Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics: Online-First Articles

Epistemic stance and public discourse on irregular migration in one of Europe’s outermost regions

ORCID logo | Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
This article falls within the conceptual framework of critical discourse studies and cognitive linguistics whose attention has focused on the discourse found in the public sphere on the topic of migration. I will demonstrate the results of my analysis of a corpus composed of 74 opinion articles that were published in a Spanish regional newspaper between August 2020 and February 2021. All of them focus on the same issue: the mass arrival of irregular migrants at one of Europe’s outermost borders, the Canary Islands, and the social, political and economic strain that this is generating. The results of this analysis indicate that the periphrastic auxiliary verb poder (can/could/might) constitutes an essential resource for the way in which knowledge is managed by the authors whose intention is to fuel the debate by guiding the conceptualisation of reality of readers who do not have perceptual access to the events described.
Keywords: discriminatory discourse, cognitive grammar, modality, stance, epistemic control
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1The perifrastic auxiliary poder (can/could/might)
      • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 29 March 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22012.dia
References (78)
References
Baker, Paul et al.. 2008. “A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press”. Discourse & Society 19 (3): 273–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bañón Hernández, Antonio. 2007. “El discurso periodístico a propósito del viaje de los inmigrantes pobres”, In Discursos sobre la inmigración en España. Los medios de comunicación, los parlamentos, y las administraciones, edited by R. Zapata-Barrero and T. A. Van Dijk. 45–68, Barcelona: Fundació CIDOBGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan. 1989. “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect”. Text 9 (1): 93–12.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny, and Egbert Fortuin. 2016. “Modality and mood in Cognitive Linguistics and Construction Grammars”. In The Oxford handbook of Modality and mood, edited by J. Nuyts. and J. Van Der Auwera. 514–659. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Buonfino, Alessandra. 2004. “Between unity and plurality: the politicization and securitization of the discourse of immigration in Europe”. New Political Science 26 (1): 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burguers, Christian et al.. 2012. “Verbal irony: Differences in usage across written genres”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31 (3): 290–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Casero Ripollés, Andreu. 2007. “Discurso mediático, inmigración e ilegalidad: legitimar la exclusión a través de la noticia”. In Discursos sobre la inmigración en España. Los medios de comunicación, los parlamentos, y las administraciones, edited by R. Zapata-Barrero and T. A. Van Dijk. 69–92, Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB.Google Scholar
Collyer, Michael et al.. 2014. Introduction Transit Migrations and European Spaces. In Transit Migrations in Europa, edited by F. Düvell et al., 1–33. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2005. “On modal grounding, reference points, and subjectification. The case of the Spanish epistemic modals”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 31: 56–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi)Auxiliaries. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “On conceptual semantics and discourse functions. The case of Spanish modal adverbs in informal conversation”. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 8 (2): 300–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2007. “The stance triangle”. In Stancetaking in discourse. Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, edited by R. Englebretson. 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2006. “Britain as a container: immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign”. Discourse & Society 17 (5): 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Analysing political discourse. Rhetoric, discourse, and metaphor. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse Theory and practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser, 2014. Figurative Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitneva, Stanka. 2001. “Epistemic marking and reliability judgments. Evidence from Bulgarian”. Journal of Pragmatics 331: 401–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuentes, Catalina. 1991. “Adverbios de modalidad”. Verba 181: 275–231.Google Scholar
García-Miguel, José. 2005. “Verbos aspectuales en español. La interacción de significado verbal y significado construccional”. In Estudos em Homenagem ao Professor Doutor Mário Vilela, edited by G. M. Rio-Torto, et al., 405–418, Porto: Universidade do Porto.Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1999. “Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo”. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española Vol. 21, edited by I. Bosque, and V. Demonte. 3323–3390, Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science. New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. “Legitimizing assertions and the logico-rhetorical module: Evidence and epistemic vigilance in media discourse on immigration”. Discourse Studies 13 (6): 751–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “Moving beyond Metaphor in the Cognitive Linguistic Approach to CDA: Construal Operations in Immigration Discourse”. In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, edited by Ch. Hart. 171–192, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Animals vs. armies: Resistance to extreme metaphors in anti-immigration discourse”. Journal of Language and Politics 20 (2): 226–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. “Frames, framing and framing effects in cognitive CDA”. Discourse Studies 25 (2): 247–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Bruce. 2001. Ideology, metaphor and iconographic references”. In Language and ideology. Volume II: Descriptive cognitive approaches, edited by R. Dirven et al., 27–50, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1996. “Framing Responsibility for Political Issues”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 5461: 59–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Veronika. 2005. “Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse”. Discourse & Society 16 (2): 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2018. “Discursive Shifts in Ethno-Nationalist Politics: On Politicization and Mediatization of the “Refugee Crisis” in Poland”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16 (1–2): 76–96, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Discursive shifts and the normalisation of racism: imaginaries of immigration, moral panics and the discourse of contemporary right wing populism”. Social Semiotics 30 (4): 503–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał, Triandafyllidou, Anna, and Ruth Wodak. 2018. “The Mediatization and the Politicization of the “Refugee Crisis” in Europe”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16 (1–2): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald, 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1990, Concept, image, and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar”. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (2): 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Conceptualization, Symbolization, and Grammar”, International Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1): 31–64.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Modals: Striving for control”. In English Modality. Core, periphery and evidentiality edited by J. Marín-Arrese et al., 3–57, Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Levels of reality. Langages 4 (22).Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semántica lingüística. Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
