Additional Tools of Textual Analysis

The qualitative analytical tools used here have long since been associated with CDS: aspects of systemic functional grammar (SFG) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014) and argumentation analysis (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001; Toulmin, 2003; van Eemeren & Garssen, 2012) are the main analytical instruments taken from the metaphorical analytical toolkit of textual analysis. This selection of analytical instruments is data-driven, i.e. faced with my data I drew on the tools helpful to interpreting the data.23 This section gives an overview of the main instruments used in this context.

23 _{While there is a subjective element to these choices, my discussion of the selected tools also contains}

Argumentation analysis

For the purpose of textual examination via argumentation analysis, Toulmin’s basic model of argument structure (Toulmin, 2003) has proven an invaluable and insightful means of investigation. This is because Wikipedia TPs consist of conversations aiming to build consensus amongst Wikipedians. Wikipedians consistently argue for or against issues connected to the EU. Hence, an examination of what Wikipedians argue for and how they do so allows an understanding into different conceptions of the EU.

Toulmin identifies three elements that are necessary for a well-formed argument – claim, data and warrant – but also emphasises that there is no clear form-function relationship, that is, the linguistic realisation of different parts of arguments may vary (Toulmin, 2003, pp. 87–88). Toulmin defines claim (C) as the assertion a party, here a Wikipedian, attempts to make and the element a Wikipedian attempts to convince their interlocutors of (2003, pp. 88–90). By comparison, ground, also called data (D), is the “foundation upon which [a] claim is based”. Put in other words, data are the pieces of information – the fact or facts – the claim builds on and follows from (Toulmin, 2003, pp. 90–91).

In addition to these two components of an argument, the warrant (W) is crucial for any functioning argument since it establishes a connection between C and D. That is, it bridges the facts presented as basis to the claim and the claim itself (Toulmin, 2003, p. 91). However, as Toulmin emphasises, warrants often remain unstated and leaving this omission for interlocutors to infer and fill can, of course, be used to hide that the connection between data and claim is tenuous or questionable (Toulmin, 2003, p. 91). For the operationalisation of his model, Toulmin also highlights that since there is no clear form- function relationship, the distinction between data, warrant and claim, especially between data and warrant, is not absolute but is subject to an analyst’s interpretation (Kienpointner, 2018, p. 233; Toulmin, 2003, p. 87, 92). Figure 15 gives an overview of how Toulmin’s three basic elements of argumentative patterns can be visualised:24

24 _{This model can be complemented by additional elements such as backing and qualifier. While a}

discussion of these goes beyond the scope of this section, these elements are explained as drawn upon in chapters 5-7.

Figure 15 Structure of arguments (Toulmin, 2003, p. 92, 94)

Another aspect worth noting in the context of this thesis is interlocutors’ reactions to an argument. Apart from accepting the argument as valid, they may attempt to refute a claim by focusing on different parts of the above argumentative pattern. Not only could they challenge the claim by casting doubt on the data, but they could also question the validity of the warrant (Toulmin, 2003, pp. 91–92). For instance, the argument in Figure 16 can be challenged by questioning whether Raj was born in Austria, i.e. the data, but also by calling into question, for instance, if Austria is indeed a member of the EU or if place of birth actually determines citizenship, i.e. the warrant.

Figure 16 Sample argument

Considering the fact that claims can be vulnerable to such challenges, there are numerous argumentation strategies that either aim to elevate an argument’s (apparent) validity or discredit the opponent’s position.

In the context of this thesis, a number of strategies are worth mentioning. First, argumentum ad verecundiam is an appeal to authority that is valid as long as the cited authority is indeed a qualified source in the given context (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 72). Thus, when faced with an appeal to authority it is important to consider the reliability of the cited authority. Another argumentative strategy that can be used fallaciously is shifting the burden of proof, that is, one forces the opponent to justify their position by presenting support such as data and/or warrant rather than doing so oneself (van Eemeren, Garssen, & Meuffels, 2012, p. 334). By comparison, an argumentum ad populum attempts to persuade by citing the ‘masses’ or at least a relevant part of the masses, as taking a particular position and thereby eliciting the impression that the claim must be true and right

(Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 72). A strawman argument is understood as the misrepresentation of an opponents’ position in order to then proceed to attack this position and thereby challenge the opponent’s argument (Talisse & Aikin, 2006, p. 345). Another argumentative fallacy is an argumentum ad lapidem, that is, an opponent’s argument is dismissed as absurd without any evidence why it is indeed absurd (Rowlands, 2016, p. 103). Finally, an ad hominem argument is a personal attack of the opposing party rather than their argument (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 72)

Systemic Functional Grammar (and metaphors)

With regard to systemic functional grammar (SFG), my investigation focuses on transitivity or, more specifically, on social actor representation (SAR) (van Leeuwen, 1996) and the process types (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) these actors are involved in. This analytical focus addresses, in principle, the representation of “who did what to whom” (Thompson, 2004, p. 86). Understanding whether the Wikipedia community discusses the EU as an active player or as passively acted upon, whether the EU is actually even discussed in terms of action or maybe in the form of perception or condition – all of these aspects allow an insight into the Wikipedia community’s conceptions of the EU.

Social actor representation (SAR) elucidates on the social actors drawn upon (or not) in textual practice and how they are represented (Koller, 2012, p. 23). However, it is also important to note that how SAR is realised linguistically can vary (van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 32). In line with Reisigl and Wodak, the following brief discussion does not provide a comprehensive treatment of van Leeuwen’s systematisation of SAR but is limited to the aspects of SAR focused on in the data examination (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 46).

