on
individuals organized into fleeting collectives only for occasions of
“spontaneous interest”.
Such shifts in newspapers’ editorial contents also bear testimony to the
creeping influence of market research profiling and disfiguring effects that such
concerns have on the potential of journalism to treat their readers as citizens
and hence serve complete communities. In an article included later in the
issue, Machin and Niblock also examine the issue and influence of class, the
increasing importance of affluent readers and the effects of this on the
branding and identity of a British newspaper. Explicitly “addressing one of the
major criticisms of CDA, that it fails to consider the role of production factors in
explaining textual choices”, their article “looks at these changes in the context
of the re-branding of one newspaper” (p.XX [125]). Taking a local newspaper,
the (Liverpool) Daily Post, as a case study, Machin and Niblock analyse the
visual differences between the pre- and post- rebranding versions of the
newspaper, and ask “what kinds of discourses, ideas and values these
[differences] connote” (p.XX [125]). As they point out, little academic writing
has acknowledged, much less analysed, the “careful attention to visual design
that has swept through press organisations over the past decade” (p.XX [125])
– the few notable exceptions proving the rule (cf. Barnhurst 1994, Barnhurst &
Nerone, 2001). Trying to help fill this gap, their paper attends to the grammar
of visual design, applying the multimodal approach to analysis developed by
Kress and van Leeuwen (2001). Drawing on Halliday’s (1985) view that
language fulfils three communicative functions – to convey ideas, attitudes and
provide textual coherence – the multimodal approach expands analysis to
include the communicative potential of visual elements of texts. That is,
multimodal analysis examines the ways that elements such as colours,
typography and layout “can create moods and attitudes, convey ideas, create
flow across the composition, in the same way that there are linguistic devices
for doing the same in texts” (Machin, 2007: xi). Supplementing their analysis of
the newspaper with an interview with the commissioned designer, Machin and
Niblock argue that the visual styles adopted as part of the rebrand should not
be viewed simply “as aesthetic or individual choices made by the text
producers” (p.XX [126]), but rather as “part of the social practice of
commercialising the regional press and of targeting market groups to increase
profits” (p.XX [143]).
In their different ways, these two complimentary articles from Martin and
Machin and Niblock both examine the ways that capitalism, and the want for
profit in particular, drive newspapers to change their discourses – both
linguistic and visual – in order to appeal to affluent target readers. Both articles
demonstrate newspaper marketing’s continued use of class and wealth in the
market segmentation of readers – which remain the most salient modes of
social stratification despite the increasing use of ‘psychographic’
characteristics.
Zabaleta et al remind us that, for a large number of journalists, the first
questions to answer in relation to their reporting are not which way to
represent an issue or which reader demographic to try to attract, but which
language to use and the degree to which it is possible to report in this
language. Taking as their focus the journalists that work in the media of ten
European minority linguistic communities (Basque, Catalan, Galician, Corsican,
Breton, Frisian, Irish, Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic, and Sámi) they explore these
journalists’ perceptions of “their own language’s development and issues when
applied to journalism, their knowledge of the minority tongue and its use in the
workplace” (p.XX [51]). In a fascinating and important addition to the minimal
available literature on minority language journalism (though see Cotter 1996,
1999), Zabaleta et al reveal “less than two thirds (62.6%) of the European
minority language journalists surveyed […] believe their language is sufficiently
developed for journalism” (p.XX [59]). Echoing debates of mainstream
broadcasting (and conservative ‘proper English’ campaigns in particular), some
of the perceived deficiencies seem to arise from the tensions among the
sampled journalists on whether their point of reference should be the standard
form of the minority language or should instead aim to reflect people’s speech
and dialects. Drafting and adhering to newsroom stylebooks is cited by the
sampled journalists as a frequently adopted discursive strategy, though these
may be a double edged sword: while they help standardize linguistic and
presentational styles, they also (perhaps necessarily) introduce a degree of
‘journalese’ and learned or standardised forms of wording (i.e. clichés). Such
stylistic and lexical practices warrant close attention, from journalists as well as
academics, given the ways that they can “contribute to the modernization and
standardization of the minority language” (p.XX [73]). As Zabaleta et al
conclude, the linguistic interventions of minority language journalists, reflected
in “varied strategies (newsroom discussions, in-house linguists, stylebooks,
etc.) add an additional language-recovery role to journalism, but also create
tension for the audience who may not fully understand the new or renewed
lexicon” (p.XX [73]).
Following Zabaleta et al, are two articles that apply the APPRAISAL model to
illuminate their close readings of the sampled texts. The first, by Thomson et
al, examines the form and content of hard news reporting across languages
and cultures, focusing in particular on objectivity, authorial neutrality and the
use (or constraint) of attitudinal language. As the authors point out,
unfortunately very little academic work has been published
which has as its primary focus the comparison of news reporting discourse
across the diversity of the world’s journalistic cultures. […] This lack of
knowledge is of concern in its own right, since it means that we remain
unclear as to the degree to which different languages and cultures have
developed their own individual journalistic styles and structures. But it is
even more troubling given the possibility that the global forces […] may be
acting to homogenise journalistic practices internationally (p.XX [98-99]).
Drawing on some cases of hard news reports in languages other than
English (French, Japanese and Indonesian) the authors “point to both
similarities and differences in the way hard news reporting is conducted across
different journalistic traditions and in the way the ‘ethic of objectivity’ is
understood and practiced” (p.XX [77]). Their analysis of hard news employs the
fruitful notion of ‘journalistic voice’ (see White, 2000a, 2005, 2006; Martin &
White, 2005), allowing for a separation and clarification of the epistemic and
agentive aspects of ‘objective reporting’. In more detail, “journalistic voice
refers to a taxonomy for classifying and grouping news media texts according
to the use they make of certain key evaluative meanings, and more specifically
to the various ways in which positive or negative assessments are conveyed or
activated” (p.XX [88]). Their article examines the key tension at the heart of
hard news reporting: between the subjective and objective, between value
judgments and journalistic neutrality, between recording an event and
interpreting it. Of course, nobody could ever convincingly argue that news
reporting is valueless, given that value judgements are built into the process of
news making at all stages of news gathering, processing and presentation. But
the inevitable value-laden status of hard news journalism doesn’t stop it from
being journalistically objective (Richardson, 2007). The task, therefore, is to
examine journalistic objectivity by analysing “what journalists do when they are
being objective” (Dunlevy, 1998: 120).
As Thomson et al point out, the typical hard news report involves “a
strategic avoidance of certain key evaluative meanings and thereby
backgrounding and potentially concealing the subjective role of the journalist
author” (p.XX [94]). Their analysis shows that objectivity should be viewed as a
relative quality, “a measure of the degree to which the “voice” employed
avoids or constrains the use of key attitudinal meanings and modes” (Ibid.).
Further, in their preliminary findings, presented here, they have observed
something “very similar to English-language reporter voice operating in the
hard news reporting of a range of languages, including Japanese, French,
Indonesian, Thai and Chinese” (p.XX [94]). Such important findings deserve
further investigation.
Of course, a primary strategic ritual adopted by journalists aiming to
produce objective copy is the quotation of sources, whose credentials and
credibility are openly accounted, to verbalise (usually opposing) truth-claims.
But what are the consequences for news factuality and objectivity of using
unnamed sources in news reports? In the second article drawing on the system
of ATTITUDE laid out in the APPRAISAL framework, Stenvall explores the various
ways that anonymous sources affect news rhetoric. The data set is a sizable
sample of reports collected between 2002 and 2007 from the newswires of
Associated Press and Reuters, amounting to about 4million words, or 8,000
pages, of news text. For this article, Stenvall takes as her starting point a
memo of June 2005, drafted by the managing and executive editors of AP and
sent to their reporting staff. This emphasised AP’s corporate view – also echoed
by Reuters – that anonymous sources are the weakest sources. However such
sources still feature in the reports of these press agencies, included, amongst
other considerations, for their inherent ‘newsworthiness’. Given that such
sources cut against both spirit and letter of editorial policy, their inclusion
requires journalists to use a range of explicating rhetorical techniques to justify
their anonymity, particularly following AP’s editorial policy reminder. So, while
there were “only a few examples referring to reasons for anonymity” in the
reports filed before this date, “In contrast, the AP files after June 2005 offer a
great variety of anonymity explanations; and Reuters, too, seems to have
adopted a similar trend, though on a much smaller scale” (p.XX [115]). Such
explanations are not rhetorically benign, however, and Stenvall’s analysis
provides fascinating evidence “of the central functions that the attribution of
unnamed sources can have in news rhetoric”, including “enhanc[ing] the
credibility of an unnamed source or evok[ing] emotions in the reader” (p.XX
[120]). Thus, she concludes, “the more copiously journalists surround the
anonymous sources with various expressions, the more possibilities they open
up for their rhetorical construction” (p.XX [121]). And, since these expressions
contain evaluation, these kinds of attribution “can be argued to undermine the
factuality and objectivity of the news agency discourse” (Ibid.).
The inclusion of sources is also a central concern of the next article in the
collection, by Montgomery, though here the focus is squarely on the broadcast
news interview. Montgomery argues that “broadcast news constantly seeks to
discover appropriate forms of discourse for a mass audience” and within “this
process, the news interview itself is the primary mechanism for dramatising or
making palpable the news as an interactional, dialogic discourse” (p.XX [169]).
But, despite the relative rarity of combative, political interviews in standard
news programming – in which a politician or similar public figure is held to
account – this particular form of news interview has attracted a considerable
(indeed disproportionate) amount of academic attention. In a similar way that
academic research dwells on ‘politically weighty’ national newspaper titles to
the detriment of our understanding of the equally important local and regional
newspapers, so too have political interviews – or what Montgomery calls
‘accountability interviews’ – almost defined our understanding of what a
broadcast news interview is. In fact, as Montgomery puts it, “to focus on the
political interview as if it where typical of news interviewing in general is
supported neither by the history of the journalistic interview nor justified by a
survey of current broadcasting practice” (p.XX [149]). Supporting his argument,
Montgomery explores the range of types of news interviews, positing the
experiential (or witness) interview, the expert interview and the affiliated
interview (such as two-ways between presenter and correspondent or reporter)
as additional sub-genres to accompany the accountability interview. Each of
these sub-genres is marked by a different matrix of assembled relations
between the news organisation, the event or story in question, the interviewee
(and specifically the interviewee’s relation to the news event), and the
alignment with the audience. Taking the accountability and experiential
interviews, for instance:
The former is built upon questions designed to seek justifications from the
recipient for their statements or lines of action and to challenge them. The
latter is designed to elicit perspectives on an event or an issue […In
addition,] in the accountability interview the interviewer speaks as if for us
and the interviewee is presented as estranged from the audience (‘an
evasive politician’), in the experiential interview the interviewee is treated
as one of us (p. XX [162-3])
Montgomery shows that, although the sub-genres he introduces and
discusses should be viewed as ideal-types, nonetheless each “are associated
with recognisable differences […] both in terms of broad purpose (within the
overall discursive economy of the news) and particular discursive practice (for
instance, type of lead-in or question)” (p.XX [150]).
Like many of the earlier articles, the final paper in this collection, by Leon
Barkho, starts from a position which foregrounds the material production of
news: in other words, journalists as people producing texts. The article
identifies “a regrettable gap” in the discourse-analytic literature on the
language of journalism, meaning “the impact political, economic and social
relations and influences have on discursive output” has been under examined
(p.XX [173]). The largely logocentric approaches of van Dijk (1988) and
Fairclough (1995) are specifically mentioned for confining their analysis “to the
scrutiny of the actual details of content and the realization of the systems of
ideas through the language as a final product” (p.XX [173-74]). As Barkho
points out:
A critical study based merely on the analysis of texts, despite its
importance and usefulness, will not provide good answers for why and how
these particular structures are chosen and whether the selection is part of
an overall discursive strategy that places special constraints on reporters,
and editors (p.XX [174)]
The article focuses on the discursive strategy and practices of the BBC and
the ways these relate to the way the Corporation’s journalists report the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And, although Barkho does offer a critical analysis of
how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is linguistically represented, drawing in
particular on Fowler’s work on transitivity, the article moves beyond these
news reports, contextualising their ideational content through an examination
of the BBC editors’ blog, BBC editorial guidelines (particularly their style
policies) and extensive interviews with senior BBC editorial staff. The result is
not only a nuanced and critical examination of the way the Corporation reports
this most contested of stories, but also the most up-to-date insight into the
aims and practices of BBC news reporting in a post-Hutton, post-Neil Report
era. In conclusion, Barkho argues that the “BBC’s choice of vocabulary” in
reporting Israel-Palestine “reflects the unequal division of power, control and
status separating the protagonists and this inequality surfaces at several levels
and is strongly backed by editorial strategy and policy” (p.XX [194]).
Though necessarily selective, collectively, this group of articles represents
some of the breadth and depth of work currently being written on the language
of journalism. We hope that readers find this special issue interesting and
useful, that it provokes further debate around the form and functions of
journalistic discourse, and that it helps to resituate journalists and their working
practices at the centre of such an analytical and empirical focus. It only
remains for me to thank the editor, Bob Franklin, for his advice, encouragement
and enthusiasm throughout the development of this special issue, the
contributing authors and the reviewers for their supportive criticism of the
articles. Working with you all on this project has been an absolute pleasure.
REFERENCES
BARNHURST, KEVIN G. (1994) Seeing the Newspaper. New York: St Martin’s
Press.
BARNHURST, KEVIN G. and NERONE, JOHN (2001) The Form of News: A History.
New York: Guilford Press.
BLACKLEDGE, ADRIAN (2005) Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins
BLOMMAERT, JAN (1999) The Debate is Open, in J. Blommaert (ed.) Language
ideological debates, pp. 1-38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
COTTER, COLLEEN (1996) Irish on the Air: Media, Discourse, and Minority-
language Development, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of
California, Berkeley
COTTER, COLLEEN (1999) Raidió na Life: Innovations in the use of media for
language revitalization, International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 140: 135-147
COTTER, COLLEEN (2001) Discourse and Media, in D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H.
E. Hamilton (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 416-436.
Oxford: Blackwell
DUNLEVY, MAURICE (1998) Objectivity, in M. Breen (ed.) Journalism: Theory
and Practice, pp. 119-138. Paddington, NSW: Macleay Press
FAIRCLOUGH, NORMAN (1995) Media Discourse. London: Arnold
FAIRCLOUGH, NORMAN (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social
research. London: Routledge.
FOWLER, ROGER (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the
Press. London: Routledge
KRESS, GUNTHER and VAN LEEUWEN, THEO (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The
modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold
GRAHAM, PHIL (2005) Hypercapitalism: New media, language and social
perceptions of value. New York: Peter Lang.
JONES, PETER E. & COLIINS, CHIK (2006) Political Analysis versus Critical
Discourse Analysis in the Treatment of Ideology: Some Implications for
the Study of Communication, Atlantic Journal of Communication, 14(1-2):
28-50.
HALLIDAY, MICHAEL K (1985) Language as a Social Semiotic System. London:
Arnold
MACHIN, DAVID (2007) Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. London: Arnold
MARTIN, JAMES R. & WHITE, PETER R.R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation:
Appraisal in English, London & New York: Palgrave/Macmillan
REISIGL, MARTIN & WODAK, RUTH (2001) Discourse and Discrimination:
Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.
RICHARDSON, JOHN E, (2004) (Mis)Representing Islam: the racism and rhetoric
of the British Broadsheet Press. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
RICHARDSON, JOHN E, (2007) Analysing Newspapers: an approach from critical
discourse analysis. Houndmills: Palgrave.
VAN DIJK, TEUN A. (1988) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
VAN DIJK, TEUN A. (1991) Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
VERSCHUEREN, JEF (1985) International News Reporting: Metapragmatic
Metaphors and the U-2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
WHITE, PETER R.R. (2000) Telling Media Tales, unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Sydney.
WHITE, PETER R.R. (2005) Subjectivity, Evaluation and Point of View in Media
Discourse, in Grammar, Text & Context: A Reader, Coffin, C. &
O”Halloran, K. (eds), London & New York, Arnold: 229-257
WHITE, PETER R.R. (2006) Evaluative Semantics and Ideological Positioning in
Journalistic Discourse, in Image and Ideology in the Mass Media, Lassen,
I. (ed.), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 45- 73
WEISS, GILBERT & WODAK, RUTH (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory
and Interdisciplinarity. Houndmills: Palgrave.
WODAK, RUTH (2001) The discourse-historical approach, in Ruth Wodak &
Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, pp. 63-94.
London: Sage.
John E Richardson, Dept of Social Sciences, Loughborough University, Epinal
Way, Loughborough, Leicester. LE11 3TU
