The events surrounding the ‘Arab Spring’ have attracted an enormous amount of attention by the international press as well as on social media platforms, especially in its initial phase in early 2011. This article investigates how violent and forceful (inter)actions during the ‘Arab Revolutions’ were conceptualised linguistically by incorporating notions of Cognitive Semantics in a critical comparative study of press reports and Twitter posts. Focus is placed specifically on combining Talmy’s theory of Force Dynamics with methods of Critical Discourse Studies in order to investigate diverging forms of schematisation of forceful interactions among protest participants. The most frequently recurring opposing force-dynamic patterns identified are defying a hindrance, prevailing stability and causation of action as well as inaction. Notable differences may be observed between mass media and social media in regard to the representation of dynamic power relations between police and protesters.
BebawiSBossioD (eds) (2014) Social Media and the Politics of Reportage: The ‘Arab Spring’. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
2.
Ben MhenniL (2011) Vernetzt Euch! [Tunisian Girl: A blogger for an Arab Spring]. Berlin: Ullstein Verlag.
3.
BergenB (2012) Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.
4.
BergenBChangNNarayanS (2004) Simulated action in an embodied construction grammar. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Volume 26. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 108–113.
5.
Charteris-BlackJ (2004) Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
Charteris-BlackJ (2006) Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society17(6): 563–582.
7.
ChiltonP (2005) Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In: WodakRChiltonP (eds) A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 19–52.
8.
ChomskyN (2002) Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, 2nd edn.New York: Seven Stories Press.
9.
FaircloughN (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman Publishing.
10.
FauconnierG (1999 [1997]) Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FetzerA (2014) Media discourse in context. In: HartCCapP (eds) Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 365–384.
12.
FowlerRHodgeRKressG. (1979) Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
13.
GibrilS (2015) Contentious politics and bottom-up mobilization in revolutionary Egypt: The case of Egyptian football supporters in Cairo. In: GergesFA (ed.) Contentious Politics in the Middle East: Popular Resistance and Marginalized Activism Beyond the Arab Uprisings. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 305–330.
14.
GoldbergA (2013) Constructionist approaches. In: HoffmannTTrousdaleG (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–31.
15.
HartC (2011) Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Discourse & Society22(3): 269–286.
16.
HartC (2013) Event-construal in press reports of violence in two recent political protests: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics12(3): 400–423.
17.
HartC (2014) Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
18.
HartC (2015) Viewpoint in linguistic discourse: Space and evaluation in news reports of political protests. Critical Discourse Studies12(3): 238–260.
19.
HartC (2016) The visual basis of linguistic meaning and its implications for critical discourse studies: Integrating cognitive linguistic and multimodal methods. Discourse & Society27(3): 335–350.
20.
HermanESChomskyN (2002 [1988]) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books.
21.
HodgeRKressG (1993) Language as Ideology, 2nd edn.London: Routledge.
22.
KimmelM (2011) From text-linguistics to literary actants – The force dynamics of (emotional) vampirism. Language and Cognition3(2): 235–282.
23.
KollerV (2005) Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society16(2): 199–224.
24.
LakoffGJohnsonM (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
25.
LangackerRW (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
LangackerRW (2011) Culture, cognition and lexical meaning. In: TurewiczK (ed.) Cognitive Methodologies for Culture–Language Interface: From Lexical Category to Stereotype through Lady Macbeth Speech. Łódź: Akademii Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej, pp. 11–33.
27.
OakleyT (2005) Force dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect. In: HampeB (ed.) From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 443–473.
28.
SchieweJWengelerM (2005) Einführung der Herausgeber zum ersten Heft [Editors’ introduction to the first edition]. Aptum. Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur [Aptum: Journal of Language Criticism and Language Culture] 1: 1–13.
29.
TalmyL (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Van DijkTA (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society17(2): 359–383.
31.
Van DijkTA (2009) Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 62–85.
32.
Van DijkTA (2014) Discourse, cognition, society. In: AngermullerJMaingueneauDWodakR (eds) The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 388–399.
33.
Van LeeuwenT (2009) Discourse as the recontextualization of social practice: A guide. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 144–161.
34.
ViglioccoGVinsonDPPaganelliF. (2005) Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General134(4): 501–520.
