A free FOMATPLAY webinar,
Zoom link
https://umurcia.zoom.us/j/96563945765
ID de reunión: 965 6394 5765
23 April, 2024, 12:00 (Paris/Rome/Madrid time)
Abstract
Freedom of movement (hereafter, FOM) has been one of the most defining and unifying principles of the EU. Through FOM, the EU has managed to communicate a clearly defined identity and ‘distinctive’ political strategies and policies which set its political agenda as different from other intergovernmental institutions. Nevertheless, as Roos and Westerween (2020) argue, while in the 2000s it was viewed almost as an absolute right of EU citizens, during the 2010s it started to be framed in terms of the conditionsunderlying the exercise of this right. Conditional and/or restrictionist arguments about FOM in the EU have always existed, yet they have increased in recent political discourse through renationalising tendencies in populist discourse (Wodak 2015). Although for different reasons, rebordering practices were epitomised by the temporary suspension of FOM during the COVID-19 crisis which underscored the continued significance of nation-states in shaping the structure of the EU. The management of COVID-19 led to a retreat of what can be termed “transnationalism from above” (Portes et al., 1999) characterized by an increase in bordering practices such as travel restrictions and border closures worldwide; disruption of transnational mobility infrastructures, including transport, communication, brokerage, and networks; resource competition with unprecedented challenges exacerbating global disparities and giving rise to new sources of international tension and conflict. Moreover, it fueled an upsurge in nationalist discourse and xenophobia, race-based hate and violence (Russo 2023).
In this webinar, I will discuss findings related to the appraisal of freedom movement in X/Twitter during the pandemic period. More specifically, I will discuss findings related to negative appraisal and maladaptive responses, such as hate speech. The data will be analysed according to an approach which draws upon findings in Critical Social Media Discourse Analysis (Unger, Wodak and Khosravinik 2016; KhosraviNik, M. 2017) and Appraisal Linguistics (Zappavigna 2012). Corpus Linguistics methodological tools such as quantitative techniques are combined with the analysis of context and discourse structural appraisal through qualitative assessments (Baker 2006; Martin and White 2005; Zappavigna 2012). The analysis is narrowed from bulk data retrieval to identify the lexical and grammatical resources used to express attitude oriented to affect and associates the findings on affect with the analysis of the representation of social actors (Van Leeuwen 1996; Reisigl and Wodak 2001).
The Webinar aims to draw some interesting conclusions on how transnational/local news and social media channel information on Freedom of Movement during epidemics, increasing/decreasing fear, hate and distrust and or solidarity. It hopes that the present research may spread awareness on the need for the development of ethical protocols for risk communication regarding mobility in the management of epidemics.
Keywords: covid-19 discourse, representation of migrants in news and social media, risk discourse, hate speech
Bio
Prof Russo is an Associate Professor in Linguistics and English Translation at the University of Naples L’Orientale, where she is the Rector’s Delegate for Orientation, Tutoring and Disability. Her research interests are related to post-colonial varieties of English, intercultural communication, audiovisual translation, and critical discourse regarding the discourse of migration and climate change. Her most recent publications have focused on climate-induced migration, populist discourse and hate speech against migrants and people with disabilities during the pandemic crisis.
References
Baker, Paul 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
KhosraviNik, M. (2017). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). In J. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of critical discourse analysis (pp. 582-596). Routledge.
Martin, John R. / White, Peter R.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: The Appraisal Framework. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Leeuwen, Teo 1996. “The Representation of Social Actors”. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds) Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Routledge, 32–70.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L. E., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198799329468
Reisigl, Martin / Wodak, Ruth 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London and New York: Routledge.
Russo “Fear Appeals, Migration and Sinophobia in COVID-19 News and Twitter Discourse: A Corpus-based Critical Analysis, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines Journal (CADAAD), 2023, Vol 14 (2): 21 – 40
Unger, J. W., Wodak, R., & KhosraviNik, M. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies and Social Media Data. In D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative Research (pp. 277-293). SAGE.
Wodak Ruth, The Politics of Fear: The Shameless Normalization of Far-Right Discourse, 2nd edn, London: SAGE.
Zappavigna, Michele 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How to Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Bloomsbury.
