The Ideological Organization of Representational Processes in the Presentation of us and them

The present study, drawing on the work of Teun A. Van Dijk (1998) to theorize the relations between discourse and ideology, aims to show how social groups (us vs them) are presented in discourse and how ideological discourse is constructed socio-politically as a means to confirm group dominance. Simultaneously, this study uses critical discourse analysis as a methodology which grounds the theoretical claims in the idea that both the ideological loading of particular ways of using certain linguistic forms systematically and the relations of power which underlie them is often unclear to people. In this sense, critical discourse analysis aims to make these opaque aspects of discourse explicit. In doing this, critical discourse analysis gives attention to the grammar and vocabulary of texts. Three dimensions of the clause grammar are differentiated transitivity, modality and theme. These correspond to, respectively, ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions of language. The focus in this study is upon aspects of clause grammar which have to do with ideational meanings. By determining the transitivity patterns expressed with propositions through representational processes in the opinion-editorial articles that appeared in two Turkish daily newspapers with different ideological orientations, this article claims that representational processes play a significant role in the well known ideological square of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation suggested by social identity theory, for controlling the social representations of us and them in the context of ideological conflict exhibited in `secular' and `anti-secular' discourses.

[1]  Paul Simpson,et al.  Language, Ideology and Point of View , 1993 .

[2]  Bob Hodge,et al.  Language as Ideology , 1979 .

[3]  G. Kress Linguistic processes and the mediation of ‘reality’: the politics of newspaper language , 1983 .

[4]  S. Worchel,et al.  Psychology of intergroup relations , 1986 .

[5]  H. Tajfel Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

[6]  H. Tajfel Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. , 1978 .

[7]  M. Hogg,et al.  Book Review: Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes , 1991 .

[8]  Michael A. Hogg,et al.  The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity , 1992 .

[9]  Feroz Ahmad The Making of Modern Turkey , 1993 .

[10]  N. Fairclough Discourse and social change , 1992 .

[11]  Gunther Kress,et al.  Language as Ideology , 1997 .

[12]  Phyllis A. Anastasio Categorization, Recategorization, and Common Ingroup Identity , 1995 .

[13]  R. Wodak Critical Discourse Analysis , 2003 .

[14]  E. Keyman On the Relation Between Global Modernity and Nationalism: The Crisis of Hegemony and the Rise of (Islamic) Identity in Turkey , 1995, New Perspectives on Turkey.

[15]  T. V. Dijk Handbook of discourse analysis , 1985 .

[16]  T. V. Dijk Discourse Semantics and Ideology , 1995 .

[17]  Naomi Ellemers,et al.  The social psychology of stereotyping and group life , 1998 .

[18]  R. Fowler Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press , 1991 .

[19]  John C. Turner,et al.  Stereotyping and Social Reality , 1994 .

[20]  Peter Teo Racism in the News: A Critical Discourse Analysis of News Reporting in Two Australian Newspapers , 2000 .

[21]  C. Ilie The Ideological Remapping of Semantic Roles in Totalitarian Discourse, or, How to Paint White Roses Red , 1998 .

[22]  H. Tajfel,et al.  An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 1979 .

[23]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[24]  Emre Kongar 21. yüzyılda Türkiye : 2000'li yıllarda Türkiye'nin toplumsal yapısı , 2000 .

[25]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. , 1991 .

[26]  Michael Halliday,et al.  An Introduction to Functional Grammar , 1985 .