Regarding the role of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in discovering the way ideology is crystalized through the prevalence of various discourses, the present study is an attempt to examine how the journalistic personal and institutional ideologies and political positions are realized through certain textual and intertextual features. Using Perrin's (2012) progression model, journalistic stancing with regard to the Iranian nuclear issue at three levels of micro, meso, and macro was investigated. The study of claims of unpeacefulness in the Western media texts under investigation reveals a systematic ideological bias towards portraying a negative presentation of Iranian nuclear policy. The Iranian journalists, however, tend to highlight the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear program and the West's double standards as well as Iran's efforts in order to come to a mutual agreement. Implications of the insights provided by the study for confirming the premises of CDA and applications of the findings for teaching are explained in brief.
Working within the appraisal framework (Martin & White, 2005), an attempt has been made to identify the dialogic positioning, by which texts can favor particular value positions while pretending to be sharing their readers' views through employment of certain lexical choices, hence stance markers. A set of Iranian and Western journalistic texts have been compared and contrasted to explore the ways Iranian and Western journalists employ such devices in the texts they develop for reporting the negotiations between Iran and 5+1 countries concerning the nuclear energy issues. Holding opposite positions regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, and employing different linguistic devices, both sides seem to have the same tendencies in this regard and made use of the contractively dialogic positioning more than the expansive one. The findings of the research indicate that media are a means in the hands of the powers in order to steer the public mind towards their favorite directions. In other words, events are not represented in the media as they are in reality, but go through journalistic practices.
This study aimed to investigate the impact of teacher type (native vs. non-native) on the oral performance of male intermediate English as a foreign language learners between the ages of 14 and 20 who possessed similar language proficiency levels. The participants were selected based on the results of a written test and an oral interview and were divided into two classes: one taught by a native speaker and the other by a non-native speaker. Following a -month treatment period, each learner was interviewed and their speech was recorded. The researchers analyzed the data for accuracy, fluency, and lexical complexity. The statistical analyses revealed that learners taught by the native-speaking teacher demonstrated greater fluency and lexical complexity in their oral production, while those taught by the non-native teacher showed greater accuracy in their spoken language production. These findings suggest that the teacher type has different effects on language learning outcomes. The implications of these results extend to policymakers, administrators, and those involved in the employment and training of language teachers in Iran.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.