Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:11:58.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the Language–Power Assumption of Critical Discourse Analysis: The Case of Israel's Legislative Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2012

Shaul R. Shenhav ,
Gideon Rahat  and
Tamir Sheafer
Shaul R. Shenhav*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Gideon Rahat*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Tamir Sheafer*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
*
Shaul R. Shenhav, Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, shaul.shenhav@huji.ac.il
Gideon Rahat, Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, msgrah@mscc.huji.ac.il
Tamir Sheafer, Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, msstamir@mscc.huji.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The growing interest in the relation between language and politics brings new assumptions and theoretical frameworks to the study of politics. This study presents a simple empirical test of a major assumption of the critical discourse analysis school: that power is a major factor in political discourse. It examines whether the discourse of Israeli members of parliament (Knesset) represents a view of the world through the prism of power or whether parliament members refer to the experience of similar democracies. We demonstrate that power is a strong and significant factor in Israeli legislative discourse through time and across issues while relevance plays no role.

Résumé. L'intérêt grandissant que suscite le lien entre langage et politique, génère de nouvelles hypothèses et de nouvelles théories de l'étude du politique. Cette étude propose de tester l'une des principales hypothèses de l'analyse critique de discours, à savoir que le pouvoir serait un facteur essentiel du discours politique. Le discours des membres du parlement israélien (la Knesset) est analysé afin de déterminer s'il reflète une vision du monde à travers le prisme du pouvoir, ou si au contraire les membres du parlements se réfèrent plutôt à l'expérience d'autres démocraties sous différents angles, en particulier celui de la similaritê de leur travail parlementaire. Cette étude démontre que le pouvoir constitue un facteur important et significatif du discours législatif israélien, à la fois sur la longue durée et concernant une variété de sujets, alors que le facteur de la pertinence ne joue aucun rôle.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 207 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Glenda and Troen, Ilan S., eds. 2000. “The Americanization of Israel.” Israel Studies (special issue) 5 (1): vii–xii, 1–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S.. 1962. “The Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Tsan-Kuo. 1998. “All Countries Not Created Equal to Be News: World System and International Communication.” Communication Research 25 (5): 528–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul A. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correlates of War Project, National Material Capabilities. 2005. v3.02. http://cow.la.psu.edu/COW2%20Data/Capabilities/nmc3-02.htm/ (April 1 2007).Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1968. “Power.” International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. vol. 12, London: Crowell, Collier and Macmillan: 405–14.Google Scholar
Hayes, Andrew. F. 2006. “A primer on multilevel modeling.” Human Communication Research 32: 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Ish-Shalom, Piki. 2006. “The Triptych of Realism, Elitism, and Conservatism.” International Studies Review 8 (3): 441–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyungmo and Barnett, George A.. 1996. “The Determinants of International News Flow: A Network Analysis.” Communication Research 23 (3): 323–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knesset deliberations, Knesset proceedings (divrei ha Knesset). Knesset Internet Website. http://www.knesset.gov.il/divrey/AdQForm.asp (September 1, 2009).Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1967. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Inglehart, Ronald. 2009. Cosmopolitan Communication: Cultural Diversity in a Globalized World. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahat, Gideon. 2008. The Politics of Regime Structure Reform in Democracies: Israel in Comparative Perspective. Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce M., Oneal, John R. and Cox, Michaelene. 2000. “Clash of Civilizations, or Realism and Liberalism Deja Vu? Some Evidence.” Journal of Peace Research 37 (5): 583–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. “Whose Text? Whose Context?” Discourse Society 8: 165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism.’” European Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheafer, Tamir and Weimann, Gabriel. 2005. “Agenda-building, agenda-setting, priming, individual voting intentions and the aggregate results: An analysis of four Israeli elections.” Journal of Communication 55: 347–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, David. J. 1987. “Reconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset on Material Capabilities of States, 1816–1985.” International Interactions 14: 115–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart and Stuckey, John. 1972. “Capability Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965.” In Peace, War, and Numbers, ed. Russett, Bruce M.. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 4 (2): 249–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2001. “What CDA is About: A Summary of its History, Important Concepts and its Developments.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. Wodak, Ruth and Meyer, Michael. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanow, Dvora. 1992. “Silences in Public Policy Discourse: Organizational and Policy Myths.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2: 399–423.Google Scholar