Marín Arrese, Juana. 2011. “Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse. Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility”. In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, edited by Ch. Hart. 193–223, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Rojo, Lucía. 2000. “enfrentamiento y consenso en los debates parlamentarios sobre la política de inmigración en España”. Oralia 31: 113–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2011. “Migration, media and “deliberate” metaphors”. Metaphorik.de 211: 1–19.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media”. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3 (1): 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. “Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions”. Journal of Pragmatics 331: 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Notions of (inter)subjectivity”. English Text Construction 5 (1): 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Analyses of the modal meanings”. In The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, edited by J. Nuyts, and J. Van Der Auwera. 31–49, Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelyvás, Péter. 2001. “On the development of the category modal: a cognitive view. How changes in image-schematic structure led to the emergence of the grounding predication”. In Wort und (Kon)text, edited by P. Kocsány, and A. Molnár. 103–130, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2019. “On epistemic and deontic grounding”. Argumentum 151: 304–315.Google Scholar
Rausis, Frowin. 2023. “Restrictive North versus Permissive South? Revisiting Dominant Narratives on the Evolution of the Refugee Regime”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española. 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin. 2008. “Rhetoric of political speeches”. In Handbook of communication in the public sphere, edited by R. Wodak and V. Koller. 243–270, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rheindorf, Markus, and Ruth Wodak. 2018. “Borders, fences, and limits – protecting Austria from refugees: Metadiscursive negotiation of meaning in the current refugee crisis”. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16 (1–2): 15–38, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, José, and Wilben Spooren. 1997. “Perspective, Subjectivity, and Modality from a Cognitive Linguistic Point of View. In Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, edited by W. Liebert et al., 85–114, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, Cristina. 1999. “La negación”. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española Vol. 21, edited by I. Bosque, and V. Demonte. 2561–2634, Madrid: Espasa.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto. 1999. “Like an animal I was treated: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse”. Discourse & Society, 10 (2): 191–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “The senator’s discriminatory intent. Presenting probative legal evidence of unconstitutional verbal animus”. Language, Culture and Society 1 (2): 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto, et al. 2020. “’Druggies Drug Dealers Rapists and Killers’. The President’s Verbal Animus against Immigrants”. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 45 (2): 15–52.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1995. “Contextual conditions for the interpretation of ‘poder’ and ‘deber’ in Spanish”. In Modality in grammar and discourse, edited by J. Bybee, and S. Fleischman. 67–106, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simaki, Vasiliki, et al. 2019. “A two-step procedure to identify lexical elements of stance constructions in discourse from political blogs”. Corpora 14 (3): 379–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1982. “Root and epistemic modals: Causality in two worlds”. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics: 484–507Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. “Force Dynamics in language and cognition”. Cognitive Science 121: 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2000. “Ideologies, Racism, Discourse: Debates on Immigration and Ethnic Issues”. In Comparative Perspectives on Racism, edited by J. Ter Wal, and M. Verkuyten. 92–114, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2001a. “Algunos principios de la teoría del contexto”. ALED, Revista latinoamericana de estudios del discurso 1 (1): 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001b. “Critical discourse analysis”. In The handbook of discourse analysis, edited by D. Schiffrin et al., 352–371, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008. Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011a. “Discourse, knowledge, power and politics. Towards critical epistemics discourse analysis”. In Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, edited by Ch. Hart. 27–63, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dik, Teun A. 2011b. Sociedad y discurso, Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2014. “Discourse-Cognition-Society. Current state and prospects of the socio-cognitive approach to discourse”. In Contemporary Studies in Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ch. Hart, and P. Cap. 121–146, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
2016. “Análisis crítico del discurso”. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales 301: 203–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. “The socio-cognitive discourse studies”. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, edited by J. Flowerdew, and J. Richardson. 26–44, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2003. “El enfoque histórico del discurso”. In Métodos de análisis crítico del discurso, edited by R. Wodak, and M. Mayer. 101–141, Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Mediation between discourse and society: assessing cognitive approaches in CDA”. Discourse Studies 8 (1): 179–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “The contribution of critical linguistics to the analysis of discriminatory prejudices and stereotypes in the language of politics”. In Handbook of communication in the public sphere, edited by R. Wodak and V. Koller. 291–316, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth and Martin Reisigl. 2001. “Discourse and racism”. In The handbook of discourse analysis, edited by D. Schiffrin et al., 372–397, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zapata-Barrero, Ricard, and Teun A. Van Dijk. 2007. “Introducción: inmigración y discurso”. In Discursos sobre la inmigración en España. Los medios de comunicación, los parlamentos, y las administraciones, edited by R. Zapata-Barrero and T. A. Van Dijk. 9–16, Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB.Google Scholar