Studying the interactional construction of identities in Critical Discourse Studies: A proposed analytical framework

Abstract

The field of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) needs to extend its analytical scope and cross-fertilize with interactional accounts of identity. One the one hand, there is a constant and reflexive re-crafting of identities in late modernity. On the other hand, interaction is considered to be the major lens through which such identities in flux are studied. To this aim, I propose an analytical framework based on a synthesis of well-established CDS analytical tools with interaction-oriented ones, which results in the formation of ‘discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction’. I put the proposed synthesis under a ‘multiperspectival’ research agenda, which involves the compilation of a ‘package’ based on different approaches, on the condition that the theoretical and epistemological assumptions of each approach are taken into account. By way of illustration, I briefly discuss fictional interactions from two Greek TV commercials for the representation of age identities. It is shown that fictional data, which involve represented identities in talk by institutional agents, could become one possible ‘meeting point’ of CDS with interaction-oriented discourse analytical strands.

Keywords

Age identities fictionalization Greek advertising identities in interaction indexicality positionality relationality social actor analysis

Introduction

Since the seminal work of the Critical Linguistics group in the University of East Anglia in the late 1970s (Fowler, 1991; Fowler et al., 1979) until the establishment of the field known as ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (CDA) in the 1990s (Wodak, 2001b), ‘Critical Discourse Studies’ (CDS), as is nowadays preferably self-defined (Van Dijk, 2008), has been constantly in flux. Moreover, CDS has always been polyphonic by forming a theoretical nexus gathering different approaches and analytical frameworks (most notably, Fairclough’s (1992) socio-cultural, Van Dijk’s (1998a) socio-cognitive and Wodak’s (2001b) discourse-historical strands), but shaping at the same time a ‘common ground’ for critical sociolinguistic thinking.

Despite its constant evolution since its inception, CDS has been criticized for its written language bias (Rogers, 2011) and for paying little attention to the analysis of social interactions (Edwards, 2005). However, under the influence of anti-essentialist/social constructionist approaches to identity, interactional data have been considered the ultimate ‘baseline’ for the construction of identities. Although CDS is in line with a constructionist conceptualization of identity, it is underdeveloped as regards the micro-level analysis of interaction (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002) compared to other discourse analytical traditions (e.g. discursive psychology, interactional sociolinguistics, conversation analysis).

In this article, I extend previous proposals of mine for broadening CDS to other areas, such as fictional texts (Stamou, 2013), and for synthesizing CDS with other research traditions, such as Language Ideologies (Stamou, 2018a). Specifically, I propose an analytical framework for the interactional construction of identities in CDS since it has mainly explored the representation of social groups and collective identities in non-interactional and/or written texts, neglecting interaction. As some portion of the interactional research of identity construction has ‘rarely raised its eyes from the next turn in the conversation’, following Wetherell’s (1998: 405) argument about conversation analysis in particular, which is an ‘extreme’ example of a micro-level interactional analysis, (at least some) interactional analyses need to be enriched with a macro-level/critical perspective. Besides, CDS is not solely a ‘method’ or ‘type’ of analysis, but primarily a perspective for looking at texts.¹ Therefore, by extending its analytical scope, it might cross-fertilize with interactional accounts of identity. As there is a constant unsettling and struggle over identities in the discourses of late modernity (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999), such enrichment of CDS in the theorization of identity is deemed necessary.

To illustrate the proposed analytical framework, I draw on fictional interactions from two Greek TV commercials for the construction of age identities. As I argue below, although this framework can be applied to any interaction, the selection of fictional data, which involves represented identities in talk by institutional agents, could contribute to the synthesis of CDS with interaction-oriented discourse analytical strands. Besides, sociolinguistic research on fiction has been lacking in critical accounts, by largely adopting an ‘inauthentic’ perspective toward fictional data and searching for ‘inconsistencies’ with respect to sociolinguistic reality ‘out there’ (Stamou, 2014, 2018b). Moreover, (audio-visual) fictional texts are still a rather unexplored area for CDS (for some notable exception, see Wodak, 2009), where the focus has mainly been on political and news (mostly print) media texts (Lazar, 2007), neglecting less ‘serious’ and more ‘banal’ entertaining (audiovisual) genres (e.g. film, TV series, TV commercials).

In what follows, I first briefly discuss the ways identity construction has been examined within CDS. Then, I consider the affordances that CDS can bring to the interactional research of identity construction. Finally, I describe the proposed analytical framework and apply it to two TV commercials.

The study of identity construction in CDS

Advocating a feminist CDS, Lazar (2007) argues,

Although some studies on gender and language have applied gender performativity to research on individuals in talk, it is worth considering also how gender identities can be performed representationally in texts, and by institutional bodies. (p. 151)

In my view, this quotation is revealing of the different ways in which (gender) identity construction tends to be explored in CDS in comparison with interaction-oriented discourse analytical strands. Specifically, as CDS scholars show a particular interest in issues of power and dominance, most relevant research has expectedly focused on the discursive processes implicated in the institutional power exercised by politics, the media, education and so on (Van Dijk, 2015), that is, on the ways ‘institutional bodies’ (in Lazar’s words) represent collective identities and social groups in non-interactional/written (institutional) texts. In contrast, interactional analyses tend to focus ‘on individuals in talk’, namely, on the ways individual identities are performed in (everyday) interaction. Although institutional talk (e.g. classroom interaction, news or job interview) has already been examined in strands of interaction-oriented discourse analysis (e.g. discursive psychology, interactional sociolinguistics, conversation analysis), an important part of research draws on everyday talk, which has been even regarded as the ‘default’ or ‘exemplary’ case of interaction (e.g. in the conversation analysis strand).

In light of this, fictional interactions, which are the focus of this article, could be seen as being ideal for synthesizing the aforementioned split between identity representations in institutional texts and identity performances in everyday talk. In particular, they involve represented identities in institutional talk, that is, identities in talk which are constructed and controlled by institutional agents, who function as the ‘collective sender’ of fiction (e.g. scriptwriters, directors, producers, actors; Dynel, 2011).

The ways institutions make available particular identities, in order for us to conform, for example, to the image of the ‘good teacher’ and the ‘good child’ at school (Lemke, 2008), namely, what, in Althusserian terms, is called ‘constitution of subjects’, are particularly addressed in Fairclough’s (2003) socio-cultural approach. Specifically, Fairclough focuses on the linguistic/semiotic aspects of institutions, using the Foucauldian term ‘orders of discourse’. An order of discourse is a social structuring of relationships among different ways of meaning-making: ‘styles’ (identificational meanings), ‘discourses’ (representational meanings) and ‘genres’ (actional meanings). These ways of meaning-making are dialectically related to each other, so that differently positioned social actors in a given institution (e.g. a doctor’s identity vs a nurse’s identity) represent the world in different ways (e.g. they view medicine through distinct discourses). Correspondingly, particular discourses (e.g. patriarchal discourse) are associated with particular identities (e.g. traditional male and female identities). More importantly, Fairclough views identities as being shaped by orders of discourse and yet also capable of reshaping those orders of discourse.

Wodak’s (2001a) discourse-historical approach gives emphasis on how identities are constructed by engaging in dialogue with discourses about social groups that are (re)produced in society, namely, as part of wider socio-cultural and historical conditions. For example, in Wodak et al.’s (2009) research on national identity, it was revealed that the notion of nationhood is constructed around the creation of sameness and difference, according to dominant nationalist discourses. In this way, the construction of national identity becomes an ideological project aiming to legitimate practices of inclusion and exclusion of particular social groups.

From a socio-cognitive perspective, Van Dijk (1998b) has indicated how identities of opposing groups are often constructed in an ‘Us’ (in-group) versus ‘Them’ (out-group) dipole, according to an underlying discursive strategy called ‘ideological square’. According to this strategy, group members are expected to speak or write positively about their in-group and negatively about the out-groups viewing them as ‘opponents’ or ‘enemies’. This happens by emphasizing Our positive actions and Their negative ones and by de-emphasizing Our negative actions and Their positive ones.

On analytical terms, a range of categories and resources have been developed for the study of the representation of social groups and collective identities within CDS, including the discursive strategies for self- and other-presentation proposed by Reisigl and Wodak (2001), a number of semantic and formal structures for the analysis of Van Dijk’s ideological square, and Van Leeuwen’s (1996) socio-semantic social actor analysis (for an overview, see KhosraviNik, 2010). Besides, in Fairclough’s socio-cultural approach, a closer commitment to Halliday’s (1994) Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is observed, mostly drawing on linguistic features related to the interpersonal function of language, such as modality and speech acts (see Fairclough, 2003). Yet, some studies (e.g. Pietikäinen, 2003) employ other SFL tools for the representation of collective identities, such as transitivity patterns.

Albeit very useful, all these analytical resources do not account for the interactional construction of identities. In fact, there is an apparent polyphony in interactional data as different voices from different speakers are heard, who might express different worldviews/discourses, and thus, different identities could be contrasted. This differs from the ‘internal dialogue’ and polyphony of discourses and identities detected in non-interactional texts. Moreover, as the conversation analysis tradition has clearly shown, there is also a sequential context as identities are dynamically constructed and unfold during the flow of interaction. Besides, the relational construction of identities in interaction is made not only on a basis of similarity versus distinction as CDS has indicated but also in other ways (e.g. on a basis of ‘authentication’ vs ‘denaturalization’; see Bucholtz and Hall, 2005). This means that there is a need to reconsider the CDS tools for the analysis of identities through an interactional lens.

The CDS affordances to the interactional research of identity construction

In today’s late modern times, there has been an exponential rise concerning identity. The idea of stable identities anchored in pre-determined social structures and cultural practices has been challenged. Self has become a ‘reflexive biographical project’ (Giddens, 1991) in which people are required to shape multiple identities. This reflexive self-monitoring is also known as ‘life politics’ (Beck et al., 1994). Life politics is mostly centered on lifestyle and consumerist choices. Consequently, people negotiate lifestyle choices, and thus identities, among a diversity of possibilities.

Being in tune with a conceptualization of identification as a fluid operation, interactional accounts of identity construction tend to explore the moment-to-moment negotiation and projection of identities in social (inter)action, seeing them as an active and discursive accomplishment. However, some strands of discourse analysis promote the idea that we can, rather unconstrainedly, construct multiple identities in interactions. In contrast, CDS (among some other examples coming, for instance, from linguistic anthropology, see Urcuioli, 2009, and from discursive psychology, see below) adopts a more fruitful perspective, seeing identity as the interplay between the individual (agency) and the social (structure). Under this view, CDS distances itself from post-structuralist Foucauldian traditions of discourse analysis since people are not considered to be at the mercy of social and discursive structures, and texts are not seen as mere reflections of those structures (Fairclough, 1992). Conversely, discourses and identities are viewed as resources which are negotiated by text producers/interactants in order to perpetuate dominant discourses and identities or create hybrid and innovative ones (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999). Therefore, CDS allows a dialogue to occur in relation to the larger socio-cultural context in which interactions take place, helping in this way disclose the power structures that background (but are also shaped by) interactions and privilege certain identity options over others.

There have been some previous few attempts to enrich the micro-level interactional analysis of identity with a macro-level/critical perspective. An interesting proposal comes from (critical) discursive psychology. In particular, Wetherell (1998) attempts to combine ethnomethodological and conversation analytic traditions with post-structuralist Foucauldian discourse analysis. Quite interestingly, she replaces macro-level Foucauldian terms such as ‘discourses’ and ‘interdiscursivity’ with micro-level ones, such as ‘interpretative repertoires’, ‘variability’ and ‘ideological dilemmas’, in order to account for how people actively use the available discourses in negotiating representations of the world and identities in interaction. In a similar vein, Pietikäinen and Dufna (2006) propose the Bakhtinian concept of ‘voice’ in order to consider how interviewees give meaning to the socially available discourses, and thus locally shape their identities. Some other few recent studies (e.g. Baxter and Wallace, 2009; Kilby and Horowitz, 2013) have used analytical resources from various interaction-oriented traditions and have adopted CDS as a broader perspective for the critical interpretation of interactional data. As Baxter and Wallace (2009) argue,

we felt that CDA’s over-arching ‘discourse analysis with attitude’ would offer more wide-reaching, critical interpretations of our data. (p. 417)

Rather than employing CDS only at the stage of the interpretation of interactional data, in order to add a critical dimension to the interactional analysis, I would like to propose an analytical framework for the interactional analysis of identity by synthesizing well-established CDS analytical tools (e.g. social actor analysis, transitivity) with interactional (and compatible ones with CDS), such as Bucholtz and Hall’s (2005) identities in interaction model (for a preliminary attempt to bring them together in a synthesis of CDS with the Language Ideology field, see Stamou, 2018a), resulting in the formation of ‘discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction’. In my view, only by such a synthesis, as Wetherell (1998) has proposed for discursive psychology, will CDS cross-fertilize with interactional analytical traditions of identity.

The analytical framework proposed

Preliminary notes

Bucholtz and Hall’s (2008) identities in interaction model is placed within ‘sociocultural linguistics’, by which a loose coalition of diverse approaches which address language, society and culture (e.g. sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, critical discourse analysis) is meant. Specifically, identities in interaction are proposed to be explored in accordance with five principles, two of which (i.e. emergence and partialness) relate to the broader perspective adopted for the study of identity in talk, while the rest (i.e. positionality, relationality and indexicality) involve particular analytical resources for the interactional construction of identity (and are employed in the framework presented below). In particular, the emergence principle refers to the constructionist conceptualization of the identity adopted, that is, to a view of identity as emerging from interaction. The partialness principle concerns a conception of identity as being in part shaped by the micro-level of interaction and in part influenced by the institutional, ideological macro-level. In other words, the partialness principle dialectically combines micro-(intentional) and macro-(habitual) aspects of identities, and therefore, it nicely fits in with CDS.

The abovementioned model is synthesized with well-established tools of CDS, such as Van Leeuwen’s social actor analysis and Hallidayan transitivity. Specifically, I propose some ‘discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction’, echoing Reisigl and Wodak’s (2001) discursive strategies for self- and other-presentation. Following their definition, by ‘discursive strategies’, I mean a set of more or less intentional discursive practices on the part of text producers for the accomplishment of specific socio-political, psychological and linguistic goals. Yet, from their framework, I only keep the discursive strategy of ‘perspectivization’ and suggest instead the discursive strategy categories of ‘positionality’ and ‘relationality’, which are more suitable for the analytical aims at hand, based on Bucholtz and Hall’s interactional principles. Moreover, Reisigl and Wodak distinguish between ‘discursive strategies’ and ‘linguistic means’/‘forms of realization’ of those strategies. Instead, following Bucholtz and Hall, I use the term ‘(verbal and visual) indexicality’ of discursive strategies, which is considered a more suitable term for identity construction in interaction.

By way of illustration, I apply the proposed framework to fictional interactions from two Greek TV commercials to explore the construction of age identities. TV commercials are multimodal texts, and identities are not only exclusively represented through voice (language) but also by means of wider semiotic systems that create a visible distinctiveness among different social groups, such as bodily disposition and appearance (visuals). Therefore, paralinguistic and extralinguistic contextualization cues are also transcribed in the interactions analyzed below, and some visual aspects are accounted for, by drawing on analytical resources from the Grammar of Visual Design of Kress and Van Leeuwen (2013).

Discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction

First, the positionality strategy refers to the ways a person positions himself or herself and others as well as is positioned by others in interaction, namely, what identities he or she constructs for himself or herself and for others, as well as to the identities attributed to him or her by others. Therefore, positionality is relational, which leads us to the second strategy of relationality, emphasizing that the construction of identity acquires meaning in relation to the identities of other people.

Following Bucholtz and Hall, there are three pairs of complementary identity relations through which every speaker constructs himself or herself and others intersubjectively. The first pair, adequation–distinction, refers to the well-known relation of similarity and difference, according to which the subjects are constructed as same or different from others. The other two pairs are less examined in identity research. In particular, the pair authentication–denaturalization refers to issues of veridicality. Authentication concerns processes by which identities are constructed as true, such as a speaker’s attempt to confirm or validate his or her identity. Conversely, denaturalization challenges the authenticity of an identity and underlines ways in which it is problematic or artificial. The last pair of relations, authorization–illegitimization, involves issues of identity validation/authentication, especially referring to interactants holding institutional power (e.g. a politician, a teacher).

Finally, based on Reisigl and Wodak, the strategy of perspectivization primarily refers to the ideological perspective(s) from which an identity is constructed, that is, what discourse(s) is drawn for its construction. In the case of fictional discourse, the strategy of perspectivization is specialized in what elsewhere I call ‘fictionalization’ (Stamou, 2018b). Specifically, this concept relates to the ideological perspective(s) adopted by the collective sender of fiction (e.g. scriptwriter, director, producer), which is reflected in all representational and editorial selections, devices and resources these agents employ for the making of identities into fiction. In other words, the concept of fictionalization underlines the fact that the performed identities in fictional talk by actors constitute representations, that is, they are controlled by a collective sender actually authoring the identities that are ultimately performed in the represented talk of fiction. Thus, through fictionalization, some identities may be represented as marked, isolated or exoticized, while others as unmarked and ‘default’.

The abovementioned discursive strategies are realized or ‘indexed’ through particular verbal and visual resources. In particular, the notion of indexicality (see Silverstein, 1976) concerns the building of semiotic links between linguistic/visual forms and social meanings, namely, the process through which particular linguistic/visual features become associated with particular identity categories. Hence, by indexicality, Bucholtz and Hall refer to the verbal/visual resources used for the construction of identities in interaction.

Obviously, the analytical tools to be selected for an account of the verbal and visual indexicality of identities in interaction are numerous, depending on the empirical data at hand, the research aims and so on. Here, I briefly present only the analytical resources used in the examples discussed below. In particular, regarding verbal indexicality, I employ Van Leeuwen’s social actor analysis, Hallidayan transitivity, lexical/stylistic choices and speech acts, while with respect to visual indexicality, I explore the representational structures of visual elements, drawing on Social Semiotics.

Specifically, Van Leeuwen’s socio-semantic social actor analysis involves the development of an inventory (e.g. ‘nomination’ vs categorization’) of the ways social actors may be represented in a text. Identities are also indexed by means of what social actors are represented as doing, that is, what actions are (and are not) allocated to them. Following CDS, social action is examined by means of the analytical tool of transitivity, through which language users construct the world in causal terms (Halliday, 1994). Lexical choices may also index identities. In CDS, lexical choices are often examined regarding the ‘wording’ or ‘lexicalization’ (Fairclough, 1992), that is, the selection of words used to refer to the world. For the construction of identities, lexicalization may be further specified with respect to the naming/referencing practices adopted to represent people. Yet, sociolinguistics has put in the foreground the ways in which the selection of a particular word, but also of a specific accent, or of an entire linguistic code, that is, of a ‘style’ (e.g. Coupland, 2007), may index a social identity. Hence, through ‘styling’, namely, the use of styles in context, speakers negotiate their identities within a system of distinctions and possibilities.

The verbal indexicality of identities is also considered through speech acts, following the well-known typology of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). Along with the rest of the linguistic features related to the interpersonal function of language, speech acts are often addressed in the CDS research on identity construction.

Finally, with respect to the visual indexicality of identities, I draw on some tools of Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2013) Grammar of Visual Design, which is a Hallidayan-inspired apparatus applied to visual/multimodal texts. A summary of the proposed analytical framework is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Overview of the analytical framework proposed, following Bucholtz and Hall (2005) and Reisigl and Wodak (2001).

Discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction
Positionality	What identities does a speaker construct for himself or herself and for others? What identities is a speaker attributed to by others?
Relationality	What identities does a speaker construct for himself or herself in relation to others? What identities do others construct in relation to a speaker?
Perspectivization/fictionalization	From what ideological perspective(s) are identities constructed/fictionalized?
Indexicality of identities
Verbal indexicality	What linguistic resources are used to index identities?
Visual indexicality	What visual resources are used to index identities?

The analytical framework applied: the construction of age identities in Greek advertising

The erasure of age boundaries

The proposed analytical framework is applied to fictional interactions from two Greek TV commercials. Both commercials advertise telephone and Internet services and problematize age identities. Specifically, they depict children (TV commercial 1) and older adults (TV commercial 2) who talk and behave in ‘incompatible’ with their age ways. Several scholars have talked about ‘incongruous’ age behaviors, using terms like ‘adultified’, ‘adult-like’ or ‘precocious children’/‘miniature adults’, and correspondingly, ‘child-like’ or ‘infantilized adults’ (Kenway and Bullen, 2008; Kinder, 1995; Postman, 1994). This phenomenon is due to several factors. More importantly, regarding ‘adult-like’ children, in late modernity, idyllic images of innocent children have been often replaced with representations of autonomous and competent children (Smith, 2012). With respect to ‘child-like’ adults, consumerism itself entails childish (e.g. self-indulgence, impulsiveness; Holland, 2008) or youthful (e.g. dynamism, defying aging) qualities (Gennaro, 2013). For space reasons, the two examples are briefly discussed below. Emphasis is given on the interactional parts of the commercials.

Constructing ‘childhood’

Vodafone My Business TV commercial (2012).²

((Two pre-schoolers, Dimitrakis (boy) and Dina (girl), having an appearance compatible with their age, are in a kindergarten classroom and are role-playing two adults in an office. Dimitrakis is sitting alone at a table and has in front of him a plastic desk telephone toy, some books and a computer-toy. Dina is sitting at another table close to him, together with two other girls, who are dedicated to their play. Her table is full of markers, color pencils, toy blocks and a pink pencil case. She is speaking from a soft portable telephone toy.))

1	Dimitrakis:	Hello Di:na ((with a sweet voice tone)), will you come back to the office in order for me to wait for you? I was thinking that we could meet. ((the sound of the telephone keypad is heard, while he is dialling the telephone number and putting his feet on the table confidently))
2	Dina:	Tha:t’s difficult (.) I have a meeting and I will be late. ((holding a marker in her hand))
3	Dimitrakis:	Fine, but because you never know, when you leave, make me a pho:ne call ((diminutive in Greek)) here in the o:ffice. ((with a sweet voice tone))
4	Dina:	But Dimitrakis ((with a slightly protesting voice tone)) we have nothing to say, will we talk for nothing? ((moving her hands with a slight protest and holding a doll))
5	Dimitrakis:	But exactly, we talk for nothing ((moving his hands emphatically)) and later when you call me from the cell phone we will talk again for nothing ((moving his hands emphatically and looking towards her)) (.) But how much does this ba:be understand me? ((with exaggerated sweetness and moving his hands emphatically. Dina is laughing embarrassed and moves the headphone away for a while)) You my ba:be! ((moving his head intensely and sweetly. Dina is closing her mouth with her hand embarrassed, and all children in the classroom burst in laughter))
6	Voice over:	Continue Dimitrakis to speak unlimitedly to all your personnel from both the fixed phone line and the mobile phone line of your business (.) because when you combine the Vodafone Business Connect service with the new professional offers Vodafone My Business, you have unlimited intra-communication, but also a benefit up to 517 euros per year (.) we are here every time you need us.
7	Dina:	I will tell my daddy about it. ((with a sweet voice tone))

Regarding the discursive strategy of positionality, the two characters are represented through the construction of multiple identities in the fictional interaction.³ First of all, they are constructed through nomination (turns 1, 4 and 6). Yet, they are mostly constructed through categorization, and more specifically, through functionalization (professional roles), classification (gender and age) and relational identification (professional relation).

In particular, they functionalize themselves and each other as employed in an office. This is verbally indexed through the transitivity patterns and the relevant wording used (i.e. the spatial circumstance ‘office’ in turns 1 and 3 and the relational attributive process ‘I have a meeting’ in turn 2) and visually indexed through the ‘computer’ (toy) and the books on the ‘desk’ (table) of Dimitrakis. At the same time, they are both classified through gender, namely, as a man flirting with a woman in the office. This is verbally indexed through the speech act sequence of invitation on the part of Dimitrakis (turn 1), followed by the refusal and excuse by Dina (turn 2) and of the reformulation of invitation by Dimitrakis (turn 3), followed by the second refusal by Dina (turn 4). Moreover, it is verbally indexed by means of the diminutive ‘τηλεφωνάκι’ (phone call) Dimitrakis uses to show intimacy (turn 3) and is visually indexed through the visual mental processes he performs (sweet voice tone, emphatic bodily movements: turns 1, 3 and 5). Besides, through the appraisement word ‘you my babe’ (παιδί μου εσύ) he employs to refer to Dina in turn 5 (literally meaning in Greek ‘my child’, but having strong sexual overtones as well, judging from the embarrassment caused to Dina, visually indexed through the mental processes she performs: awkward laughter, closing her mouth with her hand), he further classifies himself as a man flirting with a woman.

However, there is also another categorization constructed in the fictional interaction. This becomes mostly evident in the voice over (turn 6), in which Dimitrakis is relationally identified as an employer with respect to her employee Dina, verbally indexed through his representation as Sayer in a verbal process in comparison with Dina, who is represented as ‘personnel’ in a Receiver role (‘continue Dimitrakis to speak unlimitedly to all your personnel’). His relational identification as an employer is further verbally indexed by being interested in the cost of phone calls (turn 5), as being him who has the initiative to call Dina and as performing the directive speech act of invitation, by flirting with a woman employee. Moreover, if we look at the transitivity patterns of the whole fictional interaction, it becomes evident that, as an employer, Dimitrakis holds the power with respect to his employee, by having the command of the interaction (Table 2). Although he is represented as initiating only two processes, he represents Dina in his talk as initiator of several material, mental and verbal processes or represents both of them mainly as Sayers of verbal processes (due to the advertised product). Besides, further visual action processes index their construction through a relational identification of employer–employee: Dimitrakis putting his feet on the table, sitting alone and having a desk telephone in comparison with Dina, who is sitting together with other people and speaking from a portable telephone.

Table 2.

The transitivity patterns of the interactional parts of the Vodafone My Business TV commercial.

Processes initiated by Dimitrakis	Processes initiated by Dina	Processes initiated by both characters
Wait (material)^a	Come back (material)^a	Meet (material)^a
Think (mental)^a	Have a meeting (relational)	Say (verbal)
	Be late (relational)	Talk (verbal)
	Know (mental)^a	Talk (verbal)^a
	Leave (material)^a	Talk (verbal)^a
	Make a phone call (verbal)^a
	Call (verbal)^a
	Understand (mental)^a
	Tell (verbal)

Process uttered by Dimitrakis.

The two characters are also classified through age. On the one hand, all the previous categorizations concern adult identities. On the other hand, they are also constructed as young children. This is verbally indexed by the diminutive ‘Dimitrakis’ (instead of ‘Dimitris’), through which the male character is nominated by both Dina (turn 4) and the voice over (turn 6). This nomination is incompatible with his relational identification as an employer, but it ‘betrays’ his age since it is often used for young children. Moreover, Dina is represented as a little girl/daughter, who wishes to inform her father about the Vodafone offer (turn 7). But, the constructed identities of young children are mostly visually indexed, such as through the characters’ appearance, the setting of the kindergarten and the toys.

With respect to the discursive strategy of relationality, both a relation of distinction (professional and gender identities of male employer vs female employee) and adequation (identities of young children) are constructed between the two characters. Besides, the one character validates the identities constructed by the other, and thus, a relation of authentication is constructed between them throughout the whole fictional interaction. For example, Dina authenticates Dimitrakis as her employer (and correspondingly, herself as an employee), which is verbally indexed by the fact that her first refusal to Dimitrakis’s invitations is followed by an excuse (turn 2), and her second refusal is mitigated through a question and her visual mental processes (bodily movements and voice tone showing a mild protest: turn 4). In this way, she acknowledges an asymmetrical relationship with respect to Dimitrakis.

Finally, regarding the discursive strategy of fictionalization and the ideological perspectives from which the characters’ identities are fictionalized, these relate to two contrasting discourses. On the one hand, the identities of young children, who happily play in the kindergarten, echo a traditional romantic discourse about childhood, which has currency within the Greek society (Avgitidou and Stamou, 2013). This discourse produces a nostalgic ideal of childhood, connecting children with innocence and dependence (Jenks, 1996). More importantly, it positions children as different from adults, by representing them as naïve youngsters in need of protection. Hence, this discourse is a ‘technology’ (in Foucauldian terms) of the disciplinary power of modernity, through which children become the object of surveillance of the adult society (Rose, 1989). On the other hand, the ‘adult’ identities of children, who imitate employed people in an office, resonate the late modern discourse of the competent and autonomous child (Smith, 2012). According to this discourse, children are considered to have the right of choice and participation in the decision-making about matters that are relevant to them. However, the right of choice, freedom and autonomy and consequently, the active participation of children in public life are usually considered exclusively in relation to consumption (Giroux, 2000) and to business skills, as in the TV commercial analyzed. Hence, this discourse implicates subtler forms of regulation and control. In this sense, the ‘competent child’ is shaped by neoliberal strategies aiming to give prominence to children’s abilities for self-regulation (Smith, 2012) in order to be ‘prepared’ for the neoliberal workplace (Urcuioli, 2009).

Consequently, the TV commercial analyzed suggests the late modern idea that through consumerist choices, we can shape plural and complex identities often at odds with what is anticipated and more importantly, that ‘adult’ and ‘child’ identities and thus, traditional age differences may become conflated. Through the blurring of age boundaries, the product advertised may target all ages, that is, it could become ‘transgenerational’ (Kinder, 1995). At the same time, children (as the ones depicted) from a very young age are socialized into consumer and entrepreneurship culture. Yet, the child identities are fictionalized as the ‘default’ case, as the norm by the collective sender, while the adult identities are exoticized, being represented in the context of a role-playing in the kindergarten. This is indexed through several visual cues. Except for the setting in which the fictional interaction takes place (a kindergarten classroom full of toys), the very ‘accessories’ of the office are toys (the telephones, the desks and the doll Dina holds). The exoticization of the adult identities is further underlined through the laughter of all children in the end of the interaction/role-playing. In this way, the transgenerational address seems to be made without eventually disturbing the idyllic image of ‘innocent’ children.

Constructing ‘old age’

Cosmote Goats TV commercial (2010).⁴

((Two older adult women, Panagoula and Yannoula, meet in the Greek countryside, dressed in a way which is associated with villagers. Panagoula is demonstrating to Yannoula her goats and makes her a presentation about their performance in milk production. Yannoula seems to have difficulty in understanding what Panagoula is talking about.))

1	Υannoula:	PANAGOULA HOW ARE YOU DOING? ((in a friendly way))
2	Panagoula:	Fine YANNOULA ((in a friendly way)) (.) here I’m struggling with Filitsa and Nina. ((pointing at the goats))
3	Υannoula:	Bu:t how don’t you CONFUSE them? They are identical. ((pointing at the goats))
4	Panagoula:	They are not identical. ((moving her head with slight protest))
5	Υannoula:	They are, I SEE them don’t I? ((moving her head with slight protest))
6	Panagoula:	As you can see in the first chart, Nina produces more milk. ((the screen shows one board with a bar chart, and Panagoula pointing at the board and moving her hands in explanatory way))
7	Υannoula:	Μm ((moving her head and looking at Panagoula in confusion))
8	Panagoula:	NEXT chart please. ((the slide changes and a line chart appears in the board))
9	Υannoula:	Α: ((looking at the board in confusion))
10	Panagoula:	In statistics (.) we see that Nina gives us steadily MORE milk. ((pointing at the board and moving her hands in explanatory way))
11	Υannoula:	Right. ((moving her head in confusion))
12	Panagoula:	Executive SUMMARY CONCLUSION (.) Nina is more PRODUCTIVE. ((pointing at the board and moving her hands in explanatory way))
13	Υannoula:	Ri:ght. ((crossing her hands and moving her head in confusion))
14	Panagoula:	I will GIVE you a BOOKLET. ((taking a folder from the chair))
15	Υannoula:	What IS this? (approaching Panagoula in query))
16	Panagoula:	It is for the PRESENTATION. ((giving the folder to Yannoula))
17	Υannoula:	O: thanks. ((opening the folder with curiosity))
18	Voice over:	Some things look the same, but they are not (.) some things give you more (.) because all companies give unlimited free calls within their network (.) bu:t only in Cosmote network you have the most subscribers to communicate with unlimitedly only with 10 euros (.) exclusively in Cosmote contracts (.) for you who claim for more.

With respect to the discursive strategy of positionality, the two characters are constructed through diverse identities conflated together. Specifically, in the first two turns, the one character nominates the other in the expressive speech act of greeting. However, as in the previous example analyzed, they are mostly constructed through categorization and, in particular, through classification (geographical origin and age).

More analytically, they are both classified as traditional villagers, an identity which is multiply indexed, both verbally and visually. Verbally, the most prominent index of the characters’ traditional rural identity is their styling, which involves the use of Greek Northern accent (transcribed with capital letters; for the transcription conventions, see Appendix 1). This is represented through two major phonological phenomena, namely, the shift of the unstressed vowels /o/ and /e/ to /u/ and /i/, respectively (e.g. ‘iγó’ instead of the standard ‘eγó’, meaning ‘Ι’), and the drop of the unstressed vowels /u/ and /i/ (e.g. ‘parusías’ instead of the standard ‘parusíasi’, meaning ‘presentation’). Interestingly, both phonological phenomena do not refer to a distinct documented geographical variety of Greece but characterize several Greek Northern dialects and constitute a stereotypical way of fictionalizing rural speakers in Greek television (e.g. Archakis et al., 2014; Stamou and Dinas, 2011). Similarly, the first part of the greeting by Yannoula in turn 1 (‘τι φτιάχν’ς’ meaning ‘how are you doing’) is a typical greeting in rural settings. Besides, both the topic of the interaction (i.e. the goats) and the names of the two characters (‘Yannoula’ and ‘Panagoula’) have strong rural connotations. Visually, their appearance (clothes, headscarves) and the setting (countryside) also serve as strong indexes of traditional rurality. Another classification simultaneously constructed with rurality is that of old age. Not only is a traditional rural identity mostly associated with older adults in the Greek highly urbanized socio-cultural context, but also the appearance of both characters is usually knitted to rural older women. Some further visual indexes of their old age include their gray hair and their drab clothes. Besides, although not exclusively employed by older adults, the fictionalization of geographical dialects in Greek television tends to be associated with old age (Stamou and Dinas, 2011).

However, Panagoula merges a corporate identity as well, which is opposite to her rural/older one. This functionalization is verbally indexed through wording, by employing a specialized English vocabulary of business (transcribed with italics; for the transcription conventions, see Appendix 1), when explaining the milk production of her goats to Yannoula (e.g. ‘statistics’ in turn 10, ‘executive summary conclusion’ in turn 12). Furthermore, it is indexed through the detailed description she makes about the goats, by means of the assertive speech acts performed (turns 6, 10 and 12) and through some relational identifying (‘they are not identical’ in turn 4) and attributive (‘Nina is more productive’ in turn 12) processes, as well some material ones (‘Nina produces more milk’ in turn 6, ‘Nina gives us steadily more milk’ in turn 10) employed. Visually, her corporate identity is indexed by means of the board in which she displays two charts with her goats’ milk production, and the visual mental and action processes she performs (e.g. making of explanatory bodily movements and pointing at the board in turns 10 and 12). As business (and the knowledge of the relevant English jargon) tends to be associated with non-rurality, we could say that she constructs at the same time an urban identity, juxtaposed to her rural one. Moreover, a youthful identity, juxtaposed to her older adult one, might be at stake. If old age is stereotypically associated with declining abilities (e.g. Yannoula is not able to distinguish the quality of the two goats) in the frame of the dominant discourse of old age (Gatling et al., 2014), the counter-image of active senility, as partly constructed by Panagoula, is usually associated with ignoring aging by promoting ‘eternal youth’ (Milner et al., 2012; see also the strategy of fictionalization below). Furthermore, the very speaking of English indexes younger identities in Greek society as older people, especially, in rural settings, are mostly ignorant of the English language.

Regarding the discursive strategy of relationality, as the two characters speak and look the same, a relation of adequation is established between them based on their rural and older adult identities. However, as Panagoula conflates a corporate/urban/youthful identity as well, she constructs a relation of distinction with respect to Yannoula. This is indexed through the disagreement of the two women about whether the goats look the same or not (turns 4 and 5) and by means of the lack of understanding of Panagoula’s sayings on the part of Yannoula. Hence, during Panagoula’s presentation of her goats’ milk production, Yannoula produces minimal responses (turns 7, 9, 11 and 13), through which she signals her incomprehension, as visually indexed through the visual mental processes accompanying these responses (look and bodily movements showing confusion). Moreover, she performs a clarifying question (turn 15), which is visually indexed through a visual action process (approaching Panagoula with surprise). What is more, the one character authenticates the identities constructed by the other during the whole fictional interaction. For instance, through the interactional stance adopted by Yannoula during Panagoula’s presentation (turns 7, 9, 11 and 13), she expresses not only her ignorance but also her acceptance and authentication of Panagoula’s expertise.

Finally, with respect to the ideological perspectives from which the characters’ identities are fictionalized, there is a conflict between two discourses. On the one hand, the rural and older adult identities of the two characters are linked to the hegemonic discourse of old age (Gatling et al., 2014; Milner et al., 2012). Specifically, according to this discourse, old age is largely devalued, being seen through a lens of decline, passivity, dependence and reduced status. In this way, older adults are discriminated and marginalized. On the other hand, Panagoula’s corporate counter-identity produces a more positive image of aging, associated with activity, insightfulness, self-reliance and autonomy. Yet, the representation of older adults as ‘super seniors’ usually resides in values of ‘eternal youth’, conveying the idea that successful aging is to defy aging and thus, eventually reproducing ageist discriminations (Milner et al., 2012). Interestingly, such positive depictions of ‘youthful’ aging are knitted to the idea of youth, not as a biological stage of life but as a lifestyle commodity for consumption, namely, to a so-called marketing discourse of ‘perpetual adolescence’ (Gennaro, 2013). Specifically, this discourse constructs youth sensibility as a desirable commodity and object of gaze, which everybody should aspire to. Hence, the ‘perpetual adolescent’ is a consumer with an adult wallet and a youthful mentality, that is, ‘young at heart’, creating a marketplace where the demarcated age boundaries between youth and adulthood are erased. In this way, previously segmented markets may be re-unified (Gennaro, 2013).

Again, then, the TV commercial analyzed echoes the late modern conceptualization of multiple desirable (in this case youthful) identifications through consumption, which may be even in conflict with ‘normal’ expectations. Moreover, the business ethos, as expressed through the corporate identity of Panagoula, is constructed as pervading all ages from any geographical origin. However, the discourse of old age is fictionalized as constructing a ‘default’/‘serious’ identity by the collective sender. Conversely, the marketing discourse of perpetual adolescence is exoticized as viewer’s expectations about how such an identity is actually constructed are broken, and thus, he or she is invited to interpret it as humorous (see Attardo, 2001 theory about the production of humor based on cognitive incongruities). These incongruities include the rural accent with which Panagoula pronounces the English business jargon, the board displaying the charts which is decontextualized, being put in the countryside, her name and appearance, and the topic discussed. Considering that telephone and Internet services, the advertised product, tend to be represented −at least in Greek advertising− as ‘youthful’ commodities (Stamou, 2013; Stamou et al., 2012), through this discourse, consumers of all ages are probably addressed as perpetual adolescents. At the same time, traditional images of old age are not challenged.

Conclusion

In this article, I argued for spotlighting the interactional construction of identities in CDS as it has mainly focused on the representation of social groups and collective identities in non-interactional and/or written texts. In my view, there is a need for CDS to extend its analytical scope and cross-fertilize with interactional accounts of identity as there is a constant and reflexive re-crafting of identities in late modernity, while interaction is considered the major lens through which such identities in flux are studied.

To this aim, I proposed an analytical framework based on a synthesis of well-established CDS analytical tools (e.g. social actor analysis, transitivity) with interaction-oriented ones (i.e. Bucholtz and Hall’s interaction model), resulting in the formation of ‘discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction’. By way of illustration, I briefly discussed fictional interactions from two Greek TV commercials for the construction of age identities. As fictional data concern represented identities in institutional talk, they could become one possible ‘meeting point’ of CDS with interaction-oriented discourse analytical strands. Instead of exhausting the relevant discussion, the aim of this article was to open the dialogue for finding possible ways to approach the construction of identities in interaction from a CDS perspective(s) and thus, ultimately, enrich, both theoretically and analytically, the study of identity in CDS.

Specifically, applying the proposed framework to the interactional data from two TV commercials, it became evident that the interactional ‘game’, as orchestrated by the collective sender of fiction (e.g. directors, scriptwriters, actors), brings out the dynamic ways through which a fictional speaker is represented as constructing his or her identities in relation to others and his or her identities are represented as being constructed by others not only on the basis of a similarity-difference contrast but also in terms of which identities he or she is represented as authenticating and as being authenticated by others. Besides, it was indicated that particular transitivity patterns may be represented as being employed by a character for the depiction of agency (and correspondingly of identity) construction for both himself or herself and for others.

From the analysis of the two commercials, it was found that the marketers of the late modern times tend to increasingly create a marketplace where the traditional age boundaries between childhood, youth and adulthood get erased (Gennaro, 2013), and the same product becomes transgenerational, being marketed to multiple age groups. This transgenerational address creates illusionary subject positions (Kinder, 1995). In the case of ‘adult’ children (commercial 1), it seems to give the impression of empowerment for children who want to accelerate their growing up by entering consumer culture. In the case of ‘youthful’ adults (commercial 2), it might give the illusion of the prolongation of youth by consuming fashionable products. At the same time, through transgenerational marketing, consumer and entrepreneurship culture enters all ages.

Yet, the proposed framework has some weaknesses. On the one hand, despite the fact that it includes some few tools for considering the audio-visual construction of identities in the advertising texts, it remains a largely language-centered approach to what is a multimodal process. Then, this framework could be fruitfully combined in the future with more refined tools to address multimodality, by utilizing the whole range of the Social Semiotics/multimodal CDS toolkit as well tools from film analysis (e.g. see Bateman and Schmidt, 2014; Wildfeuer and Bateman, 2017). On the other hand, albeit the proposed framework has an interactional orientation, by incorporating the model of Bucholtz and Hall, it does not include fine-grained analytical tools to account meticulously for the sequential organization or the structural aspects underlying interaction in the fashion of other micro-analytical traditions, such as conversation analysis. Although several aspects of the micro-dynamics of interaction, in this way, remain opaque, it was a conscious option on my part in order to utilize an interactional analytical model which would be compatible with CDS.

In conclusion, given the complexity of the questions critical research seeks to explore, I would like to put the proposed analytical framework under a ‘multiperspectival’ research agenda (Jørgensen and Phillips, 2002). This involves the compilation of a ‘package’ based on different approaches in order to do critical discursive work by shedding light on social reality from multiple angles, on the condition that the ‘separate’ knowledge produced by each approach is determined, while the theoretical and epistemological assumptions of each approach are also taken into account. In any case, although I hope to have shown the importance of widening the analytical scope of CDS toward the interactional analysis of identity construction, the terms of engagement between CDS and other interaction-oriented discourse analytical approaches undoubtedly need further consideration.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her insightful comments on an earlier version of the paper, and Dr. Mariza Georgalou for helping me with the editing of its final version.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author biography

Anastasia G Stamou holds an MA in Language in Society from the University of East Anglia, UK, and a PhD from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. She is an Associate Professor at the Department of Linguistics and Language Teaching of the School of German Language and Literature in Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Working within a critical discourse analytical framework since her MA in the University of East Anglia, she is currently seeking to explore the mediation of sociolinguistic identities in Greek popular cultural texts. Her research has been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, including Discourse & Society, Critical Discourse Studies, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Language & Communication, Language Awareness, Language & Literature, Critical Studies in Media Communication, Pragmatics & Society and Sociolinguistic Studies. She has just completed the editing of a special issue to appear (May 2018) in Discourse, Context and Media, entitled ‘Sociolinguistics of Fiction’.

References

Archakis

Lampropoulou

Tsakona

et al . (2014) Linguistic varieties in style: Humorous representations in Greek mass culture texts. Discourse, Context & Media 3: 46–55.

Attardo

(2001) Humorous Texts: A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Austin

(1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Avgitidou

Stamou

(2013) Constructing childhood: Discourses about school violence in the daily press. Children & Society 27(3): 174–183.

Bateman

Schmidt

(2014) Multimodal Film Analysis. New York: Routledge.

