Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics: Online-First Articles

Legitimizing the interventions recommended in “European Research Area Policy Agenda 2022–2024”

A study of persuasive presuppositions

ORCID logo | University of Opole | Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
The EU Directorate General for Research and Innovation’s “European Research Area Policy Agenda: Overview of Actions for the Period 2022–2024” outlines twenty actions to boost research excellence, investment and reform, coordination and support, or green and digital transformation of the academia, in an attempt to create a truly common “European knowledge market.” Filled with strategic planning jargon, the policy specifies the recommended interventions for years to come and with billions of Euros of funding to follow. Using a qualitative critical discourse approach, this study explores policy-making from a linguistic perspective to capture the characteristics of current EU R&I discourse. Language choices have a constitutive role in policy papers due to the discursive capacity for legitimization and subsequent persuasion. The analysis focuses on the persuasive presuppositions induced by certain lexico-grammatical choices, including evaluative and rhetorical devices, and shows how the ERA policy fosters acceptance of a European vision of R&I values.
Keywords: presupposition, legitimization, persuasion, critical policy analysis, ERA policy agenda
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Persuasive devices and legitimization in policymaking
  • 3.The context of ERA Policy Agenda 2022–2024
  • 4.Analytic protocol
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Verb choices for required actions
    • 5.2Evaluative modifiers and rhetorical constructions
    • 5.3Catchphrases
  • 6.Constructing legitimate responses to challenges, risks and requirements
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.23043.mol
References (29)
References
Bauduceau, Nicolas, Berry, Pam, Cecchi, Claudio et al.. 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation Policy Agenda for Nature-based Solutions and Re-naturing Cities. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Samuel. 2022. “Mythopoetic Legitimation and the Recontextualisation of Europe’s Foundational Myth.” Journal of Language and Politics 21 (2): 370–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biegelbauer, Peter, and Matthias Weber. 2018. “EU Research, Technological Development and Innovation Policy.” In Handbook of European Policies, ed. by Hubert Heinelt, and Sybille Münch. 241–259. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2007. “Sociolinguistic Scales.” Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (1): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2008. “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (1): 17–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul, and Christina Schäffner. 2002. “Introduction: Themes and Principles in Political Discourse Analysis.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton, and Christina Schäffner. 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DG (Directorate General Research and Innovation). 2021. European Research Area Policy Agenda: Overview of Actions for the Period 2022–2024. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. [URL]
Fairclough, Isabela, and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Text Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinelt, Hubert, and Sybille Münch, (eds.). 2018. Handbook of European Policies. Interpretive Approaches to the EU. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, Leslie. 2010. Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kis, Andrea, Tur, Elena M., Lakens, Daniel, Vaesen, Krist, and Wybo Houkes. 2022. “Leaving Academia: PhD Attrition and Unhealthy Research Environments.” PLoS ONE 17 (10): e0274976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marginson, Simon. 2006. “Dynamics of National and Global Competition in Higher Education.” Higher Education 521: 1–39. DOI logo
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Molek-Kozakowska, Katarzyna. 2014. “The Style of EU Directives and the Discourse of Expert Rationality. Stylistyka 231: 245–261.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Presupposition and Nominalization in Headlinese: A Critical Analysis of Framing Devices in Journalistic Discourse.” In Discourses in Co(n)text: The Many Faces of Specialised Discourse, ed. by Magdalena Zabielska, Emilia Wąsikiewicz-Firlej, and Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak. 134–161. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
. 2023. “The Hybrid Discourse of the ‘European Green Deal’: Road-mapping Economic Transition to Environmental Sustainability (Almost) Seamlessly.” Critical Discourse Studies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Münch, Sybille, and Hubert Heinelt. (eds.). 2022. EU Policymaking at a Crossroads: Negotiating the 2021–2027 Budget. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muntigl, Peter. 2002. “Politicization and Depoliticization: Employment Policy in the European Union.” In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul Chilton, and Christina Schäffner. 45–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peeples, Jennifer. 2015. “Discourse/Rhetorical Analysis Approaches to Environment, Media, and Communication.” In The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication, ed. by Anders Hansen, and Robert Cox. 39–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. by John Wilkinson, and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2017. “The Discourse-historical Approach.” In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, ed. by John Flowerdew, and John Richardson. 44–59. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saarinen, Taina. 2008. “Persuasive Presuppositions in OECD and EU Higher Education Policy Documents.” Discourse Studies 10 (3): 341–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans. 2010. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Välimaa, Jussi, and David Hoffman. 2008. “Knowledge Society Discourse and Higher Education.” Higher Education 56 (2): 265–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2006. European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Glyn. 2010. Knowledge Economy, Language and Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar