Alterity in the representation of immigrants

333 Pages·2012·3.42 MB·English

Alterity in the representation of immigrants
in the presidential speeches of George W. Bush
(2001-2009).
A critical discourse study

Tesis Doctoral presentada por Elena Catrinescu
Dirigida por Dr. Miguel Ángel Martínez-Cabeza Lombardo

Universidad de Granada
Departamento de Filologías Inglesa y Alemana
Editor: Editorial de la Universidad de Granada
Autor: Elena Catrinescu
D.L.: GR 352-2013
ISBN: 978-84-9028-361-5
ALTERITY IN THE REPRESENTATION OF IMMIGRANTS
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHES OF GEORGE W. BUSH
(2001-2009). A CRITICAL DISCOURSE STUDY

Tesis doctoral presentada por la doctoranda Elena Catrinescu
para la obtención del grado de Doctor por la
Universidad de Granada.

Granada, a 1 de julio de 2012

LA DOCTORANDA,

Fdo.: Elena Catrinescu

EL DIRECTOR DE LA TESIS,

Fdo.: Prof. Dr. Miguel Ángel Martínez-Cabeza Lombardo

Profesor Titular de Universidad en Filología Inglesa
de la Universidad de Granada

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 1
List of figures, tables and annexes …………………………………….…………...…...… 2

PRELIMINARIES ………………………………………………………..…………….…. 5

CHAPTER ONE. THE OTHER ………………………………………….………......…. 18
1.1. CONCEPT ………………………….………………………………………….……. 18
1.2. BACKGROUND TO ALTERITY ………………………………………….............. 20
1.2.1. Paradigms of domination ………………………………………………………. 20
1.2.2. Arguing domination. Arguing alterity …………………………………...…….. 22
1.2.3. Approaching the colonial text …………………………………………..….…... 24
1.2.4. The post-colonial perspective ……………………………………….….…….... 27
1.2.5. Socio-political implications of „othering‟ .…………………….….…..….…….. 29
2.3 THE MIGRANT OTHER …………………..……………………………….….….….. 35
2.3.1 Determinants of othering …………………………………………….…….…… 36

CHAPTER TWO. THE AMERICAN BACKGROUND ……...………….….……….. 47
2.1. IMMIGRATION AND REGULATION IN U.S.A. …………………………....….. 47
2.1.1. Old immigration and regulation ………………………………………....….…. 49
2.1.2. Post-war immigration and regulation ...……………………………….………. 50
2.1.3. Immigration policy of the G.W. Bush Administration ……………...….……... 53
2.1.4 Implications of the actual model of enforcement …………………….…...…… 55
2.2. MAJOR DETERMINANTS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION POLITICS ………...…….. 59
2.2.1. The political-institutional variable ………………………………..………...… 59
3.2.2. Ethnicity and religion ……………...…………………………………….……. 61
2.2.3. Race ……………………………………...……………………………….…… 64
2.2.4. Economy and international politics ……………………………………....…… 66
3.3 SOME ASPECTS OF DISCURSIVE ALTERITY ………………………….…..…. 68
CHAPTER THREE. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ……………….....………… 72
3.1. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ………………………………..………….. 72
3.1.1. Text and discourse ………………………………………………..……...…… 73
3.1.2. Text and context ………………………………………………..…………….. 75
3.1.3. Intertextuality and interdiscursivity ………………………………….…….…. 77
3.1.4. Theoretical and methodological osmosis ……………………….……….……. 78
3.1.5. Critical standpoint ………………………………………………..………….... 81
3.1.6. Critical review of CDA ………………………………………………..……… 82
3.1.7. Limitations to CDA …………………………………………….…………….. 88
3.2. JUSTIFICATION OF THE APPROACH ……………………………….………… 89
3.3. A SEMOGENIC EXERCISE ………………………………………..…………….. 97

CHAPTER FOUR. METHODOLOGY …………………………………..…..……… 103
4.1. PROCEDURAL STEPS …………………………………………………………. 103
4.1.1. Genesis …………………………………………………………………..….. 103
4.1.2. Process of data collection and selection ………………………………..…… 104
4.1.3. Content analysis …………………………………………………..………… 105
4.1.4. Selection of linguistic categories …………………………………………… 105
4.1.5. Textual analysis ……………………………………………..……………… 106
4.1.6. Conclusions …………………………………………………...…………….. 106
4.2. METHODOLOGICAL MODEL ………………………………………………… 106
4.2.1. Discursive strategies ………………………………………...………………. 107
4.2.2. Corpus-driven approach to meaning …………………………..……….…… 113

CHAPTER FIVE. CORPUS JUSTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION …….….… 123
5.1. MOTIVATION ………………………………………………………………….. 123
5.2. SELECTION …………………………………………………………………….. 124
5.3. LINGUISTIC SOFTWARE …………………………………………….……...... 125
5.4. DESCRIPTION ………………………………………………………………….. 126
5.4.1. Thematic content ………………………………………………...………….. 127
5.4.2. Quantitative potential ………………………………………………...…...… 131
5.4.3. Qualitative potential …………………………………...……………………. 139
CHAPTER SIX RESULTS …………….…………………….……………………….. 157
6.1. THE LEXICALISATION OF IMMIGRANTS ………………………….………. 157
6.2. REFERENTIAL AND PREDICATIONAL STRATEGIES …………………….. 177
6.2.1. Referential strategies ………………………………………..………………. 177
6.2.2. Predicational strategies ………………………………………...……………. 186
6.3. ON MODALITY ………………………………………………………….……… 195
6.4. THE TRANSITIVITY SYSTEM ………………………………………….……... 203

