Cover not available
Article published In:
Discourse analysis, policy analysis, and the borders of EU identity
Edited by Caterina Carta and Ruth Wodak
[Journal of Language and Politics 14:1] 2015
► pp. 65–86

The swinging “we”

Framing the European Union international discourse

| Vesalius College, Brussels |
This contribution focuses on the implications of the institutional reform advanced by the Lisbon Treaty for the framing of discourses of European institutional actors. The article adopts a focused linguistic strategy aimed at identifying patterns of pronominal selection as useful tools to depict both the ways in which different EU actors in Brussels elaborate their sense of belonging, and also patterns of horizontal and vertical inter-institutional cooperation and conflict. The article firstly introduces the data and methodology employed in the analysis. Secondly, it sheds light on the main institutional arrangements established in the aftermath of Lisbon. Thirdly, it illustrates how referential/nomination strategies are on aggregate realised by interviewees. Finally, it presents an analysis of pronominal selection and contextualises the difficulties of individual actors working for the EU’s institutions in dealing with the current institutional structure.
Keywords: European Union, European External Action Service, European Diplomacy, Critical Discourse Analysis, Pronominal Selection
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Individuals, Institutions And The Making Of Eu International Discourses
  • 2.Method Of Analysis And Data
    • 2.1Method of analysis
    • 2.2Data and aims of the interviews
  • 3.Defining The Institutional Context In Brussels
  • 4.The Swinging We: The New Institutional Context And Diplomats’ Narratives
    • 4.1Pronominal Selection in the EU: Some general findings
    • 4.2Brussels arrangements: Friends or enemies?
  • 5.Conclusions – Discourse Analysis And The Swinging We
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 May 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.14.1.04car
References (53)
References
Abélès, Marc, Irène Bellier, and Mary McDonald. 1993. Approche anthropologique de la Commission européenne. Brussels: European Commission. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Agar, Michael. 1985. “Institutional Discourse.” Text 5 (3): 147–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aggestam, Lisbeth. 2008. “Introduction. Ethical Power Europe?” International Affairs 84(1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexander, C Norman Jr., and Pat Lauderdale. 1977. “Situated Identities and Social Influence.” Sociometry 40 (3): 225–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Benedict. 1983, 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, and Sue Widdicombe. 1998. Identities in Talks. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellier, Irène. 2002. “European Identity, Institutions and Languages in the Context of the Enlargement.” Journal of Language and Politics 1 (1): 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breakwell, Glynis M. 2004. “Identity Change in the Context of the Growing Influence of European Institutions.” In Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU, ed. by Richard K. Hermann, Thomas Risse, and Marilynn B. Brewer, 25–58. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Carta, Caterina. 2012. The European Union Diplomatic Services: Ideas, Preferences and Identities. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. “The EEAS and EU Executive Actors within the Foreign Policy-Cycle”. In The EU’s Foreign Policy: What Kind of Power and Diplomatic Action?, ed. by M. Teló, and F. Ponjaert, 184–217. Basingstoke: Ashgate.Google Scholar
. 2013b. “The Geneva Convention: The External Representation of a System of Governance.” Journal of Contemporary European Research 9 (3): 406–423.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Use of Metaphors and International Discourse: The EU as an Idiot Power, a Deceptive Pangloss and a Don Giovanni in His Infancy.” Cooperation and Conflict 49 (3): 334–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Thomas, 1997. “A Maturing Bureaucracy: The Role of the European Commission in the Policy Process.” In European Union: Power and Policy-making, ed. by Jeremy Richardson, 77–95. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cicourel, Aaron V. 1987. “The Interpenetration of Communicative Contexts: Examples from Medical Encounters.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 217–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cini, Michelle. 1996. The European Commission: Leadership, Organisation and Culture in the EU Administration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Ian, Winston Kwon, and Ruth Wodak. 2012. “A Context-sensitive Approach to Analysing Talk in Strategy Meetings.” British Journal of Management 23 (4): 455–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claude, Inis L. 1956. Swords into Plowshares: The Problems and Progress of International Organisation. London: University of London Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coombes, David. 1972. Politics and Bureaucracy in the European Community. A Portrait of the Commission of the EEC. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
De Cillia, Rudolf, Martin Reisigl, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “The Discursive Construction of National Identities.” Discourse Society 10 (2): 149–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1993. “Foreign Policy as Social Construction.” International Studies Quarterly 371: 297–320 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaxie, Daniel, Nicolas Hubé, and Jay Rowell (eds). 2011. Perceptions of Europe: A Comparative Sociology of European Attitudes. Colchester: ECPR studies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Richard K., Thomas Risse, and Marilynn B. Brewer (eds). 2004. Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Hettne, Björn and Söderbaum, Fredrik. 2005. “Civilian Power or Soft Imperialism? The EU as a Global Actor and the Role of Interregionalism.” European Foreign Affairs Review 10(4): 535–552.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet. 2001. The European Commission and the Integration of Europe: Images of Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2001. “From Social to Political Identity: A Critical Examination of Social Identity Theory.” Political Psychology 22 (1): 127–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iñigo-Mora, Isabel. 2004. “On the Use of the Personal Pronoun We in Communities.” Journal of Language and Politics 3 (1): 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ish-Shalom, Piki. 2011. “Three Dialogic Imperatives in International Relations Scholarship: A Buberian Programme.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies 391: 825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maitland, Karen, and John Wilson. 1987. “Pronominal Selection and Ideological Conflict.” Journal of Pragmatics 111: 495–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, Andrew M. 1979. “On Studying Organizational Cultures.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): 570–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polat, Necati. 2011. “European Integration as a Colonial Discourse.” Review of International Studies 371: 1255–1272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postoutenko, Kirill. 2009. “Between “I” and “We”: Studying the Grammar of Social Identity in Europe (1900–1950).” Journal of Language and Politics 8 (2): 195–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risse, Thomas. 2004. “European Institutions and Identity Change: What Have We Learned?” In (eds), Transnational Identities in Europe: Becoming European in the EU, ed. by Richard K. Herrmann, Marilynn B. Brewer, and Thomas Risse, 215–247. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Sathe, Vijay. 1983. “Implication of Corporate Culture: A Managerial Guide to Action.” Organisational Dynamics 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. R. 1969, 1997. Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selznick, Philip. 1957. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2009. “Figurative Language in International Political Discourse.” The Journal of Language and Politics 8 (3): 416–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shore, Chris. 2000. Building Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2010. “Society, Polity and Language Community: An Enlightenment Trinity in Anthropological Perspective.” Journal of Language and Politics 9 (3): 339–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spence, David. 2000. “The European Commission.” In Reforming the European Union: From Maastricht to Amsterdam, ed. by Phil Lynch, Nanette Neuwahl, and G. Wyn Rees, 32–56. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Stevens, Anne, and Handley Stevens. 2001. Brussels Bureaucrats: The Administration of the European Union. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1982. “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.” Annual Review of Psychology 331: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict”. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. by William G. Austin, and Stephen Worchel, 33–48. Monterey, CA: Brooks & Cole.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, John C., Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen D. Reicher, and Margaret S. Wetherell. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2003. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi D. Hamilton, 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weick, Karl. 1995. Sense-making in Organizations. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Salomi Boukala (this issue). Debates about Security: The Revival of Nationalism in the European Union – A Discourse-historical Approach.
Wodak, Ruth. 2004. “National and Transnational Identities: European and Other Identities Constructed in Interviews with Officials.” In Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU, ed. by Richard K. Hermann, Thomas Risse, and Marilynn B. Brewer, 97–128. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009. (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2011. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual (2nd rev. edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Witkowska, Marta & Artur Koldomasov
2024. The European Parliament's Activities in European Union Foreign Policy. In Dealing With Regional Conflicts of Global Importance [Advances in Human Services and Public Health, ], ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Avdagić, Kemal & Mirza Džanić
2023. Power relations through the prism of critical discourse analysis and systemic functional grammar. ExELL 11:1 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Zappettini, Franco & Samuel Bennett
2022. Reimagining Europe and its (dis)integration. Journal of Language and Politics 21:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Xi
2021. Construing Community with a Shared Future in President Xi Jinping’s Diplomatic Discourse (2013–2018): The Role of Personal Pronouns we and they. Critical Arts 35:3 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Carta, Caterina
2019. “A Rose by Any Other Name”: On Ways of Approaching Discourse Analysis. International Studies Review 21:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Mittag, Jürgen
2019. Triebkräfte der Gemeinschaftsbildung. In Handbuch Europäische Union, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mittag, Jürgen
2020. Triebkräfte der Gemeinschaftsbildung. In Handbuch Europäische Union, ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Rozgonyi, Krisztina
2019. The governance of digital switchover of terrestrial television in the European Union: The role of policy framing. Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Raus, Rachele
2018. La question du dissensus au Parlement européen : le contre-discours de l’opinion minoritaire. Argumentation et analyse du discours :21 DOI logo
Sandrin, Paula Orrico & Andrea Ribeiro Hoffmann
2018. Silences and hierarchies in European Union Public Diplomacy. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 61:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.