Cover not available
Part of
Reference and Identity in Public Discourses
Edited by Ursula Lutzky and Minna Nevala
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 306] 2019
► pp. 251–280

From Poland to #SanEscobar

On strategies subverting political discourse on Twitter

| Vienna University of Economics and Business
Using the example of the hashtag #SanEscobar, which was triggered by a slip of the tongue made by the then Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Witold Waszczykowski, the chapter shows how Twitter provides a discourse arena for the subversion of political discourse. A multimodal discourse analysis of tweets reveals how participants jointly devise the virtual country of San Escobar. The conceptual structure of the unfolding discourse uses elements from frames which comprise knowledge about South-America, Pablo Escobar and about the national conservative PiS party. Conceptual elements and structure from these frames are combined in a way that associates PiS-governed Poland with the stereotype of a South American narco-democracy (San Escobar) and thus humorously criticises the current political situation in Poland.
Keywords: multimodal discourse analysis, frames, Grounded Theory, social media communication, Polish, political discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1San Escobar as an Internet phenomenon
    • 1.2Research questions
    • 1.3Structure of the chapter
  • 2.Analysing hashtags and collecting data
  • 3.Analytic framework and methodology
    • 3.1Frames and frame-based discourse analysis
    • 3.2Coding procedure and identification of frames
  • 4.Conceptualising San Escobar on Twitter
    • 4.1San Escobar as a country
    • 4.2The conceptualisation of PiS
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.306.10thi
References (42)
References
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2010. “Localizing the Global on the Participatory Web.” In The Handbook of Language and Globalization, ed. by Nick Coupland, 203–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Online Data Collection.” In Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications, ed. Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs, and Gerard van Herk, 236–250. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Badyda, Ewa, and Lucyna Warda-Radys. 2018. “W żartach, ale na serio – odwołania do polskiej rzeczywistości politycznej w toponimii fikcyjnego kraju San Escobar.” Język Polski 3: 49–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2005. “Frames Revisited – the Coherence-Inducing Function of Frames.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (5): 685–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bös, Birte, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Millon, and Nuria Hernandez (eds). 2018. The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline. Personal – group – collective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4–5): 585–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burghardt, Manuel. 2015. “Tools for the Analysis and Visualization of Twitter Language Data.” 10plus1: Living Linguistics 1. Available online at [URL] (accessed 15 April 2019).
Busse, Dietrich. 2012. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Su Young, and Younghan Cho. 2017. “Generating Counter-Public Spheres Through Social Media: Two Social Movements in Neoliberalised South Korea.” Javnost – The Public 24 (1): 15–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czerwiński, Maciej, Paweł Nowak, and Renata Przybylska (eds). 2010. Język IV Rzeczypospolitej. Lublin: UMCS.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Ash. 2016. “Stance and Identity in Twitter Hashtags.” Language@Internet 13 (1). Available online at [URL] (accessed 15 April 2019).
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2003. The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fraas, Claudia. 2013. “Frames – ein qualitativer Zugang zur Analyse von Sinnstrukturen in der Online-Kommunikation.” In Die Dynamik sozialer und sprachlicher Netzwerke, ed. by Barbara Frank-Job, Alexander Mehler, and Tilman Stutter, 259–283. Wiesbaden: VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraas, Claudia, Stefan Meier, and Christian Pentzold. 2010. “Konvergenz an den Schnittstellen unterschiedlicher Kommunikationsformen: Ein Frame-basierter analytischer Zugriff.” In Neue Medien – Neue Formate. Ausdifferenzierung und Konvergenz in der Medienkommunikation, ed. by Hans-Jürgen Bucher, Thomas Gloning, and Katrin Lehnen, 227–256. Frankfurt a. M., New York: Campus.Google Scholar
Fraas, Claudia, and Christian Pentzold. 2008. “Online-Diskurse – Theoretische Prämissen, methodische Anforderungen und analytische Befunde.” In Methoden der Diskurslinguistik. Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene, ed. by Jürgen Spitzmüller, and Ingo Warnke, 287–322. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Big Data vs. Slow Understanding? Voraussetzungen und Vorgehen computergestützter Analyse transmedialer multimodaler Diskurse.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 43 (1): 112–133.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text 25 (26): 56–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Głowiński, Michał. 2009. Nowomowa i ciągi dalszy: szkice dawne i nowe. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Halavais, Alexander. 2014. “Structure of Twitter: Social and Technical.” In Twitter and Society, ed. by Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt, and Cornelius Puschmann, 29–42. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hardaker, Claire, and Mark McGlashan. 2016. “‘Real Men Don’t Hate Women’: Twitter Rape Threats and Group Identity.” Journal of Pragmatics 91: 80–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan. 2013. “Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, Reconfigured, and Emergent.” In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen, and Amy Tester, 1–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Issel-Dombert, Sandra. 2017. “ M. le Président, la prochaine fois, évitez le scooter – Zur Parodierung von Skandalen in der Werbekommunikation im Web 2.0.” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 66: 99–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2016. “Enregisterment: How Linguistic Items Become Linked with Ways for Speaking.” Lang Linguist Compass 10: 632–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirner-Ludwig, Monika. 2018. “Great Pretenders: The Phenomenon of Impersonating (Pseudo-)historical Personae in Medieval Blogs, or: Blogging for Someone Else’s Fame?” In The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline. Personal – group – collective, ed. by Birte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin and Nuria Hernández, 15–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klemm, Michael, and Sascha Michel. 2014. “Big Data – Big Problems? Zur Kombination qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden bei der Erforschung politischer Social-Media-Kommunikation.” In Datenflut und Informationskanäle, ed. by Heike Ortner, Daniel Pfurtscheller, Michaela Rizzolli and Andreas Wiesinger, 83–98. Innsbruck: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo. 2012. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Liebert, Wolf-Andreas. 2003. “Zu einem dynamischen Konzept von Schlüsselwörtern.” Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 38: 57–83.Google Scholar
Mayring, Philipp. 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. by Patrick Winston, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Oakley, Todd, and Seana Coulson. 2000. “Blending Basics.” Cognitive Linguistics 11 (3–4): 175–196.Google Scholar
Siever, Christina Margit. 2015. Multimodale Kommunikation im Social Web: Forschungsansätze und Analysen zu Text-Bild-Relationen. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1981. “Irony and the Use-Mention Distinction.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1990. “Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.” Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strübing, Jörg. 2014. Grounded Theory. Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung eines pragmatistischen Forschungsstils. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1979. “Individuals and Groups in Social Psychology.” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18 (2): 183–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thielemann, Nadine. 2016. “ Patriotyzm genetyczny, pólka kulturowa and Palikotyzacja X-a: Blends as Catchwords in Polish Political Discourse.” Zeitschrift für Slawistik 61 (1): 74–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2011. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media. How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
. 2018. Searchable Talk. Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2008a. Frames und sprachliches Wissen. Kognitive Aspekte der semantischen Kompetenz. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. “Frame-Semantik und Diskursanalyse – Skizze einer kognitionswissenschaftlich inspirierten Methode zur Analyse gesellschaftlichen Wissens.” In Methoden der Diskurslinguistik. Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene, ed. by Jürgen Spitzmüller, and Ingo Warnke, 89–116. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar