Analysing Representations of Social Media in European News Media Discourse

Christine Develotte, Anthippi Potolia, Eija Suomela-Salmi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000442410
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book explores representations of social media in European media discourses across different socio-historical contexts, demonstrating how such analysis can illuminate the tension between global and local in media discourses in today's globalised world.

The volume draws on data from a trilingual corpus from different editions of the free daily Metro from Finland, France, and Greece spanning a five-year period, with a focus on Facebook and Twitter. Adopting a French discourse analysis approach, which takes as its point of departure the notion of "discourse as the social practice of representing", the book integrates qualitative and quantitative analyses to investigate the social and political role depictions of social media play in specific socio-historical contexts. This approach brings to the fore both commonalities and differences in the popularity of specific platforms and coverage of specific news topics and hot-button issues. In so doing, the volume elucidates the ways in which global practices become integrated and immersed into local contexts, offering avenues for future research on social media in news discourses.

This book will be of interest to scholars in applied linguistics, intercultural communication, discourse analysis, media studies, and cultural studies.

Part 1

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

1 Discourse Analyses and Key Research Concepts

DOI: 10.4324/9781003183013-3

In the introduction to this book, we stated that we adhere to the French School of Discourse Analysis (FDA). In the first section of this chapter, we briefly outline the history and the intellectual climate of the years during which the FDA took form and of the elaboration of conceptual and analytical tools in the course of time. Then, we discuss the most salient characteristics of Critical Discourse Analysis and then propose a concise summary of the commonalities and the differences between the two.

Our research question – how does the integration of a new discursive object such as social media occur in the newspaper Metro in three European countries? – is addressed on the basis of a semio-linguistic analysis with a comparative focus. We draw attention to the specificities of each of three media discourses in their socio-historic context while also highlighting the commonalities between them. To succeed, a theoretical framework drawing from several disciplines of human and social sciences is called for. In presenting the theoretical framework, we will articulate the key concepts that are the basis of our work.

In the second and third section of this first chapter, firstly, we discuss the notion of discursive exposure and its relation to the construction of reality which allows us to postulate different realities according to the contexts. Secondly, we consider the transmission of information according to the communication scheme (approached from a philosophical perspective), its relation to social representations (psycho-sociology) and glocalisation (sociology) illustrated via a specific media event: the appearance of FB and Twitter. Finally, we resort to discourse analysis and communication studies when focusing on the most salient components of our analysis that emerged from our study. This last aspect – at the heart of our work – is explained by discussing the notions of inter-discursiveness, didacticity and the effects of the real which are typical of media or journalistic discourse.

1.1. Insights in Two Analytical Perspectives of Discourses

1.1.1. The French School of Discourse Analysis

The French School of Discourse Analysis (FDA) emerged in the late sixties in an intellectual climate dominated by structuralism and Althusser’s (one of the leading French Marxist philosophers of the 20th century) theorisation of the concept of ideology paving the way for psychoanalysis (Maldidier, 1993: 105) cf. also infra. According to Althusser, specific socio-economic structures require particular ideologies instantiated by institutions such as state, family, school, church, etc. Whatever conceptions we have of the nature of human beings they are historically generated and serve to reproduce existing social relations and social structures. There is no human nature or essence and consequently no free will.¹ A further ingredient to this intellectual landscape must be added, that of a more global cultural anchoring (Franco-European), in the tradition of textual analysis (European philology) and in France a pedagogical practice (explication of literary texts) (Maingueneau, 1991: 9–10).

In 1969, Michel Pêcheux’s book Analyse automatique du discours (Automatic Analysis of Discourse) and the 13th issue of the journal Langages (Dubois & Sumpf, eds.) bearing the title L’analyse du discours (Discourse Analysis) were published, on the basis of which the characteristics of FDA can be gradually outlined.

The principles of structuralism of Harris (USA) are applied with caution; the enunciative conception analysing indices (formal markers) of personal and temporal deixis, aspect and modality (in line with Bally and Benveniste) is adopted to study how enunciators use language in communication; a certain predilection for text corpora of historical and political discourse, preferentially left wing, produced in institutional settings constraining heavily enunciation ; an effort to articulate the relationship of language use and history or social history, that is with ideologies and dialectic materialism.

(Peytard and Moirand, 1992: 42)²

As Maingueneau points out (1992: 117), to underline the fact that it was essentially political discourse analysis which was at stake is nearly tautological in the historical context in question: “as discursivity was defined as being internal to ideology, all discourses as object of analysis belonged ipso facto in the sphere of political”. In Althusser’s thinking “ideology had the same position as the illusionary autonomy of human consciousness had in psychoanalysis” (ibid.: 116):

Discourse analysis became to signify a sort of psychoanalysis applied to texts. In order “to unravel the unexpressed in the text”, it had “to be related to another text”, that of ideology, “necessarily absent from the first one”. This is akin to psychoanalysis, able to decipher “in the innocence of speech and listening” the depth to be assigned to another, to a completely different discourse, the discourse of the unconsciousness” […].

(ibid.: 117)

A theory of discourse starts evolving around 1966 and continues till the end of the seventies. Key concepts, such as conditions of production, discursive formation, preconstructed and inter/intradiscourse are introduced and elaborated during this period. These concepts form the raw material constituting the basis for numerous approaches and studies following the French tradition of discourse analysis.

In the first phase of FDA, M. Pêcheux reformulates Jakobson’s communicative scheme and substitutes the sender (A) and the receiver (B) with roles assigned to specific social structures such as boss (patron), civil servant (cadre), foreman, worker etc. which are rooted in the imagination of the protagonists. With such a reformulation message gives way to discourse, which implies that “it no longer is a question of transmission of information between A and B but more broadly of ‘effet de sens’ that is of meaning” (Pêcheux, 1969: 15). The conditions of production are decisive, in addition to language, in what makes a discourse what it is: “a socio-historical tissue which constitutes it” (Maldidier, 1990: 15). During this first phase of FDA, Pêcheux also sets the basis for interdiscourse in showing how fundamental the function of “already-heard” and “already-said is” (Peytard & Moirand, 1992: 112) and hence underlines the necessity “of considering all possible discourses”.

The second phase of FDA takes an even more explicit stance in aligning with Althusserian Marxism. There is also an important shift in the theoretical orientation as the concept of discursive formation³ is introduced. According to the perspective adopted, every discursive formation is rooted in specific and identifiable conditions of production. Discourse is understood as “textual expression of written or spoken ideologies related to the social place of individuals analysed now as carriers of ‘thoughts’ and ‘submitted’ rather than as conscient and active ‘actors’ ” (Bonnafous & Tournier, 1995: 76). The goal of the analysis now is to reveal in intradiscursivity (intradiscourse) the traces of subordination caused by the interference of former dominating discursive effects on the speaking subject. The concepts of preconstructed (préconstruit) and interdiscourse are elaborated following the above-mentioned lines of thought. The preconstructed (préconstruit) “can be understood as the trace of prior discourse in enunciation as opposed to the constructed (construit) uttered at the moment of enunciation. A sense of ‘evidence’ is present in what is felt as preconstructed since ‘it has already been uttered (already-said)’ even if the original enunciator has been forgotten” (Charaudeau & Maingueneau, 2002: 464). According to Pêcheux (1983, 1990: 297) interdiscourse⁴ designates the “exterior” of a discursive formation made accessible via the syntactically embedded intradiscursive element, the preconstructed.

In the third phase of FDA starting in the early eighties a change of focus takes place. The notion of interdiscourse which had for long dominated the FDA becomes less important as “the relation inter-/intradiscourse” is foregrounded (Maldidier, 1993: 117). Instead of History with a capital H, Structures and Events, FDA tries henceforth to respond to the challenges of history, in other words individual histories and events (ibid.).

From the eighties on, a multitude of studies appear having discourse as their object of study but opening up for different approaches within the FDA. Even if we no longer can speak of a School of French Discourse Analysis it is obvious that certain tendencies characterise the way of doing French discourse analysis:

1) certain preference for corpora that are more or less constrained (unlike conversation analysis for example) and for corpora with a historical interest, 2) the emphasis laid on analysing discursive phenomena also as linguistic entities and not only their discursive functions, 3) privileged relation with the theory of linguistic enunciation, 4) importance of interdiscourse, 5) reflection on the ways the speaking Subject inscribes himself in discourse.

(Charaudeau & Maingueneau, 2002: 202)

In our analysis, we adhere to the following principles: (1) we study a more a less constrained corpus (2) situated in the socio-historical context in which it was produced and interpreted, (3) we analyse discursive phenomena as social constructs but also paying close attention to linguistic entities (and not only to their discursive functions) and to inter/intradiscursivity.

1.1.2. Critical Discourse Analysis vs. French Discourse Analysis

There are many commonalities but also differences between the French tradition of doing discourse (FDA) analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In the following some of the main characteristics of CDA (more recently known as Critical Discourse Studies, CDS) are briefly highlighted.⁵ To conclude this section a concise summary of the commonalities and discrepancies between FDA and CDA/CDS is proposed.

From the late eighties on, CDA became to gain ground in social sciences and became an established qualitative theoretical/methodological framework in Anglo-Saxon academia. According to Wodak (2001: 4), one of the crucial moments in the development of CDA as a network of scholars was in January 1991 when several leading scholars interested in Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis met: “During this meeting the very distinct and different approaches were confronted and discussed […] differences and sameness were exposed; differences towards other theories and methodologies in discourse analysis and sameness in a programmatic way which could frame the differing theoretical approaches of the various biographies and schools of the respective scholars”. The heterogeneity of theoretical and methodological approaches remains a characteristic of CDA/CDS even today (see below).

CDA/CDS researchers analyse not only language but language use as part of complex social phenomena. The relationships between language and society are so complex and multifaceted that an interdisciplinary approach making use of different methods is required (Wodak, 2001: 8; Unger, Wodak & KhosraviNik, 2016). Beside text linguistics and discourse anal...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• General Introduction
• Part 1 Theoretical Framework and Methodology
• Part 2 Contextualisation of and Macro-Level Analysis of the Object of Study
• Part 3 Social Media Representations in Three Different Discursive Spaces
• General Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendix A. Metro Editors – Interview Questions
• Appendix B. Titles with Keywords “Facebook” and “Twitter” in the Three National Corpora (2007–2011)
• Index (Author and Keyword)