Cover not available
Part of
The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 95–126

Europhobes and Europhiles, Eurospats and Eurojibes

Revisiting Britain’s EU debate, 2000–2016

| University of Bologna
| University of Bologna
This paper is an examination in three parts of the UK’s debate on membership of the European Union, before and immediately after the so-called ‘Brexit’ Referendum. The first part takes its cue from an article by Wolfgang Teubert which has exercised considerable influence in the field of corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS), namely, his examination of the language of EU-scepticism in the UK (Teubert 2001). The aim of the CADS approach is the uncovering, in the discourse type under study, of non-obvious meanings and patterns of meanings, that is, meanings which might not be readily available to naked-eye perusal. Teubert’s paper was an inspiring example of these procedures. In the second part, a para-replication of Teubert’s work, we revisit attitudes to the EU as represented in sections of the UK press in 2013 (the year the British Prime Minister announced an “in-out” referendum on EU membership). The third section examines the themes debated immediately before and immediately after the referendum vote in June 2016. We also reflect on how the much-invoked notion of negative representation needs to be employed with care, particularly with regard to media discourses.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Teubert’s 2001 study on Euroscepticism
  • 2.The para-replication of Teubert’s study thirteen years later – 2013
    • 2.1Key item analysis
      • 2.1.1The Mail key-items
      • 2.1.2The Guardian key items
    • 2.2Qualitative analysis I: Concordancing metaphors and motifs
    • 2.3Qualitative analysis II: Leading articles
    • 2.4Who are we up against?
    • 2.5Representing Eurosceptics, Europhobes and other Euro-animals
      • 2.5.1The Guardian
      • 2.5.2The Mail
    • 2.6Metaphors and evaluation
    • 2.7Conclusions on the 2013 discourses
  • 3.2016: The campaigns immediately before the vote and the reactions just after
    • 3.1Findings
      • 3.1.1The representation of the referendum
      • 3.1.2The theme of fear
      • 3.1.3Discourses on immigration
    • 3.2The result and post-vote Britain
      • 3.2.1First reactions
      • 3.2.2Pro-Leave reactions
      • 3.2.3Pro-Remain reactions
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.05par
References (24)
References
Baker, P. 2012. Acceptable bias: Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies 9(3): 247–256.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brader, T. 2006. Campaigns for Hearts and Minds. How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. Chicago IL: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. 2013. Analysing Political Speeches. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dugalès, N. & Tucker, G. 2012. Representations of representation: European institutions in the French and British press. In European Identity: What the Media Say, P. Bayley & G. Williams (eds), 21–54. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. 1965. The structure of foreign news. Journal of Peace Research 2(1): 64–91.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2011. Methodological and interdisciplinary stance in Corpus Linguistics. In Perspectives on Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 48], V. Viana, S. Zyngier & G. Barnbrook (eds), 81–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Louw, W. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchi, A. & Taylor, C. 2009. Establishing the EU: The representation of Europe in the press in 1993 and 2005. In Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, A. Jucker, M. Hundt & D. Schreier (eds), 201–224. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mautner, G. 1995. Only connect. Critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. University of Lancaster. <[URL]>
Morley, J. 2004. A sting in the tail. In Corpora and Discourse, A. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (eds), 239–255. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. 2017. Truth, lies and figurative scenarios: Metaphors at the heart of Brexit. Journal of Language and Politics 16(5): 641–657.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 2009. Evaluating evaluation and some concluding reflections on CADS. In Corpus Assisted Discourse Studies on the Iraq Conflict: Wording the War, J. Morley & P. Bayley (eds), 261–303. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2012. Corpus analysis of political language. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, C. Chappelle (ed.), 1–8. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, A., Duguid, A. & Taylor, C. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 55]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. & Taylor, C. 2018. The Language of Persuasion in Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2012. Corpus analysis of keywords. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, C. Chappelle (ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools, Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tadros, A. 1993. The pragmatics of text averral and attribution in academic texts. In Data, Description, Discourse, M. Hoey (ed.), 98–114. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 2013. Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora 8(1): 81–113.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teubert, W. 2001. A province of a federal superstate, ruled by an unelected bureaucracy. Keywords of the Euro-sceptic discourse in Britain. In Attitudes Towards Europe: Language in the Unification Process, A. Musolff, C. Good, P. Points & R. Wittlinger (eds), 45–88. Abingdon: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Vaghi, F. & Venuti, M. 2004. Metaphor and the Euro. In Corpora and Discourse, A. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (eds), 369–382. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar