Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton July 10, 2017

Analysing intersubjective resources in Persian and English newspaper opinion/editorials

  • Hossein Shokouhi EMAIL logo and Fatemeh Akbarzadeh


This study is to uncover the persuasive means of inviting or restricting alternative voices in Iranian and American press. About 10,000 engagement tokens were gathered from 216 newspaper opinions/editorials written between 2005 and 2010 on the Iranian nuclear program in two Persian newspapers, Iran and Aftab-e-Yazd, two English newspapers written by Persian writers–Tehran Times and Keyhan International–and two American newspapers written by American writers– New York Times and Washington Post. The Appraisal theory based on “contract” and “expand” linguistic features (Martin and White 2005) was used to compare the lexico-grammar of the engagement tokens. Central to their engagement are the dialogic heterogloss which acknowledges the diversity of voices in discourse and the undialogized monogloss which disregards the diversity. The investigation has revealed that whereas the op/eds written in Persian took the lead in using “endorse” and “counter”, two micro linguistic features of “contract”, (e.g., terms such as although, never, etc.), the American op/eds opted for “entertain” micro linguistic feature of “expand” (e.g., perhaps, argue, etc.). Interestingly, the op/eds written in English by the Persians stood in the middle, between the Americans and those written in Persian. However, when using terms that involve national interest, the latter group echo the Persian writers’ voice.

Hossein Shokouhi School of Education Faculty of Arts and Education Deakin University 221 Burwood Highway, Melbourne Burwood Campus Melbourne, Victoria 3125 Australia


8 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance they received from Dr Brian Doig at Deakin University for his statistical assistance and insights as well as his proofreading, and to Amir Hossein Rouhi from RMIT University and Navid Shokouhi at the University of Texas at Dallas for the right displays of the table and Excel calculations.


A’Beckett, L. 2008. “Political myths of the Ukrainian orange revolution in Russian public discourse”. Monash University Linguistic Papers 6(1). 3–18.Search in Google Scholar

A’Beckett, L. 2009. “Appraisal in the Russian press: The characterization of the Ukrainian leaders”. Revista Electronica de Linguistica Applicada 22(1). 102–119.Search in Google Scholar

Ansary, H. and E. Babaii. 2009. “A cross-cultural analysis of English newspaper editorials: A systemic-functional view of text for contrastive rhetoric research”. RELC Journal 40(2). 211–249.10.1177/0033688209105867Search in Google Scholar

Arrese, J.M. and B.N. Perucha. 2006. “Evaluation and engagement in journalistic commentaries and news reportage”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 19(1). 225– 248.10.14198/raei.2006.19.13Search in Google Scholar

Audit Bureau of Circulation. 2010. <>Search in Google Scholar

Badii, N. 2003. “Meyarhaye rooznemenegari-e matloob dar Iran” [Desirable criteria for newspapers in Iran]. <>Search in Google Scholar

Caldwell, D. 2009. “Working your words: Appraisal in the AFL post-match interviews”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 32(2). 1–18.10.2104/aral0913Search in Google Scholar

Cotter, C. 2001. “Discourse and media”. In: Schiffrin, D., D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton. (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. 416–436.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2001. “Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles”. Written Communication 18(4). 549–574.10.1177/0741088301018004005Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2005. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse”. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192.10.1177/1461445605050365Search in Google Scholar

Izadi, F. and H. Saghaye-Biria. 2007. “A discourse analysis of elite American newspaper editorials: The case of Iran’s nuclear program”. Journal of Communication Inquiry 31(2). 140–165.10.1177/0196859906298073Search in Google Scholar

Jahani C. 2000. “Expressions of indirectivity in spoken modern Persian”. In: Johanson, L. and B. Utas (eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 185–207.Search in Google Scholar

Lihua, L. 2009. “Discourse construction of social power: Interpersonal rhetoric in editorials of China Daily”. Discourse Studies 11(1). 59–78.10.1177/1461445608098498Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J.R. and P.R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar

Oktar, L. 2001. “The ideological organization of representational processes in the presentation of us and them”. Discourse and Society 12(3). 313–346.10.1177/0957926501012003003Search in Google Scholar

Richardson, J.E. 2007. Analyzing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. New York: Palgrave McMillan.10.1007/978-0-230-20968-8Search in Google Scholar

Shokouhi, H., C. Norwood and S. Soltani. 2015. “Evidential in Persian editorials”. Discourse Studies 17(4). 449–466.10.1177/1461445615578964Search in Google Scholar

Shokouhi, H. and R. Moazed. 2017. “Linguistic representation of ideological strategies in two Iranian newspapers written in English”. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37. 127–155.10.1080/07268602.2017.1239520Search in Google Scholar

Swain, E. 2007. “Getting engaged: Dialogistic positioning in novice academic discussion writing”. In: McCabe, A., M. O’Donnell and R. Whittaker (eds.), Advances in language and education. London: Continuum. 291–317.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T.A. 1992. “Analyzing racism through discourse analysis. Some methodological reflections”. In: Stanfield, J. (ed.), Race and ethnicity in research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 92–134.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T.A. 1995a. “The mass media today: Discourses of dominance or diversity?” Javnost/The Public (Ljubljana) 2(2). 27–45.10.1080/13183222.1995.11008592Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T.A. 1995b. “Ideological discourse analysis”. New Courant (English Dept, University of Helsinki) 4, 135–161.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T.A. 1996. “Opinions and ideologies in editorials”. Available online at <>.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T.A. 1998. “Opinions and ideologies in the press”. In: Bell, A. and P. Garrett (eds.), Approaches to media discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. 21–63.Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R. 2003. “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance”. Text 23(2). 259–284.10.1515/text.2003.011Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R. 2006. “Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse: A new framework for analysis”. In: Lassen, I., J. Strunck and T. Vestergaard (eds.), Mediating ideology in text and image: Ten critical studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 37–67.10.1075/dapsac.18.05whiSearch in Google Scholar

White, P.R. 2009. “Media power and the rhetorical potential of the hard news report – attitudinal mechanisms in journalistic discourse”. Vasa 36(3). 30–49.Search in Google Scholar

Windfuhr, G.L. 1982. “The verbal category of inference in Persian”. In: Morgenstierne, G. (ed.), Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II (Acta Iranica, vol. 22). Leiden: Brill. 263–287.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-7-10
Published in Print: 2017-6-27

© 2017 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Downloaded on 3.6.2023 from
Scroll to top button