Language in the Media

Rebecca May Geddes, 3rd year

Leave or Remain? A Corpus Investigation into Brexit

Discourse in Editorials

Introduction:

Today's editorials are more argumentative than ever. This is at least what Westin and Geisler (2002) discovered for British newspaper editorials from the late 20th century by analysing the Corpus of English Newspaper Editorials. They note that editorials became more argumentative because of a shift in the language from narrative styles, such as "reporting verbs" (e.g., comment), to more persuasive styles, such as "suasive verbs" (e.g., demand) (p. 141/146). This is noteworthy, given that newspaper editorials sway public opinion (Greenberg, 2000; Masroor & Ahmad, 2017). According to Greenberg (2000), this role is even more apparent in the advent of political or social instability. Thus, a topic such as Brexit would be highly reported as it exacerbated polarisation between voters resulting in the Leave and Remain political divisions (Woollen, 2022).

Essentially, editorials consist of opinions that express the political views of the newspapers for which they are written (Kahn & Kenny, 2002) and are crafted to ensure familiarity with their audience (Greenberg, 2000; Fowler, 1991), catering to the readers' expectations. Thus, editorials can demonstrate the political views on Brexit of the newspapers and their readership. These views on Brexit indicate people's ideology, which constitutes "images, concepts and premises" facilitating the interpretation of "social existence" (Hall, 2006, p. 396). Ideology is intrinsic to the Brexit issue because, as Bennett (2019) suggests, discourse throughout the Brexit campaign conveyed opposing ideologies through common themes such as "control vs freedom" (p. 17). Therefore, the political views expressed in editorials may also reveal the ideologies of newspapers.

An investigation into editorials on Brexit is also insightful for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), considering that CDA is interested in how "socio[-]political dominance" is challenged by discourse (Garrett & Bell, 1998, p. 6) and that, as suggested previously, editorials are increasingly persuasive during political or social uncertainty. Current research demonstrates this in Brexit discourse by exploiting the divisive nature of the topic. For example, while investigating a corpus of 88 public addresses of the UK Independence Party, Cap (2019) notes the presence of a conceptual boundary between an 'Us' and 'Them' at the heart of Nigel Farage's speech. This is a rhetorical tactic used to depict insiders (i.e., Us) in a good light and outsiders (i.e., Them) in a bad light. The tactic, alternatively known as a "strategy of polari(s)ation", may be observed through the word choices that negatively or positively evaluate each group or by the groups of words or clauses that make up propositions about each group (van Dijk, 1998, p. 33). This is yet to be explored in editorials on Brexit. Therefore, it is worth investigating the strategy of polarisation in the text (i.e., the "linguistic forms" for analysis, Cook, 2005, p. 1) of editorials because political discourse usually involves references to 'Us' and 'Them' (Wenzl, 2019).

Editorials may also challenge the public's opinions through interpersonal metadiscourse, which constitutes linguistic devices enabling writers to convey their stance. Du Bois and Kärkkäinen (2012) propose that when individuals evaluate something, they take a stance that positions themselves with that subject matter and others during interactions. Considering that editorials adjust their language to meet the readers’ expectations, stance may be expressed with metadiscourse markers, such as hedges (e.g., could), emphatics (e.g., definitely), attitude markers (e.g., surprisingly), relational markers (e.g., you see) and person markers (e.g., we) (Hyland, 2004a; Hyland, 2004b). Currently, there is no research investigating the metadiscourse of Brexit. Research mainly focuses on the ideological themes that emerge in Brexit discourse (see Rone, 2021 on the topic of 'sovereignty' in British newspaper articles & editorials). However, metadiscourse would be a valuable source of inquiry in editorials to see how the newspaper's stance is expressed because microstructures can express ideology (Garrett & Bell, 1998). Therefore, an investigation into these features may indicate the ideologies of newspapers.

Given the increased polarisation that has occurred in possibly the most "divisive" and "hostile" political campaign the UK has seen this century (Moore & Ramsay, 2017, p. 164), the current paper investigates Brexit in editorials. It aims to explore the strategy of polarisation and the metadiscourse markers in the editorials of two opposing newspapers, the Daily Mail (hereon as DML with L denoting Leave) and the Daily Mirror (hereon as DMR with R denoting Remain). DML supports the Leave position as this statement makes clear: "If you believe in Britain, vote Leave" (Daily Mail, 2016, para. 1). Conversely, DMR supports the Remain position as indicated by the statement: "why the Mirror is backing Remain for the sake of our great nations" (Daily Mirror, 2016, para. 1). Considering that the newspapers represent the two sides of Brexit, the researcher is concerned with comparing the language that demonstrates the position of Leave or Remain; thus, the researcher explores the following questions: RQ1: As the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror represent different positions on Brexit, how do they represent the opposing side?

