Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 18:3 (2019) ► pp.393–419

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Epistemic stancetaking and speaker objectification in a spatio-cognitive discourse world

A critical contrastive analysis of political discourse

ORCiD logo with link | University of Cambridge
Published online: 4 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17038.ull
Abstract
This paper seeks to apply a cognitive-linguistic approach to critical discourse studies in an investigation of epistemic stancetaking and types of inter/subjectivity of the speaker in political discourse. More specifically, the paper presents an analysis of responses by three different politicians, i.e. John Kerry, Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin, to the chemical weapons attack in Syria in August 2013. By incorporating cognitive-linguistic theories in a critical investigation of language, I address diverging representations of the same event and their discursive functions in representing underlying ideologies and motifs of the respective politicians. Specifically, I propose a more nuanced incorporation of epistemic stance in a spatio-cognitive representation of discourse. My analysis shows that type of inter/subjectivity has bearing on the epistemic quality of a proposition. The more prominently a speaker construes him-/herself as evaluator of an event, the stronger his/her assertions become, which is equally visible in a discourse space model.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical and methodological framework: Epistemic stancetaking and speaker objectification in a discourse space model
    • 2.1Epistemic stancetaking and types of speaker objectification
    • 2.2Spatio-cognitive discourse worlds or discourse space theory
  • 3.Data: The 2013 chemical weapons attack in Syria
  • 4.Construing the chemical attack in Syria: A critical contrastive analysis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Anthony, Lawrence. 2014. AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from [URL]
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Missing Links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct.” In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed by Ruth Wodak, and Paul Chilton, 19–52. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William, and David A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Earnest, Josh. 2013. “Statement by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Allegations of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria.” The White House, 21 August 2013. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
Fairclough, Norman. 2014. “A Critical Agenda for Education.” In The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis, ed. by Johannes Angermüller, Dominique Maingeueneau, and Ruth Wodak, 378–387. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280 (1): 20–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger, and Gunter Kress. 1979. “Critical Linguistics.” In Language and Control, ed. by Roger Fowler, 185–213. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2007. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Conceptualisation: Mental Spaces, Blended Spaces and Discourse Spaces in the British National Party.” In Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory, ed. by Christopher Hart, and Dominik Lukeš, 107–131. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Metaphor: Toward a Theoretical Framework.” Critical Discourse Studies 5 (2): 91–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Legitimizing Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 751–814. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Viewpoint in Linguistic Discourse: Space and Evaluation in News Reports of Political Protests.” Critical Discourse Studies 12 (3): 238–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “The Visual Basis of Linguistic Meaning and Its Implications for Critical Discourse Studies: Integrating Cognitive Linguistic and Multimodal Methods. Discourse & Society 27 (3): 335–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, Veronika. 2005. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Cognition: Evidence from Business Media Discourse.” Discourse & Society 16 (2): 199–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2009. The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics. London: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2011. “Epistemic Legitimising Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 789–797. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Stancetaking and Inter/Subjectivity in the Iraq Inquiry: Blair vs. Brown.” In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, ed. by Juana I. Marín Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, and Johan van der Auwera, 411–446. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish.” Discourse Studies 17 (2): 210–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kieran. 2003. Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, Günter, and René Dirven. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorenson, David S. 2016. Syria in Ruins: The Dynamics of the Syrian Civil War. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter. 1999. “Towards a Critical Cognitive Linguistics?” In Discourses of War and Conflict, ed. by Annette Combrink, and Ina Biermann, 510–28. Potchefstroom: Ptochefstroom University Press. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
Talmy, Leonard. 2006. “Grammatical Construal.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, 69–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stefanie. 2017. “Conceptualising Force in the Context of the Arab Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of International Mass Media Reports and Twitter Posts.” Discourse & Communication 11 (2): 160–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
United Nations. 2013a. “Report of the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic on the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013.” 16 September 2013. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
. 2013b. “United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.” 12 December 2013. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
. 2014. “Removal of Syria’s chemical weapons material complete, announces OPCW-UN mission.” 23 June 2014. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2011. “Discourse, Knowledge, Power and Politics: Towards Critical Epistemic Discourse Analysis.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by Christopher Hart, 27–64. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sources of political speeches
Al-Assad, Bashar. 2013. “Speech.” Rossiya 24, 13 September 2013. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
Kerry, John. 2013. “Statement on Syria.” The White House, 30 August 2013. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
Putin, Vladimir. 2013. “The Syrian Alternative.” The New York Times, 12 September 2013. Retrieved from [URL] on 17 February 2018.
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Barber, Kate
2025. (Don’t) click here: Hyperlinks as a quasi-objectification strategy in epistemic legitimisation in extremists’ blog posts on sexual violence. Discourse, Context & Media 66 ► pp. 100912 ff. DOI logo
Ma, Haiyan, Xin Yuan & Lisha Zeng
2024. Contextual parameters in transcreating political aphorisms and imageries. The Translator 30:4 ► pp. 501 ff. DOI logo
Ma, Qian & Qiufang Wen
2023. Can space be conceptualized in a different way in political discourse? An extended application of Discourse Space Theory. Discourse & Society 34:6 ► pp. 712 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander
2020. Expressing stance in spoken political discourse—The function of parenthetical inserts. Language Sciences 82 ► pp. 101334 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue