Case report published In: Language, Culture and Society
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.168–193
Report
The senator’s discriminatory intent
Presenting probative legal evidence of unconstitutional verbal animus
Published online: 22 October 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00015.san
https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00015.san
Abstract
This is a critical analysis of the discourse of an elected state official in the years leading up to the passage of arguably racist legislation. It was submitted to a U.S. court of law to support the plaintiffs’ claim that since the legislator publicly expressed racial bias against the groups of people affected by the law, then his legislation should be voided because the United States Constitution requires that laws treat citizens equally. The fact that critical discourse analytic findings have been entered into the U.S. courts leads to the question whether such analyses of public pronouncements May ever be permitted to serve as legally probative evidence.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Equal Protection Clause
- 3.Political setting
- 4.Theory
- 5.Data
- 6.Method
- 7.CDA of the senator’s discourse
- 7.1The senator’s leading analogy: nation as law
- 7.2Immigrant metaphors
- 7.2.1 immigrant as invader
- 7.2.2 immigrant as destroyer
- 7.2.3 immigrant as criminal
- 7.2.4 immigrant as alien
- 7.3The senator’s narrative
- 8.Testing the senator’s rhetorical devices in a larger corpus
- 9.The senator conflates all Latinos
- 10.Conclusion
- Epilogue
- Notes
References
References (51)
Blumstein, J. F. (1983). Defining and proving race discrimination: Purpose vs. results approach from the Voting Rights Act. Virginia Law Review, 69(4), 633–714.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563–581.
Díaz-Peralta, M. (2018). Metaphor and ideology: Conceptual structure and conceptual content in Spanish political discourse. Discourse & Communication, 12(2), 128–148.
Frymer, P. (2005). Racism revised: Courts, labor law, and the institutional construction of racial animus. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 373–387.
Gans, J. (2008). Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and economic impacts. Tucson, AZ: Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona.
Gibbs, R. (2013). Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory? Cognitive Semiotics, 5(1–2),15–36.
Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary stress. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley dissertation.
Kobick, J. (2010). Discriminatory intent reconsidered: Folk concepts of intentionality and equal protection jurisprudence. Harvard Civil Rights-C.L.L. Review, 451, 517–562.
Krzyzanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2011). The politics of exclusion: Debating migration in Austria. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Landau, M. J., Robinson, M., & Meier, B. (Eds.). (2013). The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Otoole, M. (9 September 2010). Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce discusses illegal immigration, SB 1070, and elections (Interview). LAND Latin America News Dispatch. <[URL]> (1 August, 2018).
Pillai, K. G. J. (2001). Shrinking domain of invidious intent. William & Mary Bill Rights Journal, 9(3).
Pompa, Leon. (1990). Vico: A study of the ‘New Science’ (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2005). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Santa Ana, O. (1999). Like an animal I was treated: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 191–224.
(2002). Brown tide rising: Metaphoric representations of Latinos in contemporary public discourse. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
(2004). When language plays proxy for race. Language Magazine: Journal of Communication & Education, 3(8), 15–17.
Santa Ana, O., López, L. & Munguía, E. (2010). Framing peace as violence: U.S. television news depictions of the 2007 Los Angeles police attack on immigrant rights marchers. Aztlán, 35(1), 69–101.
Santa Ana, O. (2013). Juan in a Hundred: Representation of Latinos on network news. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Santa Ana, O., Treviño, S. L., Bailey, M., Bodossian, K. & de Necochea, A. (2007). A May to remember: Adversarial images of immigrants in U.S. newspapers during the 2006 policy debate. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 4(1), 207–232.
Santa Ana, O., Juárez, M., Reséndez, M., Hernández, J., Gaytán, O., Cerón, K., Gómez, C. & Hirose, Y. (under review). The President’s verbal animus against immigrants.
Selmi, M. (1997). Proving intentional discrimination: The reality of Supreme Court rhetoric. Georgetown Law Journal, 861, 279–350.
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 231, 213–241.
(2014). The cognitive-linguistic revolution in metaphor studies. In J. Taylor & J. Littlemore (Eds.), Companion to cognitive linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism: Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
van Leeuwen, T. (2009). Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 21, 144–161.
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Winter, S. L. (1988). The metaphor of ‘standing’ and the problem of self-governance. Stanford University Law Review, 401, 1371–1516.
(1989). Transcendental nonsense, metaphoric reasoning, and the cognitive strikes law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1371, 1105–1237.
Wodak, R. (2008). ‘Us’ and ‘them’: Inclusion/exclusion – Discrimination via discourse. In G. Delanty, P. Jones, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Migration, identity, and belonging (pp. 54–78). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (2003). Discourse and racism. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 372–397). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Zinn, H. (21 October 2005). Don’t despair about the Supreme Court. The Progressive. <[URL]> (7 October, 2018).
Case Law and Statutes
Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11–1051.
Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 263 (1986).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title VII (1968), Pub. L. 89–10.
Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548, 564 (1976).
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
‘No Child Left Behind’. Pub. L. 107–110.
Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392, 2441 n.6 (2018) (Sotormayor, J., dissenting).
Valle del Sol v. Whiting, No. 2:10-CV-01061-SRB (D. Ariz.).
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977).
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Díaz-Peralta, Marina
2025. Epistemic stance and public discourse on irregular migration in one of Europe’s outermost regions. Journal of Language and Politics 24:3 ► pp. 415 ff.
PERALTA, MARINA DÍAZ
Chávez, Alex E.
Ana, Otto Santa, Marco Antonio Juárez, Magaly Reséndez, John Hernández, Oscar Gaytán, Kimberly Cerón, Celeste Gómez & Roberto Solís
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.
