PhD. English Philology. Professor at Facultad de Formación de Profesorado y Educación Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

https://www.uam.es/Profesorado/AlonsoBelmonte/1242657193991.htm?pid=1242658451006&language=es

ABSTRACT

Polarization, defined as the sharp division between in-groups (i.e., the self, “Us”) and out-groups (i.e., the other, “Them”), is nowadays a major concern in most Western societies. It is a complex phenomenon which involves a variety of psychological, cultural, and sociological factors. Fake news, populisms, disinformation, and poor education are often blamed for this situation, but also the increasing economic inequality and a permanent sense of social injustice that permeates some layers of society can explain the apparent rise of polarization in different areas and contexts.

There seems to be a general agreement that the development and spread of communication technologies has played a leading role in this rising tendency. As a matter of fact, polarization is particularly visible in the Internet and digital media. However, it must not be considered an inherent property of digital discourse but rather ”a result of strategic polarizing actions taken by specific actors in order to establish control over the debate” in their communities of interest/practice (Savski 2020). I believe discourse strategies of polarization require critical attention to uncover the relationship between language, cognition and social practices in the construction of specific frames and sociocultural identities across contexts (Filardo, Morales & Floyd 2022).

In this context, this seminar’s main aim is twofold: 1) to introduce the audience to the notion of discursive polarization; and 2) to explore the discursive strategies and linguistic resources underpinning polarization across contexts and languages. I intend to reference methods and analytical tools from Critical Discourse Analysis which have demonstrated their effectiveness in analyzing how in-groups are legitimized in public discourses, in contrast to a negative depiction of the outer groups ((van Dijk 1993; Reisigl & Wodak 2009). For illustrative purposes, I will use some corpus-based empirical evidence that was collected as part of a research project entitled 'Polarization and Digital Discourses: Critical and Socio-Cognitive perspectives' (PID2020-119102RB-I00), financed by MCIN/ AEI /10.13039/501100011033.

References

Filardo-Llamas, L., Morales-López, E., & Floyd, A. (Eds.). (2022). Discursive Approaches to Socio-political Polarization and Conflict. Routledge.

Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R.(Eds) (2009). Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. Londres: Sage (2nd revised edition).

Savski, K. (2020). Polyphony and polarization in public discourses: hegemony and dissent in a Slovene policy debate. Critical Discourse Studies, 17:4, 377-393,

van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283