CHAPTER SEVEN. DISCUSSION ………………..….…………….……….………. 217
7.1. GROUP AWARENESS ……………………………………...…………………... 217
7.2. TOPICALISATION OF IMMIGRANTS ………………………………….…….. 222
7.3. IMMIGRANT REPRESENTATION ………………………………...…....…….. 227
7.3.1. In relation to Referential and Predicational strategies …………………….… 231
7.3.2. In relation to Perspectivation and Argumentation ……………….….….….... 241
7.3.3. In relation to modality and transitivity ………………………….…..……….. 246

CONCLUSION ………………..………………………………………..…..……….… 258

RESUMEN EN ESPAÑOL ……………………………………….…………..………. 268

References ………………………………………………………………………….…… 281

Annexes ………………………………………………………………………...….……. 294

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Miguel Ángel Martínez Cabeza-Lombardo, for your strenuous work of
taming the shrew. To you I owe a significant part of my academic growth. Thank you
for hoping. For who hopes for what he already sees?

Mrs. Marina Romero for the human and professional excellence in handling an
inexperienced foreign student into what appeared as endless institutional maize.
Dr. Ángeles Linde-López, for kindly allowing me to embark on the adventure of
doctoral studies.
Dr. Luis Quereda Rodriguez for introducing me into corpus linguistics.
Dr. Tony Harris, for the profound insights into learning and methodology, in
theory and with the example.
Dr. Maria Luisa Dañobeitia, for the passionate cultural incursions to the roots of
contemporary myths.
Dr. Inmaculada Sanz Sainz for the warm and generous introduction into quality
research.
Dr. Celia Wallhead Salway for opening for me the Pandora‟s box of Postcolonial
readings.
Dr. Carlos Marquez Linares, for setting high standards in the linguistic
discipline of us, students.
Drs. Marta Falces Sierra, José Manuel Martín Morillas, and José Luis
Martínez-Dueñas whose feedback to my Advanced Studies project made me aim
higher in research. Although coal is not diamond, I wish I made - at least in part - good
use of their advice.

Not in the least, many thanks to my family, friends, Monday night pals,
Wednesday evening gals, and every past and present companion of the Journey.
1
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND ANNEXES

FIGURES

Figure 1. Referents of „they‟ in terms of status and mood. …………..……….… 111
Figure 2. The grammar of experience: types of processes in English. …..……… 114
Figure 3. Density of the discourses in the corpus, per year. ………………..…… 127
Figure 4. Thematic coverage of the discourses. ……………………….….……... 128
Figure 5. Concern with immigration per years. ………………………….……… 130
Figure 6. Concern with immigration, per months. …………………..…….……. 130
Figure 7. Immigration, topic vs. concern (word count). ………………….….….. 131
Figure 8. General characteristics of the Bush corpus. …………………….…….. 133
Figure 9. Statistic information on word composition, per letter-long words. ….... 134
Figure 10. Most frequent three and four-letter words. ………….…………...…… 135
Figure 11. Modal verbs, affirmative and negative froms. …..………….….…….. 138
Figure 12. Modal verbs used in the corpus. ……………………………..……….. 138
Figure 13. Patterns of collocation for „we‟. …………..…..……...…….………… 148
Figure 14. Random selection of concordance for „we‟. ……..………………....… 149
Figure 15. Patterns of collocation for „they‟. ……………………………….……. 149
Figure 16. Random selection of concordance for „they‟. ..…………….….…...…. 150
Figure 17. Selection of concordance for „they‟ ………............................................150
Figure 18. Concordance for „they‟, most frequent clusters. .…..……..……….….. 151
Figure 19. „We‟ in the context of „immigra*‟. ……………………….…..….…… 152
Figure 20. Concordance for „they‟ in the context of „terror*‟. …………………… 153
Figure 21. „They‟ in the context of „immigra*‟. ……………………….………… 153
Figure 22. Concordance for „crim*‟ in the context of „immigra*‟. …………….... 155
Figure 23. Patterns of collocation for „immigrant*‟. ………………………….…. 158
Figure 24. Most frequent clusters of „immigra*‟ in the context of „illegal*‟.…..... 159
Figure 25. Patterns of collocation for „immigration‟. …….……………….…..…. 160
Figure 26. Patterns of collocation of „immigra*‟ in the context of „illegal*‟. ….... 161
Figure 27. Patterns of collocation for „illegal‟. ………………………….……… 164
Figure 28. Deportation of illegal immigrants (2001-2009). …………….………. 165
Figure 29. Patterns of co-selection for „criminal*‟. ……………………………... 166
Figure 30. Most frequent clusters for „criminal*‟. ……….....………..………….. 167
Figure 31. Concordance for „aliens‟. ……………………………………....……. 173
2