saric book review

7/29/2019 Saric Book Review

1/7

BOOKREVIEW

Saric,L.,A.Musolff,S.Manz,andHudabiunigg,I.(eds.),

Contesting Europes Eastern Rim Cultural Identities in Public Discourse. 2010.Bristol:MultilingualMatters,222pp.

ISBN:978-1-84769-324-2(hardback).Price:69.95

Eventsthatfollowedthefalloftheironcurtainin1989radicallychanged

the geo-political map of the European continent. The break-up of former

YugoslaviaandtheEUsbiggestenlargementin2004,whichgavemembershiptoseveral former Communist countries, symbolically opened up Europe to

identities that hithertohad been otherized. In thewake of these changes, the

traditionaldivisionbetweenEastandWestEurope-andestablishednotionsof

insiders andoutsiders came to be redefined both at national and individual

levels. The renegotiation of the cultural boundaries of Eastern Europe (or

Easternrimastheauthorsof thisbookchoosetocall it) thathasoccurredin

andthroughpublicdiscoursesistherationaleforthisvolume.Inparticularthe

process of repositioning and (re) constructing cultural identities of Europes

Easternrim isanalysedthroughthe lensofmedia andpolitical discoursesas

wellasliterarytexts.

Theinterplaybetweensocial,economicandpoliticalchangesintheEUand

Europeanidentity(ies)hasrecentlyattractedtheinterestofanumberofscholars

in the fieldofcritical linguistics (see for exampleKrzyzanowski 2010;Wodak

andWeiss2005;Wodak2004).Theirresearch has shownthe complexityand

fragmentation of European identities and their ongoing negotiation in the

shifting socio-political scenarios brought about by the European project. This

publication therefore has the potential to integrate previouswork with fresh

insightsfromanEasternrimperspective.

The volume is divided in three main sections. Whilst the last section

analysesoldandnewrepresentationsofEuropeanidentitiesinliterarytexts

from a hermeneutics perspective, the focus of the first two sections is on

exploring the use of specific linguistic features of public discourses about


2/7

identity such asmetaphors,metonymies, symbols and rhetorical figures. This

analyticalapproachgroundsitselffirmlyinthetheoreticalframeworkofCritical

DiscourseAnalysis(seeforexamplevanDijk1995,1993;FaircloughandWodak

1997) and cognitive semantics (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Fauconnier andTurner 2003; Charteris-Black 2004). All these theoretical frameworks have

highlighted thefundamental role of language in structuring andreflecting our

conceptualizationsofthesocialworld.ForexampleConceptualMetaphorTheory

(Lakoff& Johnson,1980)has explained the roleofmetaphors inthe cognitive

mappingoftargetandsourcedomains.Inthislight,forexample,referringto

theEUenlargementasopeningthedoortonewmembers(thatisrepresenting

Europeasabuilding)drawsona conceptualisationwhich isanchored inourphysicalandpsychologicalexperiencesoflivinginahouse(withimplicationsof

sharingwithfamily,dealingwithneighbours,etc.)(seeDrulak2004,forfurther

details on the use of metaphors in the EU context). Because of its ability to

unpack the cognitive relations between (micro) features of linguistic

representationsand (macro) social-cultural dynamics, theanalytical approach

adoptedinthisbookcanthusprovideavaluabletoolintheanalysisofidentity

shiftsatplayintheEuropeancontext.

The relevance of social representations ofEurope in the construction of

culturalboundariesiswelldocumentedinHudabiuniggscontributioninChapter

11. For a long time, modern Europe was traditionally associated with the

EnlightenmentwhilstpublicdiscoursesofEuropeanidentitywerepredicatedon

thenotionofa(Western)civilization(seeShore1993)opposedtoabarbaric

Easterncounterpart.Hudabiunigghypothesisesthatthisdualrepresentationof

Europe has consolidated into cognitive frames which have pervasively

penetrated public and media discourses emerging, for instance, in notions of

core and periphery Europe. Hudabiuniggs analysis highlights how, whilst

being contested and deconstructed by some literary texts, the view of two

Europes,stillremainsthedominantframeinmediadiscoursesandcontributes

tocontestednotionsoftrulyEuropeans.


3/7

Theoverallthemeemergingfromthethirteenchaptersofthispublication

ishowrelationalotherness(i.e.theus/themjuxtaposition)hasbeendiscursively

appropriated, contested and, through a plethora of different representations,

instrumentallyusedin thepublicdiscourseonEuropeanidentities.Thefluidityof this negotiationprocess howeverhas proved capableofgenerating diverse

outcomes.WhilstinsomecasestheEasternrimnolongerconstitutesEuropes

otherandnewlegitimisedEuropeanidentitiesareconsensually(re)claimedand

allowedtoemerge,certainother identitiesarestill contestedanddiscursively

positioned outside Europe or at least negatively represented as outside

Europes core. For instancethis is the caseofthe construction ofPolandand

Cyprus asout-groups in the Frenchmediaasopposed torepresentations of aFrench-German dominant corewithin theEU(analysed inChapter2byBuch

andHelfrich).

Another important aspect highlighted in this publication is that the

repositioningprocessofotheridentitieshasalsooccurredwithinandbetween

Eastern rim countries. This aspect is conspicuous in Chapter 4 where Saric

tracks semantic shifts of the term Balkan. Saric argues that in political

discourses circulating in former Yugoslavian countries the usage of the term

Balkanhassomewhatshiftedtobecomeanegativeidentitylabel.Meanwhile,

the geographical metaphor of Balkan has been instrumentally used by the

mediatoconstructrepresentationsoftheBalkansas Europesother.Thishas

consequently enabled a dichotomised representation of certain national

identitiesasEUinsiders(SloveniaandCroatia)oroutsiders(Bosnia).Vezovnik

(Chapter 8) corroborates this view suggesting that a similar process of

otherisation of the Balkans has occurred in the reconstruction of Slovenian

nationalidentityasthecountryneareditsaccessionintotheEU.Inthiscasethe

reconstructionwas articulated in the press through anoverarching discourse

that,ontheonehand,rejectedpreviousBalkanandCommunistidentities,whilst

on the other, drew from earlydiscourses of the Christian Socialistmovement

aboutSlovenianEuropeannesstorecontextualisetheminthecurrentpolitical

debate about joining the EU. Further evidenceof the renegotiationof Balkan

identities is offered by Kuna and Kuna (Chapter 5) who, from the analytical


4/7

standpoint of naming strategies, argue how former Yugoslavian federal

brothershavenowbecometheothersinCroatianpublicdiscourse.

Althoughawidespreadrepresentation,Balkanidentitieshoweverarenotalwaysconstructedasnegativeothers.IndeedBak(Chapter9)suggeststhatin

thePolishpressthetermBalkanhasbeenmostlyassociatedwithsupportingand

legitimising Europeanaspirations of countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia

andBosnia.ThismutualsenseofsolidaritywiththeEasternrimwouldemerge

inpositivemetaphorssuchashome,heartandfamily.ForBakthisempathicview

couldrepresentPolandsdesiretoredeemitselffromnegativewarmemoriesby

claimingaEuropeanplaceforitsneighboursinthesamewayitclaimedoneforitselfwhennegotiatingandjoiningtheEU.InterestinglyBaksfindingsseemto

weave into Grimstads argument (Chapter 13) that, in public discourse on

Europe,thePolishnationalconsciencehasbeenengagedwitharenegotiationof

thetraditionalimageofaJewishenemy.Itisthuspossiblethatwhilstformost

Balkancountriesrenegotiatingtheotherhasinvolvedemphasizingdifferences

betweenneighbouringnationalidentities,inthecaseofPolandthisprocesswas

embodiedbyareflexive(re)representationofJewishness.

By highlighting the specific role of linguistic representations in the

construction of Europe, overall the insights in this book can contribute to

further an understanding of the socio-cognitive function of language in the

constructionof identities. Forexamplecertainmetaphors, inparticular that of

Europe asa containerwith its inside-outsidedistinction, wouldnot only the

mere representations but they would have been instrumental in redefining

certainnationalorethnicidentitiesvis--vis others. Inthe caseofTurkey, for

example,Musolff(Chapter10)arguesthattheframesprovidedbymetaphorical

representationsofTurkeyasanoutsider(typicallyrealisedthroughthesource

domainsofhouseandfamily)havegenerallycontributedtomaintainingnegative

attitudes towards Turkeys accession to the EU among the public opinion.

Furthermoresuchdiscourseofexclusionhasbeeninstrumentallymobilisedby

nationalpoliticstoreinforcefearsandprejudicesaboutTurkishmigrationinto

someEUcountriessuchGermanyandAustria.


5/7

At another level, the linguistic analysis carried out in the book offers

opportunities to investigate and compare any cultural differences in use and

interpretation of representations across languages. For example Petraskaite-Pabst(Chapter3)tracksandcomparestheuseofmetaphorsinLithuanianand

Germanmediadiscourseonenlargement.Mostmetaphors(thecommonhouse,

integration as a path/trajectory) are found to be similar in both languages

becausetheysimplyrecontextualisegeneralEUdiscoursesbytranslatingthem

inthe localmedia. Atthe sametimehowever,the author stressesthecultural

specificity of certainmetaphors. For example themetaphorof Lithuania as a

pupil/the EU as a teacher and their resonance with the Lithuanian publicopinion would have contributed to engaging the nation in a debate about

growingmetaphoricallyandliterallyintoeducatedEuropeans.

Finally,representationsarenotonlyrealizedthroughlanguage,aspointed

out in Chapter 7which analyses the use of photographs in Montenegrin and

Serbianmediatosuggestthevisualconstructionofpolarisedpoliticaldiscourses

in the two countries. The author suggests that through representations of

ideological(dis)alignmentwithEuropeanideologicalwatershedalsocoincides

withtheperceivedEasternrimborderwithMontenegrostandingforEuropeand

democracyandSerbiaforautocracyandresistancetoawesternorder.

Overallthispublicationoffersaconvincingcaseforthefluidityofnational

andculturalidentities, especially thosepredicatedon Europe. It corroborates

thepropositionthatidentitiesareconstructedinrelationaltermsanditoffers

clearinsightsonhowtheotherhasbeendynamicallycontested,negotiatedand

reconstructedinpublicdiscoursesonanenlargedEU,thushighlightingthekey

roleofdifferentlinguisticrepresentationsinredefiningidentities.Ofcoursethe

exact interplay between the constructive and descriptive roles of language

remains a dynamic and mutual interaction which is hard to pin down and

measure and this book can thus only provide a snapshot of this dynamic

process.Howeverthevolumeisatitsbestwhenitcriticallylinksmicrolinguistic

structureswithmacrosocial dimensions froma soundcognitive approach(as


6/7

arguedforexamplebyHart2008).This,forexample,isfoundinoneofthemain

argumentsinthisvolumethatthesimplerecycleofrepresentationsandthere-

contextualisation of discourses of otherness has contributed to a shift in the

metaphorical inventory and, more crucially, it has changed conventionalknowledge about insiders and outsiders. Whilst there is obviously scope for

taking suchwork forward, this publication is certainly refreshingas it invites

reflectionsontheconstructionofEuropeanness.

References

Charteris-Black,J.2004.CorpusApproachestoCriticalMetaphorAnalysis:PalgraveMacmillan.

Drulak,Petr.2004.MetaphorsEuropeLivesby:LanguageandInstitutionalChangeoftheEuropeanUnion:EuropeanUniversityInstitute.

Fairclough,Norman,andRuthWodak.1997.'CriticalDiscourseAnalysis',inT.van

Dijk(ed.)IntroductiontoDiscourseAnalysis,.Fauconnier,G.,andM.Turner.2003.TheWayWeThink:ConceptualBlendingAnd

TheMind'sHiddenComplexities:BasicBooks.Hart,C.2008."Criticaldiscourseanalysisandmetaphor:towardatheoretical

framework."CRITICALDISCOURSESTUDIESno.5(2):91-106.

Krzyzanowski,Michal.2010.TheDiscursiveConstructionofEuropeanIdentities:AMulti-levelApproachtoDiscourseandIdentityintheTransforming

EuropeanUnion:PeterLangPubInc.

Lakoff,G.,andM.Johnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniveristyofChicagoPress.

Shore,Cris.1993."Inventingthe'People'sEurope':CriticalApproachestoEuuropeanCommunity'CulturalPolicy'."Manno.28(4):779-800.

vanDijk,TeunA.1993."PrinciplesofCriticalDiscourseAnalysis."DISCOURSE&SOCIETYno.4(2):249-283.doi:10.1177/0957926593004002006..1995."DiscourseSemanticsandIdeology."DISCOURSE&SOCIETYno.6

(2):243-289.doi:10.1177/0957926595006002006.

Wodak,Ruth.2004."NationalandTransnationalidentities:EuropeanandOtherIdentitiesConstructedinInterviewswithEUOfficials."InTransnational

identities:becomingEuropeanintheEU,editedbyHerrmannetal.(eds.),97-128.Rowman&Littlefield.

Wodak,Ruth,andGilbertWeiss.2005.AnalyzingEuropeanUnionDiscourses

TheoriesandapplicationsinWodak,R.andChilton,P.(eds)Anewagenda

in(critical)discourseanalysis:theory,methodologyandinterdisciplinarity.

Amsterdam:J.Benjamins.


7/7

FrancoZappettini

AppliedLinguisticsandCommunication

BirkbeckCollege

UniversityofLondon

[email protected]

saric book review

Documents