Normative regulations and the use of language in describing political eventsan analysis of the pragmatic use of language on newspapers

  1. Valencia, José Francisco 1
  2. Gil de Montes, Lorena 1
  3. Ortiz, Garbiñe 1
  4. Larrañaga, Maider 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Zeitschrift:
Quaderns de Psicología

ISSN: 0211-3481

Datum der Publikation: 2011

Ausgabe: 13

Nummer: 2

Seiten: 19-33

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.5565/REV/QPSICOLOGIA.867 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Andere Publikationen in: Quaderns de Psicología

Zusammenfassung

Defined the Linguistic Intergoup Bias as the tendency to describe positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors in more abstract linguistic categories than negative ingroup and positive outgroup behavior (Fiedler et al, 2003) and basing on the idea of  Moscovici that "something" is beyond the text, (1994; 163), three studies analysing the use of language in newspapers editorials are presented. Editorials where selected from different newspapers describing different political relevant events: killing of politicians, truce of ETA, banning one Basque newspaper. Verbs and adjectives were coded according to the Linguistic Category Model (Semin & Fiedler 1988). In accordance to the LCM, results show that newspapers transmit their perspective by describing differently aggressors to ingroup and outgroup members (Study 1 and 3). Results also show that this effect persists even when the explicit conflictive situation is not longer present (Study 2). In sum results showed that a subtle language use expressing dispositional driven regulations are used depending on the perspective of the position taken by the media. Finally, the pertinence of the Theory of Social Representations to explain the use of different normative pragmatic regulations is discussed to understand this pragmatic use of language so consistent in the mass media.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Beauvois, Jean-Léon; Gilibert, Daniel; Pansu, Pascal & Abdelaoui, Sid (1998). Internality, attribution and intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology,28(2), 123-141.
  • Brown, Roger & Fish, Deborah (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237-273.
  • Cates. Karen & Messick. David (1996). Prequentistic adverbs as measures of egocentric biases. European Journal of Social Psychology,26(1), 155- 161.
  • Chiu, Chi-yue; Krauss, Robert M. & Lau, Ivy C-M. (1998). Some cognitive consequences of communication. In Susan Fussell & Roger J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 259-276). Mahwah. NJ. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
  • De Mateo, Rosario (1989). The Evolution of the Newspaper Industry in Spain, 1939–1987. European Journal of Communication, 4, 211–26
  • Doise, Willem (1990). Les représentations sociales. In Rodolphe Ghiglione, Claude Bonnet & JeanFrançois Richard (Eds.), Traité de Psychologie Cognitive (pp. 111-174). Paris: Dunod.
  • Doise, Willem (1993). Logiques Sociales dans le Raisonnement. Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle.
  • Doise, Willem & Staerklé, Christian (2001). From social to political psychology: The societal Approach. In Kristen Monroe (Ed.), Political Psychology (pp. 151–72). Nex York: Erlbaum.
  • Fiedler, Klaus; Bluemke, Matthias; Friese, Malte & Hofmann, Wilhelm (2003). On the different uses of linguistic abstractness: from LIB to LEB and beyond. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 441-453.
  • Fiedler, Klaus; Semin, Gün R. & Finkenauer, Catrin (1993). The battle of words between gender groups: A language-based approach to intergroup processes. Human Communication Research,19(3), 409–441.
  • Flament, Claude (1999). La représentation sociale comme systéme normatif. Psychologie et Societé, 1, 29-54.
  • Franco, Francesca & Maass, Anne (1996). Implicit vs.. Explicit strategies of outgroup discrimination: The role of intentional control in biased language use and reward allocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(3), 335-359.
  • Gil de Montes, Lorena; Semin, Gün R. & Valencia José F. (2003). Communication patterns in interdependent relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(3), 3259-3281.
  • Grice, H. Paul (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3, Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
  • Grize, Jean-Blaise (1989). Logique naturelle et representations sociales. In Denise Jodelet (Ed.), Les representations sociales (pp. 152–68). Paris: PUF.
  • Ichheiser, Gustav (1949). Misunderstandings in human relations: a study in false social perception. American Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 1-72.
  • Jellison, Jerald M. & Green, Jane (1981). A selfpresentation approach to fundamental attribution error: the norm of internality. Journal of personality and social psychology,40(4), 643-649
  • Kelley. Harold (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
  • Krauss, Robert & Chiu, Chi-Yue (1998). Language and social behavior. In Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiske & Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 40–88). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Maass, Anne (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: stereotype perpetuation through language. In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 31 (pp. 79–122). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Maass, Anne & Arcuri, Luciano (1992). The role of language in the persistence of stereotypes. In Gün R. Semin & Klauss Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 129-143). Newbury Park: Sage.
  • Maass, Anne; Corvino, P. & Arcuri, Luciano (1994). Linguistic intergroup bias and the mass media. Revue de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 31-43.
  • Maass, Anne; Salvi, Daniela; Arcuri, Luciano & Semin, Gün R. (1989). Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 981-993
  • Markov, Ivana (2000). Ameédée or how to get rid of it: social representations from a dialogical perspective. Culture and psychology,6(4), 419- 460.
  • Moscovici, Serge (1976). La psichanalyze, son image et son publique. Paris: PUF.
  • Moscovici, Serge (1986). L‟ére des représentations sociales. In Willem Doise & Augusto Palmonari. (Eds.), L’etude des representations sociales (pp. 34-80). Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé
  • Moscovici, Serge (1994). Social representations and pragmatic communication. Social Science Information, 33, 163–177.
  • Rudolph, Udo & Forsteling, Friedrich (1997). The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin,121(2), 192-218.
  • Ruscher, Janet B. & Duval, Laura Lawson (1998). Multiple communicators with unique target in- formation transmit less stereotypical impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 329-344.
  • Schmid, Jeannette & Fiedler, Klauss (1998). The backbone of closing speeches: The impact of prosecution versus defense language on judicial attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1140-1172.
  • Schmid, Jeannette, Fiedler, Klauss, Englich, B., Ehrenberg, Thorsten & Semin, Gün R. (1996). Taking sides with the defendant: Grammatical choice and the influence of implicit attributions in prosecution and defense speeches, International Journal of Psycholinguistics,12(2), 127– 148.
  • Schudson, Michael (2002). The news media as political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 249-269.
  • Semin, Gün R. (1998). Cognition, Language and Communication. In Susan Fussell & Roger J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 229-257). NJ: Lea. 229-257.
  • Semin, Gün R. (2000). Agenda 2000: Communication: Language as an implementational device for cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(5), 595-612
  • Semin, Gün R. & Fiedler, Klauss (1988). The cogni- tive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.
  • Semin, Gün R. & Fiedler, Klauss (1989). Relocating attributional phenomena within a languagecognition interface: the case of actors‟ and observers‟ perspectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491-508.
  • Semin, Gün R. & Fiedler, Klauss (1991). The lin- guistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In Woldgang Stroebe & Miles Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of social psychology vol. 2 (pp. 1-50). Chichester: John Wiley.
  • Semin, Gün R. & Fiedler, Klauss (1992). Language, interaction and social cognition. London: Sage.
  • Semin, Gün R.; Gil de Montes, Lorena; & Valencia, José F. (2003). Communication constraints on the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(2), 142-148.
  • Semin, Gün R. & Marsman, J. Gooitske (1994). On the multiple inference-inviting properties of interpersonal verbs: Event instigation, dispositional inferences and implicit causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67(5), 836- 849.
  • Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel (1991). Loos aversion riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 106(4), 1039-1061.
  • Valencia, José F.; Gil de Montes, Lorena, & Ortiz, Garbiñe (2007). Utilización del lenguaje en contextos políticos y judiciales: Representaciones sociales y la pragmática del lenguaje en acción. In Javier Cerrato & Augusto Palmonari (Eds.), Representaciones sociales y Psicología social (pp. 205-227). Valencia: Promolibro.
  • Van Dijk, Teun A. (1990). Social cognition and discourse. In Howard Giles & Peter Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 163-186). New York: John Wiley & Sons ltd.
  • Van Dijk, Teun A. (1998). Ideology. Canbridge: CUP.
  • Von Hippel, William; Sekaquaptewa, Denise & Vargas, Patrick (1995). On the role of encoding processes in stereotype maintenance. In Mark P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 177–254). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Wagner, Wolfgang; Kronberger, Nicole & Seifert Franz (2002). Collective symbolic coping with new technology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 323–343.
  • Weiner, Bernard (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Wigboldus, Daniël H. J., Semin, Gün R. & Spears, Russell (2000). How do we communicate stereo- types? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 5-18.
  • Wilks, Yorick & Balin, Afzal (1987, August). Multiple agents and the heuristic ascription of belief. Communication presented at Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI-87), 119-124, Milan, Italy.
  • Zaller John R. (1998). Monica Lewinsky‟s contribution to political science. Political Science & Politics, 31,182–89
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet