Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Studies in Public Communication
Edited by Eliecer Crespo-Fernández
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 92] 2021
► pp. 83–102

Chapter 4
A corpus-assisted qualitative approach to political discourse in Spanish print and digital press

ORCID logo | Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Lingüística Aplicada (ILA), Universidad de Cádiz, Spain
News discourse nowadays is generally regarded as a means for the transmission of ideology and other predefined ideas, usually related to political viewpoints and, therefore, political discourses. From this standpoint (widely discussed by van Dijk, Fairclough, and Wodak, among others), I intend to achieve an adequate qualitative description of conceptual networks and some general patterns of persuasive communicative goals throughout data obtained from written pieces of discourse in Spanish media, focusing my attention on a series of key words, frequently used by politicians and reproduced by the media, previously gathered from Spanish main parties’ electoral programs. My assumption is that, being involved with political ideology, patterns found within news discourse support the idea that a positive or a negative position is defended regarding those contents represented by said key words.
Keywords: news discourse, ideology, polarisation, political discourse, political key words
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background: Discourse analysis, pragmatics, and lexical semantics
  • 3.Methodological aspects
  • 3.Findings and results: News discourse as a means for spreading ideology
    • 3.1Previous selection of key words in political discourse
    • 3.2Quantitative analysis of key words in news discourse
    • 3.3Qualitative approach: The interpretation of lexical selections within news discourse
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 7 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.92.04fer
References (47)
References
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. 2006. Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Lawrence. 2019. AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL]
Bell, Allan. 1998. “The Discourse Structure of News Stories.” In Discourse Studies, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 58–89. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor, and Thomas A. Upton. 2007. Discourse on the Move. Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, Paul. 2017. The Online Journalism Handbook. Skills to Survive and Thrive in the Digital Age. Oxon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Casado Velarde, Manuel. 2008. “Algunas estrategias discursivas en el lenguaje periodístico de hoy [Some discursive strategies in journalistic discourse today].” Boletín Hispánico Helvético 12: 71–89.Google Scholar
. 2011. “El poder de las palabras: lenguaje y manipulación [The power of words: language and manipulation].” Nueva Revista de Política, Cultura y Arte 134: 162–174.Google Scholar
Casas Gómez, Miguel. 2012. “El realce expresivo como función eufemística: a propósito de la corrección política de ciertos usos lingüísticos [Expressive reinforcement: regarding political correctness of certain linguistic uses].” In Political Correctness. Aspectos politicos, sociales, literarios y mediaticos de la censura política [Political correctness. Social, literary, and mediatic aspects of political censorship], ed. by Ursula Reutner, and Elmar Schafroth, 61–79. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Lexicon, Discourse and Cognition: Terminological Delimitations in the Conceptualizations of Linguistic Taboo.” In Linguistic Taboo Revisited. Novel Insights from Cognitive Perspectives, ed. by Andrea Pizarro Pedraza, 13–31. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1955–56. “Determinación y entorno. Dos problemas de una lingüística del hablar [Determination and surroundings. Two problems for a linguistics of speech].” Romanistisches Jährbuch 7: 29–54.Google Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, Eliecer. 2013. “Words as Weapons for Mass Persuasion: Dysphemism in Churchill’s Wartime Speeches.” Text & Talk 33 (3): 310–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Eufemismo y política: un estudio comparativo del discurso político local británico y español [Euphemism and politics: A comparative study of British and Spanish political discourse].” Pragmalingüística 24: 8–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Euphemism as a Discursive Strategy in US Local and State Politics.” Journal of Language and Politics 17 (6): 789–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2011. Through the Language Glass. Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. London: Arrow.Google Scholar
Díaz Noci, Javier, and Ramón Salaverría Aliaga (eds). 2003. Manual de redacción ciberperiodística [The handbook of ciber-journalistic writing]. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media Discourse. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2003. “‘Political Correctness’: The Politics of Culture and Language.” Discourse & Society 14 (1): 17–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Semiosis, Ideology and Mediation: A Dialectical View.” In Mediating Ideology in Text and Image. Ten Critical Studies, ed. by Inger Lassen, Jeanne Strunck, and Torben Vestergaard, 19–35. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Lagunilla, Marina. 2002. “La ‘mala lengua’ de los políticos [Foulmouthed politicians].” In Anàlisi del discurs polític: producción, mediació i recepció [Political discourse analysis: Production, mediation, and reception], ed. by Clara U. Lorda, and Montserrat Ribas, 63–80. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Fernández Smith, Gérard. 2015. “Los límites de la política y planificación lingüísticas [The boundaries of language policy and planning].” Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas 10: 34–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Instrumentos lingüísticos de los discursos del odio en la prensa digital [Linguistic instruments of hatred discourses in digital press].” In Os discursos de intimidação: de onde eles vêm e para onde vão? [Intimidating speeches: Where do they come from and where do they go?], ed. by Juan Manuel López Muñoz, and Paola Capponi. Fragmentum 50: 99–122.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Adecuación textual y géneros discursivos en la comunicación periodística, o por qué no se debe siempre matar al mensajero [Textual appropriateness and discourse genres, or why the messenger should not always be shot].” In Lengua, cultura, discurso [Language, Culture, Discourse], ed. by Ramón González Ruiz, Inés Olza, and Óscar Loureda Lamas, 241–254. Pamplona: EUNSA.Google Scholar
Fernández Smith, Gérard, and Miguel Casas Gómez. 2018. “From lexicon to discourse in the linguistic expression of taboo: Configuring new social realities.” In Taboo in Discourse: Studies on Attenuation and Offence in Communication, ed. by Eliecer Crespo-Fernández, 25–52. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flores Treviño, Maria Eugenia. 2016. “Violencia, género y sexismo: una muestra de estrategias argumentativas en el discurso político mexicano [Violence, gender, and sexism: A sample of argumentative strategies in Mexican political discourse].” In Estrategias argumentativas y discurso político [Argumentative strategies and political dicourse], ed. by Catalina Fuentes Rodríguez, 75–105. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Fuentes Rodríguez, Catalina. 2016. “El discurso político: argumentación, imagen y poder [Political discourse: Argumentation, image, and power].” In Estrategias argumentativas y discurso político [Argumentative strategies and political discourse], ed. by Catalina Fuentes Rodríguez, 17–48. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Guerrero Salazar, Susana. 2007. La creatividad en el lenguaje periodístico [Creativity in journalistic discourse]. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
. 2019. Las demandas a la RAE sobre el sexismo del diccionario: La repercusión del discurso mediático [The requirements to the Spanish Academy of Language on sexism in the dictionary: The influence of media discourse]. Doxa Comunicación 29: 43–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez Vidrio, Silvia. 2010. “Discurso periodístico: una propuesta analítica [Jounalistic discourse: an analyitical approach].” Comunicación y Sociedad 14: 169–198.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2016. “Recontextualisation of Neoliberalism and the Increasingly Conceptual Nature of Discourse: Challenges for Critical Discourse Studies.” Discourse & Society 27 (3): 308–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laborda Gil, Xavier. 2011. Lágrimas de cocodrilo. Análisis del discurso político [Crocodile tears. Political discourse analysis]. Barcelona: UOC.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2018. “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by John Flowerdew, and John E. Richardson, 44–59. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sánchez García, Francisco José. 2018. Eufemismos del discurso político. Las claves lingüísticas del arte del disimulo [Euphemisms in political discourse. Linguistic keys for the art of concealment]. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Strate, Lance. 2017. Media Ecology: An Approach to Understanding the Human Condition. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1980. Macrostructures. An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1991. Racism and the Press. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1999. “El Análisis Crítico del Discurso [Critical Discourse Analysis].” Anthropos 186: 23–36.Google Scholar
2001. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun. A. 2003. Ideología y discurso. Una introducción multidisciplinaria [Ideology and discourse. A multidisciplinary introduction]. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 2010. “Discurso, conocimiento, poder y políticas. Hacia un análisis crítico epistémico del discurso [Discourse, knowledge, power, and policies. Towards a critical epistemic analysis of discourse].” Revista de Investigación Lingüística 13: 167–215.Google Scholar
2014. Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2000. “Recontextualisation and Transformation of Meanings.” In Discourse and Social Life, ed. by Srikant Sarangi, and Malcolm Coulthard, 185–207. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2001. “The Discourse-historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–94. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2011. “The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual.” Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Bernhard Forchtner (eds). 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer (eds). 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar