HEDGING, CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND THE ORIGINAL BREXIT AFFAIR

Eduard Vlad
{"title":"HEDGING, CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND THE ORIGINAL BREXIT AFFAIR","authors":"Eduard Vlad","doi":"10.32008/nordsci2019/b1/v2/15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Methodologically, this is an attempt at transcending the already fuzzy borders between Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis, also borrowing the prevailing idea in Critical Theory and Cultural Studies that culture is ideological and political, and thus a site of struggle. The article, while starting from language-based approaches enriched by CDA’s contributions, aims, by means of hedging language devices, at connecting and interpreting a number of puzzling facts, occurrences, statements and coincidences to be observed in the public space in the immediate contexts of the June 23, 2016 British EU referendum. These have to do with discourse, politics, hedge funds, financial transactions and a number of people associated with them. Who were the real winners of the original Brexit Affair? The article acknowledges the theoretical relevance of leading CDA theorists, while relying on online resources, especially those of such investigative journalists as Cam Simpson, Gavin Finch and Kit Chellel. Why would anyone charge anyone with major misdeeds and risk going to court, when the ‘hedging’ of the Brexit affair (or business) in the current article might prompt everyone to draw their own conclusions?","PeriodicalId":146100,"journal":{"name":"NORDSCI International Conference Proceedings Education and Language edition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NORDSCI International Conference Proceedings Education and Language edition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32008/nordsci2019/b1/v2/15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Methodologically, this is an attempt at transcending the already fuzzy borders between Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis, also borrowing the prevailing idea in Critical Theory and Cultural Studies that culture is ideological and political, and thus a site of struggle. The article, while starting from language-based approaches enriched by CDA’s contributions, aims, by means of hedging language devices, at connecting and interpreting a number of puzzling facts, occurrences, statements and coincidences to be observed in the public space in the immediate contexts of the June 23, 2016 British EU referendum. These have to do with discourse, politics, hedge funds, financial transactions and a number of people associated with them. Who were the real winners of the original Brexit Affair? The article acknowledges the theoretical relevance of leading CDA theorists, while relying on online resources, especially those of such investigative journalists as Cam Simpson, Gavin Finch and Kit Chellel. Why would anyone charge anyone with major misdeeds and risk going to court, when the ‘hedging’ of the Brexit affair (or business) in the current article might prompt everyone to draw their own conclusions?
套期保值、批评话语分析与英国脱欧原初事件
在方法论上,这是一种超越话语分析和批判话语分析之间已经模糊的边界的尝试,也借用了批判理论和文化研究中流行的观点,即文化是意识形态的和政治的,因此是一个斗争的场所。本文从基于语言的方法出发,通过CDA的贡献丰富,旨在通过回避语言的手段,在2016年6月23日英国脱欧公投的直接背景下,在公共空间中观察到一些令人困惑的事实、事件、陈述和巧合。它们与话语、政治、对冲基金、金融交易以及与之相关的许多人有关。谁是最初脱欧事件的真正赢家?这篇文章承认主要批评性话语分析理论家的理论相关性,同时依靠在线资源,特别是像卡姆·辛普森、加文·芬奇和基特·谢勒尔这样的调查记者的资源。当当前文章中对英国退欧事务(或商业)的“对冲”可能促使每个人都得出自己的结论时,为什么有人会指控任何人犯有重大不当行为并冒着上法庭的风险?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信