Baxter

Wallace

(2009) Outside in-group and out-group identities? Constructing male solidarity and female exclusion in UK builders’ talk. Discourse & Society 20(4): 411–429.

Beck

Giddens

Lash

(1994) Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bucholtz

Hall

(2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5): 584–614.

Bucholtz

Hall

(2008) All of the above: New coalitions in sociocultural linguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 401–431.

10.

Chouliaraki

Fairclough

(1999) Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

11.

Coupland

(2007) Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Dynel

(2011) Stranger than fiction? A few methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse. Brno Studies in English 37(1): 41–61.

13.

Edwards

(2005) Discursive psychology. In: Fitch

Sanders

(eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 257–273.

14.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

15.

Fairclough

(2003) Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

16.

Fowler

(1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge.

17.

Fowler

Hodge

Kress

et al . (1979) Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

18.

Gatling

Mills

Lindsay

(2014) Representations of middle age in comedy films: A critical discourse analysis. The Qualitative Report 19(23): 1–15.

19.

Gennaro

(2013) Making kids sexy: Sexualized youth, adult anxieties, and Abercrombie & Fitch. In: Cvetkovic

Olson

(eds) Portrayals of Children in Popular Culture: Fleeting Images. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp. 27–45.

20.

Giddens

(1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

21.

Giroux

(2000) Stealing Innocence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

22.

Halliday

MAK

(1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.

23.

Holland

(2008) The child in the picture. In: Drotner

Livingstone

(eds) The International Handbook of Children, Media and Culture. London: SAGE, pp. 36–54.

24.

Jenks

(1996) Childhood. London: Routledge.

25.

Jørgensen

Phillips

(2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE.

26.

Kenway

Bullen

(2008) Dividing delights: Children, adults and the search for sales. In: Drotner

Livingstone

(eds) The International Handbook of Children, Media and Culture. London: SAGE, pp. 168–182.

27.

KhosraviNik

(2010) Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: Towards a systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies 7(1): 55–72.

28.

Kilby

Horowitz

(2013) Opening up terrorism talk: The sequential and categorical production of discursive power within the call openings of a talk radio broadcast. Discourse & Society 24(6): 725–742.

29.

Kinder

(1995) Home alone in the nineties: Generational war and transgenerational address in American movies, television and presidential politics. In: Bazalgette

Buckingham

(eds). In Front of the Children: Screen Entertainment and Young Audiences. London: BFI, pp. 75–91.

30.

Kress

Van Leeuwen

(2013) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.

31.

Lazar

(2007) Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies 4(2): 141–164.

32.

Lemke

(2008) Identity, development and desire: Critical questions. In: Caldas-Coulthard

Iedema

(eds) Identity Trouble: Critical Discourse and Contested Identities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17–42.

33.

Milner

Van Norman

Milner

(2012) The media’s portrayal of ageing. In: Beard

Biggs

Bloom

et al . (eds) Global Population Ageing: Peril or Promise? (PGDA Working Paper 89), pp. 25–28. Available at: https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1288/2013/10/PGDA_WP_89.pdf (accessed 8 June 2017).

34.

Pietikäinen

(2003) Indigenous identity in print: Representations of the Sami in news discourse. Discourse & Society 14(5): 581–609.

35.

Pietikäinen

Dufna

(2006) Voices in discourses: Dialogism, critical discourse analysis and ethnic identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(2): 205–224.

36.

Postman

(1994) The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Delacorte Press.

37.

Reisigl

Wodak

(2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.

38.

Rogers

(ed.) (2011) An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

39.

Rose

(1989) Governing the Soul. London: Routledge.

40.

Searle

(1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Silverstein

(1976) Shifters, linguistic categories and cultural description. In: Basso

Selby

(eds) Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 284–306.

42.

Smith

(2012) Producing governable subjects: Images of childhood old and new. Childhood 19: 24–37.

43.

Stamou

(2013) Adopting a critical discourse analytical approach to the mediation of sociolinguistic reality in mass culture: The case of youth language in advertising. Critical Studies in Media Communication 30(4): 327–346.

44.

Stamou

(2014) A literature review on the mediation of sociolinguistic style in television and cinematic fiction: Sustaining the ideology of authenticity. Language and Literature 23(2): 118–140.

45.

Stamou

(2018a) Synthesizing critical discourse analysis with language ideologies: The example of fictional discourse. Discourse, Context & Media.

46.

Stamou

(2018b) Sociolinguistics of fiction. Discourse, Context & Media.

47.

Stamou

Agrafioti

Dinas

(2012) Representations of youth (language) in Greek TV commercials. Journal of Youth Studies 15(7): 909–928.

48.

Stamou

Dinas

(2011) (In Greek). Language and localities: The representation of geographical varieties in Greek television. In Paschalidis

Hodolidou

Vamvakidou

(eds) Boundaries, Peripheries, Diasporas. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, pp. 289–305.

49.

Urcuioli

(2009) Neoliberal education: Preparing the student for the new workplace. In: Greenhouse

(ed.) Ethnographies of Neoliberalism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 162–176.

50.

Van Dijk

(1998a) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE.

51.

Van Dijk

(1998b) Opinions and ideologies in the Press. In: Bell

Garrett

(eds) Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 21–63.

52.

Van Dijk

(2008) Discourse and Power. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

53.

Van Dijk

(2015) Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen

Hamilton

Schiffrin

(eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 466–485.

54.

Van Leeuwen

(1996) The representation of social actors. In: Caldas Coulthard

Coulthard

(eds) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge pp. 32–70.

55.

Wetherell

(1998) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9(3): 387–412.

56.

Wildfeuer

Bateman

(eds) (2017) Film Text Analysis. New York: Routledge.

57.

Wodak

(2001a) The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 63–95.

58.

Wodak

(2001b) What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In: Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 1–13.

59.

Wodak

(2009) The Discourse of Politics in Action. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

60.

Wodak

de Cillia

Reisigl

et al . (2009) The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Studying the interactional construction of identities in Critical Discourse Studies: A proposed analytical framework

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The study of identity construction in CDS

The CDS affordances to the interactional research of identity construction

The analytical framework proposed

Preliminary notes

Discursive strategies of identity construction in interaction

The analytical framework applied: the construction of age identities in Greek advertising

The erasure of age boundaries

Constructing ‘childhood’

Vodafone My Business TV commercial (2012). 2

Constructing ‘old age’

Cosmote Goats TV commercial (2010). 4

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Notes

Author biography

References

Vodafone My Business TV commercial (2012).²

Cosmote Goats TV commercial (2010).⁴