Scholarlink

A number of studies have shown how past events are used in the construction of the present in order to act on the future. This paper investigates how the future is used for the discursive construction of an ongoing “historic” event. A comparative quantitative and qualitative analysis of Le Monde’s (LM), the Süddeutsche Zeitung’s (SZ), and The Guardian’s (TG) coverage of the first year of the Russian war against Ukraine in the interdisciplinary framework of Discourse Studies is conducted using a lexicometric approach (Iramuteq, 2020), Toulmin’s (1958) and Macagno’s (2015) argumentation theories, and Foucault’s concept of dispositif (1977). It appears that LM, the SZ, and TG adopt a different concept of history in their respective argumentation and thereby emphasize a different aspect of journalism: the intellectual aspect in LM, the political engagement in the SZ, and the news provider’s one in TG. Following different roles but adopting the similar strategy of “circularity of time”, i.e. the construction of society memory on assumptions about the future, LM, the SZ, and TG seek to shape the future not only of Ukraine but also of Europe.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Construction of an Ongoing “Historic” Event: A Comparison of Le Monde, Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, and The Guardian

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Élisabeth Le

摘要

A number of studies have shown how past events are used in the construction of the present in order to act on the future. This paper investigates how the future is used for the discursive construction of an ongoing “historic” event. A comparative quantitative and qualitative analysis of Le Monde’s (LM), the Süddeutsche Zeitung’s (SZ), and The Guardian’s (TG) coverage of the first year of the Russian war against Ukraine in the interdisciplinary framework of Discourse Studies is conducted using a lexicometric approach (Iramuteq, 2020), Toulmin’s (1958) and Macagno’s (2015) argumentation theories, and Foucault’s concept of dispositif (1977). It appears that LM, the SZ, and TG adopt a different concept of history in their respective argumentation and thereby emphasize a different aspect of journalism: the intellectual aspect in LM, the political engagement in the SZ, and the news provider’s one in TG. Following different roles but adopting the similar strategy of “circularity of time”, i.e. the construction of society memory on assumptions about the future, LM, the SZ, and TG seek to shape the future not only of Ukraine but also of Europe.