Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Discourse & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bar-Lev, Z.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Mrs Goldberg's rebuttal of Butt et al.

Zev Bar-Lev

San Diego State University, Usa

This Article consists of two attempts to ‘turn language back on itself’ and ‘examine the very reality’ created by an ‘elite’, in the customary way of critical discourse analysis. But the ‘elites’ examined are academic researchers, in their own research into CDA. The first such academic researchers are Butt et al., in their article ‘Grammar - The First Covert Operation of War’, published in Discourse & Society. In examining their article, I suggest that the authors are guilty of the same rhetorical excesses of which they accuse George W. Bush - although more flagrantly and unjustifiably so. Where it is at least possible to argue that demonization and self-righteousness are legitimate as rhetorical tools for leaders, surely they do not belong in academic research? The second such academic researcher is Paul Chilton, whose article ‘Do Something! Conceptualising Responses to the Attacks of 11 September 2001’, published in the Journal of Language & Politics, also criticizes President Bush. My analysis of this article relates the metaphors that Chilton criticizes in Bush's rhetoric to the metaphor-based theory of political discourse proposed by George Lakoff in Moral Politics. It concludes that CDA, while worthy of praise for striking out into interesting new domains of research, neglects the full spectrum of political belief at its own peril.

Key Words: 9/11 • al-Qaeda • Bush • CDA • demonizing • discourse • politics • rhetoric

Discourse & Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, 183-196 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0957926507073375


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?