Research in social psychology has shown that public attitudes towards feminism are mostly based on stereotypical views linking feminism with leftist politics and lesbian orientation. It is claimed that such attitudes are due to the negative and sexualised media construction of feminism. Studies concerned with the media representation of feminism seem to confirm this tendency. While most of this research provides significant insights into the representation of feminism, the findings are often based on a small sample of texts. Also, most of the research was conducted in an Anglo-American setting. This study attempts to address some of the shortcomings of previous work by examining the discourse of feminism in a large corpus of German and British newspaper data. It does so by employing the tools of Corpus Linguistics. By investigating the collocation profiles of the search term feminism, we provide evidence of salient discourse patterns surrounding feminism in two different cultural contexts.
AronsonP (2003) Feminists or ‘Postfeminists’? Young women’s attitudes toward feminism and gender relations. Gender & Society17(6): 903–922.
2.
BakerP (2004) ‘Unnatural Acts’: Discourses of homosexuality within the House of Lords debates on gay male law reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics8(1): 88–106.
3.
BakerP (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
4.
BakerPMcEneryT (1996) A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics4(2): 197–226.
5.
BakerPGabrielatosCKhosraviNikM. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19(3): 273–306.
6.
BelicaC (1995) Statistische Kollokationsanalyse und Clustering: Korpuslinguistische Analysemethode. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
7.
BuschmanJLenartS (1996) ‘I am not a feminist, but’: College women, feminism, and negative experiences. Political Psychology17(1): 59–75.
8.
ButlerJ (2004) Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
9.
CallaghanMCranmerCRowanM. (1999) Feminism in Scotland: Self-identification and stereotypes. Feminism and Education11(2): 161–177.
10.
DannerLWalshS (1999) ‘Radical’ feminists and ‘bickering’ women: Backlash in US media coverage of the United Nations fourth world conference on women. Critical Studies in Mass Communication16: 63–84.
11.
FaludiS (1991) Backlash: The Undeclared War against American Women. New York: Anchor Books.
12.
GabrielatosCBakerP (2008) Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK Press, 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics36: 5–38.
13.
GoughB (1998) Men and the discursive reproduction of sexism: Repertoires of difference and equality. Feminism & Psychology8(1): 25–49.
14.
GriffinC (1989) ‘I’m not a women’s libber but . . .’: Feminism, consciousness, and identity. In: SkevingtonPBakerD (eds) Social Identity of Women. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 173–193.
15.
GrundmannRKrishnamurthyR (2010) The discourse of climate change: A corpus based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines4(2): 125–146.
16.
HuddyL (1997) Feminists and feminism in the news. In: NorrisP (ed.) Women, Media and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 183–204.
17.
HuntS (2011) The discoursal construction of female physical identity in selected works in children’s literature. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa.
18.
KrishnamurthyR (1996) Ethnic, racial and tribal: The language of racism? In: Caldas CoulthardCRCoulthardM (eds) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 129–149.
19.
LindRASaloC (2002) The framing of feminists and feminism in news and public affairs programs in US electronic media. Journal of Communication52(1): 211–228.
20.
LouwB (1993) Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In: BakerMFrancisGTognini-BonelliE (eds) Text and Technology. Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins, pp. 157–176.
21.
McRobbieA (2009) The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. London: SAGE.
22.
MautnerG (2007) Mining large corpora for social information: The case of the elderly. Language in Society36: 51–72.
23.
PercyCKremerJ (1995) Feminist identifications in a troubled society. Feminism & Psychology5(2): 201–222.
24.
RhodeDL (1995) Media images, feminist issues. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society20(31): 685–710.
25.
RileyS (2001) Maintaining power: Male constructions of ‘feminists’ and ‘feminist values’. Feminism & Psychology11(1): 55–78.
26.
ScottM (2010) WordSmith Tools, Version 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
SinclairJ (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28.
SinclairJ (2003) Reading Concordances: An Introduction. London: Longman.
29.
StubbsM (2001) Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
30.
TalbotM (2005) Choosing to refuse to be a victim: ‘Power feminism’ and the intertexuality of victimhood and choice. In: LazarM (ed.) Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 167–180.
31.
TunstallJ (1996) Newspaper Power: The New National Press in Britain. Clarendon: Oxford University Press.
32.
Van DijkTA (1995) Discourse semantics as ideology. Discourse & Society6(2): 243–289.
33.
Van DijkTA (2001) Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 95–120.
34.
WalterN (1998) The New Feminism. London: Virago Press.
35.
WodakR (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 63–94.
36.
WolleS (1998) Die heile Welt der Diktatur. Berlin: Links.