RQ2: How do the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror newspapers use metadiscourse markers to convey their stance on Brexit?

Methodology:

The current paper takes insight from corpus-assisted discourse analysis, which sheds light on the differential portrayal of sociopolitical topics under investigation in specific societal mediums (Partington & Marchi, 2015). To facilitate this approach, the study adopts the framework of CDA and Du Bois’ (2007) model of stance. Firstly, by marking a relationship between discourse in the media, opinion and ideology, the critical discourse researcher van Dijk (1998) argues that the structure of editorials is affected by the opinions of writers (or newspapers) that are ultimately affected by their ideologies. Because of this, “language use may be ideological” (Richardson, 2007, p. 27). Therefore, CDA reveals the ideological orientation of the newspapers, which assists in answering RQ1. The issue of stance is also relevant because, according to Du Bois’ (2007) stance triangle, taking a stance involves the processes of “evaluation”, “positioning”, and “alignment” (p. 143/144). When a specific referent is evaluated, a position is made of the individual who made the evaluation. This evaluation is inevitably “compared and contrasted” with the evaluations of others in an alignment process (Du Bois & Kärkkäinen, 2012, p. 440). Although there is no overt ‘other’ in editorials, these processes also occur with editorials as their language aligns with the public’s, making editorials inherently interactive. Thus, to answer RQ2, analysing the metadiscourse in the editorials could reveal the language used to connect the newspapers to their readers.

The analysis is based on 9933 words of what constitutes corpora of 12 DML editorials and 20 DMR editorials (see Appendix A & B for corpora details). These editorials were selected from a specific period, spanning 2016 to 2017, which was motivated by the fact that this period marks an event that triggered a massive shift in British politics, the EU referendum on June 23rd, 2016. The UK has been a member of the EU since 1973 (Koller et al., 2019). Thus, the decision to leave the EU could impact Britain’s relations with the union and the daily lives of those in Britain and other countries of the EU (Woollen, 2022). Therefore, it was likely that editorial material on Brexit would be abundant to source an empirical investigation. However, several steps had to be fulfilled to conduct the investigation, such as “building a corpus, cleaning and tagging the corpus” (Jones, 2012, p. 78). Because there was no database from which editorials could be retrieved, building the corpora was tedious because the editorials had to be copied and pasted into Microsoft Word directly from the newspapers. Further, the text analysis software Text Inspector (Weblingua Ltd, n.d.) was used (see Appendix C) to assist with the tagging because it automatically codes metadiscourse markers. However, this website merely guided the coding process because it is inconsistent (Bax et al., 2019), as the example in Appendix C shows with must marked as an attitude marker instead of a booster (see Table 3 in Zarza, 2018). Therefore, the tagging mostly involved reading each editorial and individually noting the linguistic features to ensure consistency in the results. The subsequent step adopted the corpus software AntConc (Anthony, 2022) for generating word frequencies using the Word tool and for investigating specific linguistic items in their sentential

Results & Discussion:

Thus far, it has been argued that Brexit increased the polarisation of the British public. With divisive sentiments being demonstrated from the Brexit campaign (see Wenzl, 2019), it was inevitable that the media outlets would convey their position, thereby taking on a partisan role (Moore & Ramsay, 2017, p. 164). One way the editorials of the DML and DMR adopt this role is through their ideological representation of the 'other', which here are those who voted Leave or Remain. Thus, Table 1 demonstrates how the newspapers use labels to refer to 'Them'. DML refers to the supporters of Remain through the labels Bremoaners, Doommongers, Europhiles, Remain campaigners, Remain camp, Remain supporters, and Whingers. Conversely, DMR refers to the supporters of Leave through the labels Leave liars, Brexiteers, Leavers, Leave camp, and The quitters. Fundamentally, these examples are what Molek-Kozakowska and Chovanec (2017) consider as an act of "othering" whereby the differences of others are discursively expressed (p. 3). Therefore, the editorials can distinguish the newspapers they represent from others by engaging in an othering act (i.e., a polarisation strategy). In accomplishing this, the newspapers can be seen as a reliable source for the readership that aligns with their view on Brexit, be it Leave or Remain.

The Strategy of Polarisation in the two Newspapers.

Note. The left-hand column of each newspaper contains the dates of the editorials that contain the labels. These labels are displayed in the right-hand column of each newspaper.

These word choices are important because they express “value judgement(s)” that constitute opinions (van Dijk, 1998, p. 31) and these opinions themselves constitute ideology provided that they integrate “groups and conflicting groups interests” (p. 29). The DML, for example, flouts the interests of the Remain group by using labels such as Bremoaners. According to Macmillan Dictionary (n.d.), the label refers to those who want the UK to remain in the EU. However, it has a more negative connotation than this because moaner denotes someone who complains about something not considered important by others (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-c). Accordingly, the DML dismisses the Remain position, as evident in the sarcastic proposition in Example 1. Conversely, the DMR flouts the interests of the Leave group by using labels such as Leave liars. In using this label, the DMR is attempting to draw attention to supposed falsehoods in the arguments of the Leave group, as is apparent in the proposition in

Example 2. These labels could reflect how Brexit discourse is challenged because by conceptualising the opposing side negatively, the editorials dismiss the entire opposing position. In the process of challenging the discourse, it may be that, from a CDA perspective, ideology is expressed to “promote the interests” of groups (Flowerdew & Richardson, 2018, p. 3; see Tables E1 & E2 in Appendix E for more propositions containing labels). Propositions by the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror:

(1) “ …our grossly disproportionate handouts to the EU’s foreign aid programmes, and the debts owed to us by Brussels rapidly mount up. Indeed, to pluck a figure from the air, you could say they come to well over £50billion. Would the Bremoaners –and Britain’s negotiators – please bear this in mind, before they quote Mr Barnier’s fantasies as gospel?” (Daily Mail, December 21st , 2016)

(2) “People didn’t vote for prices to go up in the shops or the pound to crash, yet that is what we’re getting instead of the mythical £350million a week for the NHS dangled by the Leave liars.”

(Daily Mirror, October 28th , 2016)

Overall, the investigation into these labels demonstrates the emergence of what Lalić-Krstin and Silaški (2019) refer to as “Brexit-induced neologisms” in Brexit discourse (p. 225). LalićKrstin and Silaški (2019) and Lutzky and Kehoe (2019) also discover similar linguistic items through their investigation into Brexit discourse. They both list new word formations derived from the main term Brexit. From a linguistic perspective, Kelly (2016) suggests that the term Brexit, being a blend itself, invited new word formations through prefixes and suffixes. Although the attention is not on the grammatical rules of word formations, these neologisms are important because they perform functions that strengthen the editorial influence, such as involving humour to “mock”, “ridicule”, or “undermine” the opposition (Lalić-Krstin and Silaški, 2019, p. 230, see Tables E1-2 of Appendix E).

Metadiscourse Markers:

It was posited earlier that editorials might also challenge the political opinions of their readers through interpersonal metadiscourse markers. By employing these markers, the editorials reveal how the writer orients to both the content of the writing and the readers (Hyland, 1998, 2004a). Therefore, as discussed earlier, writers form a connection with their readers through intrinsically interactive writing, a sign of the processes that occur when writers take a stance. Considering this, the researcher demonstrates how stance is revealed with examples 1-10 of metadiscourse markers (for more examples, see Tables F1-4 in Appendix F & Tables G1-5 in Appendix G). As AntConc was used to reveal word frequencies for all the types of metadiscourse markers (except for relational markers), the examples below represent the most frequent markers in the editorials of DML and DMR.

Beginning with emphatics, must emerged as the most frequent in the two newspapers. As these markers display confidence and certainty in one’s assertions (Hyland, 1998, 2004a; Zarza, 2018), must serves to strengthen each newspaper’s arguments on Brexit. However, according to Zarza (2018), the ability of editorials to influence thought decreases with opinion-driven propositions as opposed to fact-driven propositions. Thus, must is being used to validate opinions as knowledge. As example 1 shows, DML attempts to demonstrate their knowledge of the unfavourable position of Remain. Conversely, DMR, in example 2, attempts to shed light on the losses that Britain could face due to the Leave position.

Emphatics:

Daily Mail:

1) “For the increasingly bitter Remainers, these figures must be a huge concern, as they campaign to keep Britain inside the single market.” (December 2nd , 2016)

Daily Mirror:

2) “Whatever the Brexiteers say, we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it. But we must be careful not to allow our cake to be thrown in the bin before we have even taken a bite.” (April 2nd , 2017)

Unlike emphatics, hedges display less certainty or confidence in one’s assertions (Hyland, 2004a). Similar to the case for emphatics, would emerged as the most frequent in both newspapers, as examples 3 and 4 demonstrate. Both examples attempt to make a statement about the outcome of the opposing vote in a non-committed way, which ultimately decreases accountability for the propositions of the newspapers if the reverse is discovered true (Zarza, 2018).

Hedges:

Daily Mail:

3) “For the first time in over 40 years the British government would be free to decide who should be allowed to cross our borders… ” (October 3rd , 2016)

Daily Mirror:

4) “There is no doubt that breaking the economic partnership with nations across the Channel would inevitably create tremors… ” (May 22nd , 2016)

One of the most frequent attitude markers for DML was embittered, whereas, for DMR, one of the most frequent was important. Essentially, these markers denote the “affective attitude” towards the proposition (Hyland, 1998, p. 444). For instance, example 5 references the ‘other’ negatively with the adjective embittered, as it refers to feelings of anger due to experiencing unfortunate situations (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-a). In addition, because the adjective important assigns value and necessity to propositions (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.-b), example 6 attaches significance to the apparent dangers of Brexit in the hands of the then prime minister, Theresa May. Attitude Markers: Daily Mail:

5) “In another bad day for embittered Remain campaigners, more cheering signs emerged that our post-Brexit future may be far brighter… ” (August 19th , 2016)

Daily Mirror:

6) “We urgently need to take back control of Brexit when the future prosperity and security of our country is far too important a question to be left to an unelected Prime Minister… ” (October 28th, 2016)

The following metadiscourse markers are important as they demonstrate the interactive quality of editorials. That is, person markers include the readers in the arguments of the editorials. For instance, example 7 shows that the possessive determiner our was most frequent in DML, whereas example 8 shows that the firstperson plural pronoun we was most frequent in DMR. Using these markers, the writer assigns a role to others that makes them a part of the proposition (Breeze, 2015; Thompson & Thetela, 1995). Accordingly, the readers of the editorials may be unconsciously persuaded into siding with the arguments that challenge the ‘other’ and, by extension, siding with the Remain or Leave position.

Person Markers:

Daily Mail:

7) “Not for the first time in our history, Britain has lit a beacon to inspire millions across Europe who feel ignored, disdained and oppressed by ruling elites.” (June 30th , 2016)

Daily Mirror:

8) “Brexit deal cannot possibly be everything we hope for – that’s if we get a deal at all. We are not being remoaners, but realists.” (April 2nd , 2017)

Relational markers are another way the editorials channel the readers’ position on Brexit because the markers actively draw the attention of or incorporate readers in the text through linguistic devices such as questions, pronouns, and imperatives (Hyland, 1998; Le, 2004). Both examples 9 and 10 demonstrate this with second-person pronouns in the phrases you could say and you can hear. The presence of you is notable because this pronoun is typically associated with casual language. However, Breeze (2015) notes a shift to informal language in media discourse while discussing a corpus of The Guardian's editorials. Although there are many reasons for this change (see Talbot, 2007), it generally indicates the persuasive function of making the readers a part of the arguments in editorials.

Relational Markers:

Daily Mail: 9) “you could say they come to well over £50 billion.” (December 21st , 2016)

Daily Mirror: 10)“You can hear exactly the same conversations… ” (February 1st , 2017)

Overall, the results reveal how the newspapers challenge the political narrative through their editorials. The polarisation strategy and the metadiscourse enable the editorials to refute the arguments or the position of ‘Them’, thereby conveying the newspapers’ ideological position. However, this conclusion is somewhat problematic because the language used may not necessarily represent the true nature of their ideology despite the idea that opinions are affected by ideology. As van Dijk (1998) claims, opinions conveyed result from the attitudes of groups arranged by ideologies. Thus, the fundamental question is what occurs when ideology meets text because, as Hall (2006) argues, ideology and language are two separate constructs. Two ideologies may be expressed in the same language (e.g., the socialist notion of freedom differs from the liberal notion of freedom, p. 396). Furthermore, having revealed the language in the editorials, one might expect that this suggests something about the genre of newspaper editorials, contributing to the Genre Analysis field as it is interested in revealing the language commonly used in specific types of text (Biber, 2010; Jones, 2012). However, because the data comprises a small number of editorials from a specific period based on a specific topic, it cannot be confirmed whether the results represent editorials or are purely coincidental. As Jones (2012) states, making generalisations is more feasible when the data size increases. Therefore, the researcher calls on other researchers to expand on this study by analysing more newspaper editorials on different socio-political topics.

Conclusion:

This study conducted a comparative investigation into the editorials of DMR and DML to reveal the language associated with Brexit. From a CDA perspective, this was important because editorials are powerful mechanisms for channelling public opinion. It was thought that the newspapers would exercise this by using polarisation strategies. Accordingly, the paper demonstrates the use of labels associated with the ‘other’ (e.g., Bremoaner). This is a noteworthy finding given that new word formations have emerged in media discourse on Brexit, displaying creative use of language to influence readers (Lalić-Krstin & Silaški, 2019). In addition, the paper also reveals how editorials connect the readers in their arguments using metadiscourse markers. In particular, the interactive markers (e.g., relational markers) highlight a shift towards informalisation in media discourse (Breeze, 2015). However, as posited earlier, it cannot be confirmed whether such results are generalisable; thus, more research is necessary.

References:

Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.0.5) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2015.07.003 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3653385/Liesgreedy-elites-divided-dying-Europe-Britain-great-futureoutside-broken-EU.html https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mirror-backingremain-sake-great-8251613 https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0021 https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2000v25n4a1178

Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79–95.

Bennett, S. (2019). Values as tools of legitimation in EU and UK Brexit discourses. In V. Koller, S. Kopf & M. Miglbauer (Eds.), Discourses of Brexit (pp. 17-31). Routledge.

Biber, D. (2010). What can a corpus tell us about registers and genres? In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp. 241-254). Routledge.

Breeze, R. (2015). “Or so the government would have you believe”: Uses of “you” in Guardian editorials. Discourse, Context & Media, 10, 36–44.

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-a). Embittered. In Cambridge Dictionary.com. Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/embittered Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-b). Important. In Cambridge Dictionary.com. Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/important Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.-c). Moaner. In Cambridge Dictionary.com. Retrieved January 5, 2023, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moaner Cap, P. (2019). ‘Britain is full to bursting point!’: immigration themes in the Brexit discourse of the UK Independence Party. In V. Koller, S. Kopf & M. Miglbauer (Eds.), Discourses of Brexit (pp. 69-85). Routledge. Cook, G. (2005). The discourse of advertising. Taylor & Francis eLibrary.

Daily Mail. (2016, June 22). DAILY MAIL COMMENT: If you believe in Britain, vote Leave. Lies, greedy elites and a divided, dying Europe - why we could have a great future outside a broken EU.

Daily Mirror. (2016, June 22). Why the Mirror is backing Remain for the sake of our great nations.

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. (pp. 139-182). John Benjamins Pub.

Du Bois, J. W., & Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32(4), 433–451.

Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (2018). Introduction. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 1-10). Routledge.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge.

Garrett, P., & Bell, A. (1998). Media and discourse: A critical overview. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 1-20). Blackwell Publishers.

Greenberg, J. (2000). Opinion discourse and canadian newspapers: The case of the Chinese “Boat People”. Canadian Journal of Communication, 25(4), 517–537.

Hall, S. (2006). The whites of their eyes. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader (2nd ed., pp. 396-406). Routledge.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–

455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402000230 https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/06/why-has-brexitsparked-an-explosion-of-wordplay.html

Hyland, K. (2004a). Disciplinary interactions: metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(2), 133–151.

Hyland, K. (2004b). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.

Jones, R. H. (2012). Discourse analysis: a resource book for students. Routledge.

Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (2002). The slant of the news: How editorial endorsements influence campaign coverage and citizens’ view of candidates. American Political Science Review, 96(2), 381–394.

Kelly, J. (2016, June 29). Branger. Debression. Oexit. Zumxit. Why did Brexit trigger a Brexplosion of wordplay? Slate.

Koller, V., Kopf, S., & Miglbauer, M. (2019). Introduction: context, history and previous research. In V. Koller, S. Kopf & M. Miglbauer (Eds.), Discourses of Brexit (pp. 1-13). Routledge.

Lalić-Krstin, G., & Silaški, N. (2019). ‘Don’t go Brexin’ my heart’: The ludic aspects of Brexit-induced neologisms. In V. Koller, S. Kopf & M. Miglbauer (Eds.), Discourses of Brexit (pp. 222236). Routledge.

Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: metadiscourse and editorialist’s authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(4), 687–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03782166(03)00032-8

Lutzky, U., & Kehoe, A. (2019). ‘Friends don’t let friends go Brexiting without a mandate’: changing discourses of Brexit in The Guardian. In V. Koller, S. Kopf & M. Miglbauer (Eds.), Discourses of Brexit (pp. 104-120). Routledge.

Macmillan Dictionary. (2017). Bremoaner. In Macmillan Dictionary.com. Retrieved January 4, 2023, from https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/brem oaner https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.09.009 https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-029 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00157-9 https://textinspector.com/workflow https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103 van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.), Approaches to media discourse (pp. 21-63). Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00184-6 https://doi.org/10.25079/ukhjss.v2n1y2018.pp41-51

Masroor, F., & Ahmad, U. K. (2017). Directives in English language newspaper editorials across cultures. Discourse, Context & Media, 20, 83–93.

Molek-Kozakowska, K., & Chovanec, J. (2017). Media representations of “other” Europeans: Common themes and points of divergence. In J. Chovanec & K. MolekKozakowska (Eds.), Representing the Other in European media discourses (pp. 1-22). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Moore, M., & Ramsay, G. (2017). UK media coverage of the 2016 EU Referendum campaign. King’s College London.

Partington, A., & Marchi, A. (2015). Using corpora in discourse analysis. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (p. 216-234). Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: an approach from critical discourse analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.

Rone, J. (2021). “Enemies of the people”? Diverging discourses on sovereignty in media coverage of Brexit. British Politics.

Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse: Representation and interaction. Edinburgh University Press. Weblingua Ltd. (n.d.). Text Inspector. Text Inspector.com.

Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text & Talk, 15(1), 103–128.

Wenzl, N. (2019). ‘This is about the kind of Britain we are’: national identities as constructed in parliamentary debates about EU membership. In V. Koller, S. Kopf & M. Miglbauer (Eds.), Discourses of Brexit (pp. 32-47). Routledge.

Westin, I., & Geisler, C. (2002). A multi-dimensional study of diachronic variation in British newspaper editorials. ICAME Journal, 26, 133-152.

Woollen, C. (2022). The space between leave and remain: archetypal positions of British parliamentarians on Brexit. British Politics, 17(1), 97–116.

Zarza, S. (2018). Hedging and boosting the rhetorical structure of English newspaper editorials. UKH Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 41–51.

Appendix B: The Daily Mirror Corpus

Details on the Daily Mirror Corpus.

Obama makes case for Britain staying in the EU better than any of our politicians road lies ahead as the Prime Minister talks tough on Brexit fool dismiss the role of the EU in keeping the peace for Britain means broken unless the PM involves the public, unions, MPs and businesses in her

August 4th , 2016

The Bank of England cutting interest rates shows how quickly Brexit has affected us https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/voicemirror-bank-england-cutting-8565001.amp

234

July 2nd, 2016

Brexit and the holy grail of 'democracy' has left the country in turmoil https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexitholy-grail-democracy-left-8337464

396

February 2nd , 2017

Brexit backlash in store for Theresa May when voters realise it will make little difference to immigration https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexitbacklash-store-theresa-voters-9747716

246

April 2nd, 2017

Brexit deal cannot possibly be everything we hope for – that’s if we get a deal at all https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexitdeal-cannot-possibly-everything-10142880

439

February 1st , 2017

MPs still in Brexit bind as MPs face remain backlash https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/voicemirror-mps-still-brexit-9741887

241 Total: 4,856

Appendix https://textinspector.com/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4011816/DAILY-MAILCOMMENT-Surely-means-t-stop-Brexit-now.html

Yellow: Emphatics (boosters)

Blue: Hedges

“Surely this means they can’t stop Brexit now

Last night's resounding 372 Commons majority calling on ministers to trigger Brexit before the end of March must surely put the matter beyond doubt.

Indeed, it would be perverse in the extreme if the Supreme Court were now to rule that the timing of withdrawal must go back to Parliament, giving die-hard Bremoaner MPs and unelected peers a chance to sabotage a policy backed by 17.4million voters.

As the court's president Lord Neuberger put it before last night's vote, with studied understatement: 'It would be a bit surprising if the Referendum Act and referendum had no effect in law.'

Acutely, he added that the average person would think it 'a bit odd' if his court ruled that an Act of Parliament was needed to trigger Brexit, after both Houses had, in his own words, 'ceded authority to the people'. Fingers crossed, his fellow judges may yet come to the same conclusion.

Indeed, the real mystery is how 89 MPs had the appalling arrogance to dismiss the public's verdict by voting against the Government last night.

True, with their pretensions to independence – and a Remain majority north of the border – it is perhaps understandable that 51 Scottish Nationalist MPs refused to respect UK voters' demand for Brexit.

But as for the rest, who sit for English and Welsh constituencies, how can they look the electorate in the eye after delivering such an insult to democracy?”

Appendix D: Corpus-Assisted Discourse Analysis in AntConc (Examples of the Daily Mirror Corpus)

Searching Strategies of Polarisation using the Key-Word-In-Context (KWIC) Tool in AntConc.

Searching Strategies of Polarisation using the File Tool in AntConc.

Figure D3. Searching Metadisourse Markers using the Key-Word-In-Context (KWIC) Tool in AntConc

Searching Metadiscourse Markers using the File Tool in AntConc

Searching the Frequencies of Metadiscourse Markers using the Word Tool in AntConc.

Appendix E: Strategy of Polarisation in the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror.

Table E1. Strategies of Polarisation in the Daily Mail.

1 Bremoaners

“…our grossly disproportionate handouts to the EU’s foreign aid programmes, and the debts owed to us by Brussels rapidly mount up. Indeed, to pluck a figure from the air, you could say they come to well over £50billion. Would the Bremoaners – and Britain’s negotiators – please bear this in mind, before they quote Mr Barnier’s fantasies as gospel?”

2 Remain campaigners “In another bad day for embittered Remain campaigners more cheering signs emerged that our post-Brexit future may be far brighter than the doom-mongers would have us believe.”

3 Doom-mongers

4 Remain camp

“But don’t such cheering signs cast yet more doubt on the relentless doom-mongering of the Remain camp and its ‘expert’ hangers-on?”

5 Remain supporters

“This suggests that by continuing to fret and carp about the referendum result, Remain supporters are actively damaging their own, as well as Britain’s, financial prospects. They need to get a grip.”

6 Whingers

“Day after day, endless airtime is given to these whingers, who trot out unsubstantiated claims that Britain will fall into an economic abyss if we leave the single market.”

7 Europhiles

“…they suggested, most voters were too stupid, deluded or ‘hate-filled’ to know what they were doing – while only europhiles were clever enough to understand the issues.”

Table E2. Strategies of Polarisation in the Daily Mirror.

No. of Daily Mirror Example

Lexical Items in Reference to “Them” Propositions (through KWIC)

1

• Leave liars

“People didn’t vote for prices to go up in the shops or the pound to crash, yet that is what we’re getting instead of the mythical £350million a week for the NHS dangled by the Leave liars.”

2

3

• Brexiteers “Whatever the Brexiteers say, we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it.”

• Leave camp

4

• The quitters

5

• Leavers

“The Leave camp is running out of time to make a coherent case.”

“The quitters are unlikely to gain credibility if they ask their major supporter, Russia’s new Tsar Vladimir Putin, for a public endorsement.”

“The Leavers who won the referendum didn’t vote to lose their jobs…”

Appendix F: Metadiscourse in the Daily Mail Editorials.

Table F1.

Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Daily Mail Editorials.

“For the increasingly bitter Remainers, these figures must be a huge concern, as they campaign to keep Britain inside the single market.”

“…while only europhiles were clever enough to understand the issues.”

“Indeed, the Brexit victory has inspired dozens of demands for referendums”

“

Of course there will be difficult times ahead, but we will weather them much more successfully if the country rolls up its sleeves and moves forward together.”

“They claim to be standing up for democracy but in fact they are flouting it.”

“Surely this means they can’t stop Brexit now.”

“But don’t such cheering signs cast yet more doubt on the relentless doom-mongering of the Remain camp...”

“In any objective view, it is immediately clear that if money is owing to either side after Brexit...”

“the UK has a far stronger claim to reimbursement than Brussels.”

“Remain supporters are actively damaging their own, as well as Britain’s, financial prospects.”

“For the first time in over 40 years the British government would be free to decide who should be allowed to cross our borders…”

“...more cheering signs emerged that our post-Brexit future may be far brighter than the doom-mongers have us believe.”

Table F2. Continued.

“Mrs May announced she would trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins the formal process of quitting the EU, before the end of March. Two years later – if not before –we could be out.”

“… with their pretensions to independence – and a Remain majority north of the border – it is perhaps understandable that 51 Scottish Nationalist MPs refused to respect UK voters' demand for Brexit.”

“If only they had offered David Cameron the slightest meaningful reform, the vote might have gone the other way.”

“In another bad day for embittered Remain campaigners, more cheering signs emerged that our post-Brexit future may be far brighter…”

“These arrogant anti-democrats – all members of the self-serving political elite – will try to slow up or torpedo every piece of Brexit legislation.”

“As it was, they suggested, most voters were too stupid, deluded or ‘hate-filled’ to know what they were doing – while only europhiles were clever enough to understand the issues.”

“Remain supporters – led by the Prime Minister –have tried to portray those who want to leave the EU as dishonest, deluded, or downright mad.”

“These contemptible wreckers are in total denial about the referendum result.”

“…also laying out an inspiring vision of Britain’s future after we become an independent sovereign country once more.”

“But don’t such cheering signs cast yet more doubt on the relentless doom-mongering of the Remain camp and its ‘expert’ hangers-on?”

“…die-hard Remainers are already quoting this sum as the received wisdom, as if it had any authority beyond the fevered imagination of Michel Barnier…”

“…isn't excuse

British-based firms stand to gain handsomely from

“How pathetic, but how typical, that die-hard Remainers are already quoting this sum as the received wisdom…”

“…isn't it contemptible to exaggerate the risks and exploit the uncertainty…”

“…the countries that stay behind in the EU, chained to a backward system collapsing under its bureaucracy, which have more to fear from the future.”

“Chancellor George Osborne sneeringly described Brexit campaigners as a bunch of conspiracy theorists…”

“…Remain supporters are actively damaging their own, as well as Britain’s, financial prospects.”

“Their arrogant message, delivered with an astonishing lack of self-awareness, was that the referendum would only have counted if they, the Remainers, had won.”

“How sickening, but how typical, that this antidemocratic message was echoed at the weekend…”

“Forget, too, that the EU’s accounts are so chaotic and corrupt that its own Court of Auditors has found them ‘materially affected by error’ every year since 1994.”

“Not for the first time in our history, Britain has lit a beacon to inspire millions across Europe who feel ignored, disdained and oppressed by ruling elites.”

“It is emphatically not racist – while acknowledging the huge contribution that migrants have made to this country – to question whether we can cope with the scale of numbers coming in now.”

“Above all, she offers an inspiring vision of the sort of country we can become when unshackled from the sclerotic Brussels machine that has held us back for so long: a Britain that is freer, more outward-looking, more prosperous and stronger than ever before.”

“By contrast, here is Mr Hilton’s positive case for getting out. ‘I believe it is [about] taking back power from arrogant, unaccountable, hubristic elites and putting it where it belongs – in people’s hands.’”

Relational Markers 42

“you could say they come to well over £50billion.” 43

“The next thing you know…”

Appendix G: Metadiscourse in the Daily Mirror Editorials.

Table G1.

Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in The Daily Mirror Editorials.

Metadisco

1 Must 18

“Whatever the Brexiteers say, we are not going to be able to have our cake and eat it. But we must be careful not to allow our cake to be thrown in the bin before we have even taken a bite.”

2 Only 9

“US President-elect Donald Trump’s declaration that Brexit will be successful is hollow, and only a fool could believe a billionaire American speculator would cut Britain a sweetheart deal.”

3 Need to 4 urse Markers No. Examples Freq. KWIC Boosters

“Treasury claims that Britain would be plunged into recession if we quit the EU are worrying calculations that need to be answered by the Leave camp.”

4 Moment ous 3

“And while the full economic impact of this momentous decision has yet to be felt, one thing is clear – we may have voted for a return of sovereignty but nobody voted to be poorer.”

5 Obvious 3

“We were told that would let us “take back control” but it’s obvious that no one is in control or knows how to get it.”

Table G2. Continued.

6 Finally 2

“…whoever takes over when David Cameron finally goes will push on blindly with Brexit without a clue what to do.”

7 In truth 1

“Leavers won the referendum by demanding we take back control of a Parliamentary sovereignty that in truth we never lost to Europe.”

Boosters

8 Let alone 1

“Unelected as Prime Minister by Tory members let alone the nation in a general election, May clearly intends to substitute with spin what she lacks in political legitimacy.”

9 No doubt 1

“There is no doubt that breaking the economic partnership with nations across the Channel would inevitably create tremors which, in the short term at least, may pose a serious threat to jobs, wages, house prices….”

10 Inevitably 1

“…breaking the economic partnership with nations across the Channel would inevitably create tremors…”

11 Merely 1

“Citing role models for Britain in countries as far removed as Albania, Norway, Canada and Switzerland merely muddy the waters.”

Hedges

12 Would 21

“There is no doubt that breaking the economic partnership with nations across the Channel would inevitably create tremors…”

13 May 11

“…breaking the economic partnership with nations across the Channel would inevitably create tremors which, in the short term at least, may pose a serious threat to jobs, wages, house prices, investment, industrial output, financial services and trade.”

14 Could 9

“David Cameron will hit the campaign trail and will warn Brexit could lead to World War Three.”

15 Might 3

You might think Theresa May would resist behaving like a tinpot dictator.

1

“We urgently need to take back control of Brexit when the future prosperity and security of our country is far too important a question to be left to an unelected Prime Minister…”

“…quitting the single market would jeopardise jobs, businesses and risk another fall in the value of the once-mighty pound.”

“Departing the European single market, an institution even Margaret Thatcher considered crucial, disrupting vital trade with our nearest neighbours, is a huge risk.”

“The country voted to leave the EU but, as Tony Blair argues forcefully, it makes no sense to agree to a house swap without first seeing the house you’ll be living in.”

“Brexit means many things to many people yet what is indisputable is May’s cluelessness about what it ultimately means for British jobs, prosperity and security.”

“The Leavers who won the referendum didn’t vote to lose their jobs, reduce the standard of living, destroy public services, jeopardise security and risk Britain’s place in the world.”

1

“…may pose a serious threat to jobs, wages, house prices…”

Table G5. Continued.

“Obama may have gilded the lily by declaring Britain would be at the “back of the queue” for US trade deals should we quit Europe but the warning is cataclysmic for the Brexit brigade.”

“Respected world leaders all believe Britain would be mad to turn its back on the EU…”

“The real concern is the Bank’s actions are a temporary dam which may not be able to withstand more torrential forces if the Government cannot negotiate a successful EU withdrawal.”

“Brexit deal cannot possibly be everything we hope for –that’s if we get a deal at all. We are not being remoaners, but realists.”

“Barack Obama makes case for Britain staying in the EU better than any of our politicians could.Voice of the Mirror says it's well worth listening to others when deciding our future on June 23 after the US President's visit.”

“Almost half of us are bracing for an economic slump as we quit the EU – but Brexiteers still have no regrets.”

2 “The choice is ours but it is well worth listening to others.

“You can hear exactly the same conversations…”

“You’d think the senior figures who worked…” 34

“You might think Theresa May would…” 35

“Let’s be honest…” 36

“Let us hope Prime Minister May will be able…”