On the whole, four elements receive particular attention in my examination of SAR in my data set. First, who is included or excluded, i.e. who is represented in the discourse material and who is not. Second, I examine who is depicted as active force and who is not. Third, I am mindful of how specific or genericised references to social actors are. Fourth, I pay attention to metonymic references as social actors and who these metonymies possibly refer to.

Concerning the first element, the question is which actors are included and excluded in the text. Regarding exclusion, van Leeuwen distinguishes between suppression and backgrounding. The former refers to absence of a social actor without a trace in the text, i.e. the reader cannot retrieve any information on this from the text alone. In contrast,

backgrounding means that the social actor can be assumed to be known or is referred to as some point in the text and thus can be traced (van Leeuwen, 1996, pp. 38–39).

With regard to the second aspect, one can inquire about the social actors’ roles, that is, are they the ‘doers’ or are they the ones something is ‘done to’, i.e. activation and passivation (van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 43). Activation and passivation refer to “sociological agency” (van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 32) – this category addresses the extent to which a participant is the “active, dynamic force in an activity” or passively undergoing an activity and being “at the receiving end of it” (van Leeuwen, 1996, pp. 43–45). It is important to underscore that this form of semantic activation and passivation can, but does not have to, coincide with grammatical passive and active voice (Darics & Koller, forthcoming, pp. 5– 6; van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 43).

Van Leeuwen’s genericisation versus specification refers to a co-text-dependent continuum ranging from references to identifiable individuals (specification) to generic class or group (genericisation). Genericisation, in particular, is a referencing strategy used in my data and can be realised by various means, e.g. plural reference without article (van Leeuwen, 1996, pp. 46–48), for example ‘Europeans are happy to vote’.

The fourth aspect I pay particular attention to in the context of this study is van Leeuwen’s objectivation, that is, social actors are “represented by means of reference to a place or thing closely associated either with their person or with the activity they are represented as being engaged in. In other words, objectivation is realised by metonymical reference” (van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 59). While Reisigl and Wodak identify instances of ‘Austria’ as in “Austria is bringing in […]” as spatialisation, i.e. a subcategory of objectivation (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 54), I cannot do so in the context of the EU. This is because the Wikipedia community actually questions whether the EU is even a ‘space’ and, if so, if its borders can be clearly defined (e.g. see concordance lines seven and eight in Table 16: “the Union isn’t a country with a well-defined culture and geography. It’s a set of political and legal structures” and cluster eleven ‘Geographical and environmental matters’). This is why, in contrast to the seemingly comparable instance given in Reisigl and Wodak’s data, I still refer to metonymic references in the form of e.g. ‘the EU deports […]’ as objectivations.

The examination of process types aims to identify ‘what’ is done. Halliday and Matthiessen discuss a variety of different processes and identify different participants involved in these (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp. 213–309). Due to spatial limitations

I merely provide an overview of the different processes and then explain the one most notable in the context of this thesis.

Halliday and Matthiessen find that material, mental and relational processes are the most common ones used in English (2004, p. 215). As Figure 17 indicates, material processes are ones of action – they involve an actor but might also involve a goal and a beneficiary who is recipient of the action – the latter two can but need not be social actors in the sense of referring to live beings (cf. van Leeuwen’s beneficialised versus subjected passivated social actor (1996, pp. 43–45)). By comparison, mental processes refer to aspects of perception, involve a sensor and a phenomenon and, notably, can involve a projection. This projection gives the content of mental processes that focus on thinking and perceiving (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp. 253–254). To give an example, ‘He believes that the EU is a country’ – here the mental process ‘to believe’ is directed at the projection ‘EU’ connected to ‘country’ in form of a relational process (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp. 517–519).

Figure 17 Process types (Thompson, 2004, p. 108)

Relational processes have proven particularly noteworthy in the context of the given data set. Such processes “serve to characterize and to identify” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 259). Non-reversible intensive attributive relational processes, such as “the EU is a confederation” are particularly recurrent in my data (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 266). There are several subcategories to relational clauses (see Table 4) – the most notable one in the context of this study is the relational process where a “nominal group

functioning as Attribute [which] construes a class of thing and is typically indefinite: it has either an adjective or a common noun as Head and, if appropriate, an indefinite article” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 268), e.g. ‘the EU is a country’.

Table 4 Categories of relational processes (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014, p. 265)

A limitation of this categorisation of process types is the lack of accounting for metaphoric uses of language, e.g. the conduit metaphor ‘she gave me an idea’ would be treated as a material process within this framework but does not address the metaphoric nature of the action referred to.

This leads to a last analytical aspect that ought to be mentioned briefly – metaphors, i.e. the idea that one concept is used to describe another. The tenor is the aspect of the world that is actually referred to, whereas the vehicle is the field that is drawn upon to describe the tenor. In accordance with Lakoff and Johnson, ontological metaphors describe concepts in tangible terms, i.e. concrete objects (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003, pp. 25–30), e.g. sovereignty (tenor) as a liquid (vehicle) that can be pooled.

Chapters 5 to 7 present the main findings of my data analyses. To do so, I synthesise my findings achieved via corpus and other tools of textual analysis to present a discussion of how the Wikipedia community makes sense of the EU and how they discursively construct/represent the EU. In connection with the fact that the following chapters present the discussion of my data analyses, it is crucial to point out that I do not refer to all tools mentioned above in equal measure in each chapter. This is because the nature of my corpora varies and, therefore, the results yielded by the different means of analyses vary in terms of insight and Erkentniswert.