ABSTRACT Contemporary public discourses are, despite the growing array of technologies and spaces for participation, becoming increasingly characterized by polarization – the formation of two distinct and relatively homogeneous ‘sides’. However, while such polarization may be commonplace, it is not an inherent property of discourse but rather a result of strategic polarizing actions taken by specific actors in order to establish control over the debate. In order to describe the process of polarization in a public discourse about language policy in Slovenia, this paper presents a theoretical framework based on Bakhtin’s concepts of heteroglossia (diversity of voices), polyphony (diversity of ideology) and dialogicality (relatedness of voices and ideologies) and on the central concepts of critical discourse studies (CDS). The case study is based on a qualitative analysis of a sample of 48 newspaper articles reporting on the language policy debate, collected from two major Slovene newspapers during 2016. Additionally, the case study also relies on field notes and transcripts obtained from a public hearing held in the Slovene parliament. The analysis of these two data sources uncovers a debate which was heavily polarized due to both ideological difference as well as continuous reinforcement of the Manichean dichotomy. In particular, the paper shows that this polarization was strengthened by explicit practices of identity construction and suppression of dissent which allowed the construction of a homogeneous Self and Other in discourse.
Read full abstract