CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS QUEER LINGUISTICS: RELIGIOUS PRO- AND ANTI-LGBT EQUALITY FRAMING AND COUNTERFRAMING IN TWO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR IN THE CITY PRESS

Lauren Mongie

doi:10.5842/49-0-664

Abstract

This article is situated at the intersection of the applied linguistic fields of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Collective Action Framing (CAF) and a sociolinguistic field recently referred to as “queer linguistics” (QL). Drawing on a qualitative method of analysis, the article investigates the discursive (re)production of religiously-motivated arguments in favour of and against LGBT equality in two letters to the editor in the City Press newspaper. The paper aims to illustrate the ways in which religiously-framed pro- and anti-LGBT-equality arguments are discursively constructed in public discourses, and to demonstrate the methodological overlap between CDA and QL, and between CDA and CAF. The article’s findings reveal that both the pro- and anti-LGBT-equality letters frame their religious arguments in ways that echo that which is predicted in the literature by making strategic use of lexical items, modifiers, implicature, presupposition, rhetorical devices, and attributive strategies; and that these discursive devices enable the realisation of the core framing tasks that are necessary for social mobilisation to varying extents. Further, the findings indicate that the anti-LGBT-equality letter is more explicit in its ideological positioning and framing tasks, and that it draws significantly more on disclaimers than the pro-LGBT-equality letter. Lastly, the discourse that is present in the diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing tasks of the pro-LGBT-equality letter attempts to reframe and counterframe anti-LGBT-equality arguments by providing an alternative perspective of same-sex attraction within the religion frame.

Highlights

In discourses of prejudice and stereotype, much attention is focused on how intolerance of minority groups and their practices, values, civil rights and so forth is articulated
This article reports on a small selection of the qualitative findings of a doctoral study (Mongie 2013) of media texts from two South African newspapers that touch on religiously-framed arguments about the socialacceptability of LGBT identities and LGBT equality with the aim of examining the ways in which linguistic means are used in realising the core framing tasks discussed above
September 1996 line 20) and “aberration” (22 September 1996 line 49) in religiously-framed anti-LGBT-equality arguments, and the use of more secular and political lexical items such as “marginalised” (18 July 1999 line 19), “solidarity” (18 July 1999 line 124), “discrimination” (18 July 1999 line 26), “community” (18 July 1999 line 24 ) and “agenda” (18 July 1999 line 35) in religiously-framed pro-LGBT-equality arguments. The difference between these groups of lexical items echoes a further identifiable characteristic of the religiously-framed pro- and anti-LGBT-equality arguments that make up the corpus, namely the fact that the latter are typically phrased in a way that expresses a higher degree of certainty than the former. This can be seen in the diagnostic framing tasks of the letters analysed above, in which the anti-LGBTequality letter’s diagnostic task states that “homosexuality is sinful” (22 September 1996 line 13), while the pro-LGBT-equality letter’s diagnostic task merely states that “homophobia... is uncalled for” (18 July 1999 line 4), as there is a clear difference in the degree of certainty expressed by the lexical item “sinful” and the lexical items “uncalled for”

Summary

Introduction

In discourses of prejudice and stereotype, much attention is focused on how intolerance of minority groups and their practices, values, civil rights and so forth is articulated. 24 Mongie proclaim and encourage tolerance of minority groups that are socially marginalised. An essential aspect of such discourses of tolerance entails a confrontation of the way in which intolerant arguments are framed, which often entails counterframing the argument by challenging the contents of arguments put forth by members of the out-group and providing alternative perspectives within the same frame. Drawing on qualitative methods of analysis from the fields of CDA and CAF, the article investigates the discursive (re)production of religiously-motivated arguments in favour of and against LGBT equality in two letters to the editor in the City Press with the aim of answering the following research questions: 1. What are the discursive characteristics of religiously-framed pro- and anti-LGBTequality arguments in letters to the editor in the City Press? Drawing on qualitative methods of analysis from the fields of CDA and CAF, the article investigates the discursive (re)production of religiously-motivated arguments in favour of and against LGBT equality in two letters to the editor in the City Press with the aim of answering the following research questions: 1. What are the discursive characteristics of religiously-framed pro- and anti-LGBTequality arguments in letters to the editor in the City Press?

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion