The media, which includes editorials, have been shown to play an important role in thedefinition of priorities in public agenda. In the domain of international matters, thepublic relies heavily on the media, and editorials play an even greater role. This articleexamines how explicit mentions of external sources of information function in theargumentative structure of editorials to achieve a persuasive effect. Acorpus of 40 editorials dealingwith Russia (taken fromLe Monde andThe New York Times between August 1999and March 2000) has been studied using a cognitive-based linguistic model of discourseanalysis. It is shown how under the guise of bringing some objectivity to the editorials’argumentation, external sources of information facilitate and enhance their subjectivity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bolivar, A. (1994). The structure of newspaper editorials. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),Advances in written text analysis(pp. 276-294). London & New York: Routledge.
2.
Brown, W. J., & Vincent, R. C. (1995). Trading arms for hostages? How the governmentand print media “spin” portrayals of the U.S. policy towards Iran. Political Communication, 12(1), 65-79.
3.
Chang, T. (1993). The press and China policy: The illusion of Sino-American relations, 1950-1984. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4.
Charaudeau, P. (1997). Le discours d’information médiatique—La construction du miroirsocial. Paris: Nathan—Institut national de l’audiovisuel.
5.
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive studentwriting. Research in the teaching of English, 24, 67-87.
6.
Crammond, J. G. (1998). The uses and complexity of argument structures in expert and student persuasive writing. Written Communication, 15(2), 230-268.
7.
Cui, S. (1985). Comparing structures of essays in Chinese and English. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
8.
Daneš, F. (1974). Functional Sentence Perspective and the organization of text. In F. Daneš (Ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective(pp.106-128). The Hague: Mouton.
9.
Hackett, R. A., & Zhao, Y. (1994). Challenging a master narrative: Peace protest and opinion/editorial discourse in the U.S. press during the GulfWar. Discourse & Society, 5(4), 509-541.
10.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
11.
Hawes, T.,& Thomas, S. (1996). Rhetorical uses of theme in newspaper editorials. World Englishes, 15(2), 159-170.
12.
Hays, J. N., Brandt, K. M., & Chantry, K. H. (1988). The impact of friendly and hostileaudiences on the argumentative writing of high school and college students.Research in the teaching of English, 22(4), 379-387.
13.
Hobbs, J. R. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse(Report No. CSLI-85-37). Leland Stanford Junior University: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
14.
Hobbs, J. R. (1990). Literature and cognition(Lecture Notes, No. 21). Leland Stanford Junior University: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
15.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models (towards a cognitive science of language,inference, and consciousness). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Kegley, C. W., & Wittkopf, E. R. (1979). American foreign policy: Pattern and process. New York: St. Martin’s.
17.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: Aconstructionintegration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
18.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. Aparadigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension andproduction. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
20.
Kumpf, L. (1986). Structuring narratives in a second language: A description of rhetoric and grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, LosAngeles.
21.
Lautamatti, L. (1987). Observations on the development of the topic in simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2text(pp. 92-126). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
Le, É. (1996). Structure discursive comparée d’écrits argumentatifs en français et en anglais. Deleur linéarité. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montréal: Université de Montréal.
23.
Le, É. (1999). The use of paragraphs in French and English academic writing: Towards agrammar of paragraphs. Text, 19(3), 307-343.
24.
Le, É. (2000). Pour une analyse critique du discours dans l’étude des relations internationales: Exemple d’application à des éditoriaux américains sur la guerre enTchétchénie. Études internationales, XXXI(3), 489-515. (Translated in Russian [2001]Polis, 2, 93-112)
25.
Le, É. (2002a). The concept of Europe in Le Monde’s editorials: Tensions in the construction of a European identity. Journal of Language and Politics, 1(2), 279-325.
26.
Le, É. (2002b). Human rights discourse and international relations: Le Monde’s editorials on Russia. Discourse & Society, 13(3), 373-408.
27.
Le, É. (2002c). Themes and hierarchical structures of written texts. In M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics—Interdisciplinary studies(pp. 171-187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28.
Le, É. (in press). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics.
29.
Le style du Monde.(2002). Paris: Le Monde.
30.
Mann, W. C.,& Thompson, S. A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9(1), 57-90.
31.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.
32.
Martindale, C. (1991). Cognitive psychology—A neural-network approach. Pacific Grove,CA: Brooks/Cole.
33.
McCombs, M. (1997). Building consensus: The news media’s agenda-setting roles. Political Communication, 14, 433-443.
34.
Menz, F. (1989). Manipulation strategies in newspapers: Aprogram for criticallinguistics. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology(pp. 227-249). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
35.
Merrill, J. C. (1991). Global journalism(2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
36.
Moore, J. D., & Pollack, M. E. (1992). Aproblem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18(4), 537-544.
37.
Mowlana, H. (1997). The media and foreign policy: A framework of analysis. In A. Malek (Ed.), News media and foreign relations: Amultifaceted perspective(pp. 30-41).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38.
Noel, D. (1986). Towards a functional characterization of the news of the BBCWorld News Services. Antwerp, Belgium: Antwerp Papers in Linguistics.
39.
Polanyi, L. (1988). Aformal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601-638.
40.
Shanon, B. (1991). Alternative theoretical frameworks for psychology: A synopsis. In A. Still & A. Costalls (Eds.), Against cognitivism—Alternative foundations for cognitive psychology(pp. 237-263). New York: Harveter Wheatsheaf.
41.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1996). Explicitness vs. implicitness of argumentation: An intercultural comparison. Multilingua, 15(3), 257-273.
42.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures (an interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse interaction and cognition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Opinions and ideologies in editorials. Paper for the 14th International Symposium of Critical Discourse Analysis: Language, Social Life and CriticalThought. Athens, December 14-16, 1995 (Second draft). Retrieved February 17,2000, from http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/editoria.htm
45.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
46.
Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T. A., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the social sciences. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research theory(Vol. 17, pp. 165-213). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
47.
Waugh, L. R. (1995). Reported speech in journalistic discourse: The relation of function and text. Text, 15(1), 129-173.
48.
Weiss, C. H. (1974). What America’s leaders read. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38(1), 1-21.
49.
Wortham, S.,& Locher, M. (1996). Voicing on the news: Ananalytic technique for studying media bias. Text, 16(4), 557-585.
