Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.250
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.259

CiteScore 2017: 0.36

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.151
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.485

Online
ISSN
1897-7499
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 53, Issue 2

Issues

Analysing intersubjective resources in Persian and English newspaper opinion/editorials

Hossein Shokouhi / Fatemeh Akbarzadeh
Published Online: 2017-07-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0011

Abstract

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.

Keywords: opinions/editorials; monogloss and heterogloss; Persian; American

References

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

  • Audit Bureau of Circulation. 2010. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/audit-bureau-of-circulations/>

  • Badii, N. 2003. “Meyarhaye rooznemenegari-e matloob dar Iran” [Desirable criteria for newspapers in Iran]. <http://iranwsis.ir/Default.asp?C=IRAR&R=&I=189#BN189>

  • Caldwell, D. 2009. “Working your words: Appraisal in the AFL post-match interviews”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 32(2). 1–18.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Hyland, K. 2001. “Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles”. Written Communication 18(4). 549–574.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hyland, K. 2005. “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse”. Discourse Studies 7(2). 173–192.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Lihua, L. 2009. “Discourse construction of social power: Interpersonal rhetoric in editorials of China Daily”. Discourse Studies 11(1). 59–78.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

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

  • Richardson, J.E. 2007. Analyzing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar

  • Shokouhi, H., C. Norwood and S. Soltani. 2015. “Evidential in Persian editorials”. Discourse Studies 17(4). 449–466.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.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar

  • van Dijk, T.A. 1995a. “The mass media today: Discourses of dominance or diversity?” Javnost/The Public (Ljubljana) 2(2). 27–45.Google Scholar

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

  • van Dijk, T.A. 1996. “Opinions and ideologies in editorials”. Available online at <http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/A/ideology2.htm>.

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • White, P.R. 2003. “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance”. Text 23(2). 259–284.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.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.Google Scholar

About the article

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


Published Online: 2017-07-10

Published in Print: 2017-06-27


Citation Information: Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Volume 53, Issue 2, Pages 281–303, ISSN (Online) 1897-7499, ISSN (Print) 0137-2459, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2017-0011.

Export Citation

© 2017 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in