METADATA


Title: To distort or not to distort: Comparative analysis of British and Bulgarian media discourse representations of fire disasters

 

Vol. 9(1), 2021, pp. 83-111.

DOI: 10.46687/SILC.2021.v09i01.005

 

Author: Ivaylo Gorchev

About the author: Ivaylo Gorchev is a PhD candidate at the Department of English Studies at Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen. He obtained his Bachelor’s degree, major “English Philology” in 2001 and in 2018, he received his MA degree, major “English Philology – English Studies and Mass Communications” from the same university. The topic of his PhD thesis is “Analysis of the Bulgarian and the British media discourse on catastrophic events (a Comparative Study)”. He is currently a teacher of English at Nikola Yonkov Vaptsarov Foreign Language School, Shumen. His interests include media discourse research on media objectivity and conceptual metaphors. He is also interested in foreign language teaching and music production.

e-mail: ivlg@abv.bg                                      

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5023-9552

 

Citation (APA style): Gorchev, I. (2021). To distort or not to distort: Comparative analysis of British and Bulgarian media discourse representations of fire disasters. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 9(1), 83-111. doi: 10.46687/SILC.2021.v09i01.005.

 

Link: http://silc.fhn-shu.com/issues/2021-1/SILC_2021_Vol_9_Issue_1_083-111_29.pdf

 

Abstract: Using a comparative approach and utilising a slightly refined version of a framework for discourse representation analysis used by Norman Fairclough, the article aims to study the discourse representations of the public inquiry of the Grenfell Tower Fire and a press conference of the railway carrier Bulmarket concerning the Hitrino train derailment and subsequent fiery explosion by the British and the Bulgarian media respectively, with the intent of identifying the extent of deviation from the original sources in the reporting texts and the use of devices for controlling the reader’s perception of the reported discourses. The research shows that the Bulgarian newspapers have adopted to a higher degree the position of interpreters between their readers and the reported sources, since they are less committed to represent the exact form of secondary discourse, even when demarcated as a verbatim quotation and tend to shape its perception by contextualising it within stylistic devices, which allow them to predispose its interpretation by their readers. However, even the British media commitment is not absolute in this respect, as instances of distortions of the secondary discourse and transmissions of the authority of the quoted sources in their texts are also observed, even though to a lesser extent.

Key words: discourse representation, primary discourse, secondary discourse, objectivity, CDA  

 

References:

Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (1994). On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written test analysis (pp. 295-308). London: Routledge.

Cheshmedzieva-Stoycheva, D. (2018). Framing Muslims in the Bulgarian and the British media discourse. Shumen: Konstantin Preslavsky University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London and New York: Longman.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London, New York: Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Heritage, J. C., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conventional objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 124-162). New York: Irvington.

Leech, G. N., & Short, M. (1981). Style in fiction. London: Longman.

Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

McHale, B. (1978). Free indirect speech: A survey of recent accounts. Poetics and the theory of literature 3, 249-287.

McNair, B. (2009). News and journalism in the UK. London, New York: Routledge.

Pashov, P. (1989). Prakticheska bulgarska gramatika. Sofia: Prosveta.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society, 5(1, Apr.), pp. 1-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Summers, D. (Ed.). (2003). Longman dictionary of contemporary English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse. A multidisciplinary introduction. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. Retrieved on 24 March 2021 from http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse.pdf.

Volosinov, V. I. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. New York: Seminar Press.