Discourse

& Society
http://das.sagepub.com/

Actor analysis and action delegitimation of the participants involved in Iran's

nuclear power contention: A case study of The Economist
Alireza Rasti and Rahman Sahragard
Discourse Society 2012 23: 729
DOI: 10.1177/0957926512455380
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://das.sagepub.com/content/23/6/729

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Discourse & Society can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://das.sagepub.com/content/23/6/729.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 6, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

455380
2012

DAS23610.1177/0957926512455380Discourse & SocietyRasti and Sahragard

Article

Actor analysis and action

delegitimation of the
participants involved in Irans
nuclear power contention:
A case study of The Economist

Discourse & Society

23(6) 729748
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0957926512455380
das.sagepub.com

Alireza Rasti

Farhangian University, Iran

Rahman Sahragard
Shiraz University, Iran

Abstract
The present research aimed at spotting any possible biased coverage a typical Western newspaper
such as The Economist gives to the issue of Irans nuclear power program at large and specifically
to the way in which the main actors involved in the controversy are portrayed and the actions
thereof most notably, the act of delegitimating Irans nuclear program are represented. To
this end, a critical discourse analytic approach centered around Wodaks discursive strategies
and Van Leeuwens representational resources was applied to 23 argumentative articles of
The Economist, all dealing exclusively with Irans nuclear contention. The results showed that
the differential treatment the Western paper gave to the issue at hand, in terms of scope and
complexity, was in line with the advocated policy of the aforementioned paper, that is imposing
more sanctions on the country.

Keywords
Critical discourse analysis, delegitimation, discursive strategies, Irans nuclear program,
metaphor, social actors, The Economist, topoi

Corresponding author:
Alireza Rasti, 74817-85895, Entefazeh Street, Al-Zahra 1 Township, Darab, Fars, Iran.
Email: alirezarasti@ymail.com

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

730

Discourse & Society 23(6)

Introduction
From its very inception and disciplinary conception there have been some attempts
at defining and delimiting critical discourse analysis (henceforth, CDA), even though
most have been unable to come up with an all-encompassing formulation and description
of this rather recent movement in discourse analysis. CDA eludes being delimited or
pigeon-holed both as theory and practice. This is evident in the vast array of theoretical
orientations and methodologies employed by researchers from around the globe publishing in academically renowned journals. This is, in part, due to its now predominantly
interdisciplinary aims and undertaking. At the very least, scholars of nearly all the
humanities disciplines now trying their hands at its (joint) application have benefited
from insights and methods prevalent in other disciplines. Perhaps it would make more
sense to follow Van Dijks example in this regard by spelling out what critical discourse
analysis is not [italics added] (2001: 96). It is not a subject which lends itself so easily
and neatly to a lexicographers definition.
Rather, CDA is a critical perspective on doing scholarship: it is, so to speak, discourse
analysis with an attitude. It focuses on social problems, and especially on the role of discourse
in the production and reproduction of power abuse or domination. (2001: 96)

Indeed, this dimension of criticality is at the very heart of every theorization of CDA.
It is, in the words of Van Leeuwen, a uniting element of all CDA studies: What unites
critical discourse analysis is neither methodology nor theoretical orthodoxy, but a common goal: the critique of the hegemonic discourses and genres that effect inequalities,
injustices, and oppression in contemporary society (2009: 166). Van Dijks statement
aptly captures some of the main concerns of those working within one of the many CDA
frameworks. To begin with, to say that it focuses on social problems is indicative of the
social and political commitment of followers of such a paradigm. It implies, at the very
least, that it helps unfold some taken-for-granted aspects of a specific social or political
problem and, at the most, that it may come in handy in solving the problem, though necessarily gradually. Furthermore, it is committed to fighting the asymmetrical patterns of
power and ideological workings of discourse arising from the manipulative use of language. Discourses are, in a sense, responsible for favoring some groups or conceptions at
the cost of marginalizing others. And they make such differential treatment seem natural,
hence their intrinsically hegemonic nature. In light of this, CDAs mission is to defamiliarize or deconstruct hegemonic discourses and genres as alluded to above by Van Leeuwen.
Perhaps the most exploited area to which CDA has been applied in all its theoretical
and methodological variations to date has been that of the media be it broadcast or print
media. This is justifiable, to some extent, by its ubiquity and mans internal urge to be the
first to be put in the picture. Adopting a social constructionist approach to affairs and
issues in the humanities and social sciences, we can say that the media, despite their
claims of objectivity and fairness in rendering a true-to-life account of the events and
happenings in an ever-changing world, create their own versions of reality and make the
masses and even some elite groups see that reality through their eyes. Media reports cannot be inexorably innocent and value-free. Caldas-Coulthard seems to have captured this
point brilliantly when she says:

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

731

News is not a natural phenomenon emerging from facts in real life, but socially and culturally
determined. News producers are social agents in a network of social relations who reveal their
own stance towards what is reported. News is not the event, but the partial, ideologically framed
report [italics in the original] of the event. (2003: 274)

One of the most newsworthy issues of the last decade or so has undoubtedly been
Irans nuclear contention. It has been an issue of global interest and reception, and has
often hit the headlines or been included in sound bites. Different media have given (different) coverage to and interpretation of it. It can be maintained that alongside the political struggle between Iran and the West, there has also been a verbal tug-of-war over the
issue, with some voices trying to rationalize Irans nuclear activities and others seeking
to render it as an act of defiance. However, as far as the (re)search of the authors of this
study is concerned, few systematic CD analytic studies of it have been undertaken by
researchers and scholars in the various relevant fields. In the words of Jones (2010: 127),
critical discourse scholars have been relatively silent on the matter. It should be hoped,
initially, that further studies like the one already carried out can spark sound scholarly
discussions and analyses of this very rich yet relatively unexplored arena of investigation
and shed some new light on a highly newsworthy issue.
As far as the coverage of Irans nuclear program and contentions over it in the media
are concerned, the study, initially, aims at spotting any possible black-and-white depiction of the main parties involved as seen through the eyes of a highly-circulated Western
quality newspaper (The Economist), with the hypothetical question being whether it
under-represents the deeds of the Iranian camp. It further aims at detailing how language
at various levels of use helps justify the actions of the party it ideologically takes sides
with and how, in the course of events, it plays down the actions of the opposing party.
In keeping with the above points, and having been inspired by Wodaks (2001) strategies of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, we advanced the following research questions, the answers to which the study aspires to provide through a
discussion of its analyses:
1. How are the social actors involved in Irans nuclear case nominated and/or evaluated in a typical Western paper (The Economist)? Which party/parties will the
patterns of nomination or predication (dis)favor?
2. How are the actions and/or reactions thereof in this particular regard, the act of
Irans seeking to avail itself of nuclear installations delegitimized?
3. How are the actions of the major agents perspectivated? In what ways is their
perspectivation mitigated or intensified?

A brief history of Irans nuclear program

Iran launched its nuclear undertaking during the reign of the former Shah. Shah Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi, who was on friendly terms with the West, was determined to make that dream
come true in the mid-1960s. The American government, during the Shahs reign, helped
with the establishment of a Tehran-based research institute later that decade. The Shahs
plan to build 23 nuclear power reactors by the 1990s was regarded as grandiose (Squassoni,

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

732

Discourse & Society 23(6)

2006: 1) but not deemed as dangerous as it is now in the hands of his successors. The
country was also quick to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on 1 July 1968. The
treaty aims generally at foiling any attempts at the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons
technology, to foster the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving general and complete disarmament (International Atomic Energy Agency, n.d.: 1).
By the time of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and its resultant overthrow of the Shahs
regime, a West German company, committed to completing Bushehr nuclear plant in the
south of Iran, had withdrawn from its contract, and Irans further attempts to get the
unfinished project taken care of by various other countries came to nothing. The country
apparently did not resume the reconstruction of its nuclear sites during the eight-year war
its western neighbor (Iraq) waged on it two years after the Islamic Revolution.
After the war, no sign of Irans pursuing of nuclear efforts was in evidence when an
opposition group (the National Council of Resistance of Iran) in August 2002 revealed that
Iran was trying its hand at undeclared nuclear activities (Squassoni, 2006: 1). Ever since
the disclosing of this fact by the said group, Irans nuclear program has been in the foreground, with the West trying to put a curb on the countrys ever-growing nuclear capabilities, buttressed in particular by Russia, and Iran insisting time and time again on the peaceful
nature of its nuclear activities. The waters have been further muddied following a series of
events, including the September 11 attacks on American citizens which spurred sentiments
of Islamaphobia, especially in the Western hemisphere; the revelation in September 2009 of
another uranium enrichment plant near the sacred city of Qom; and President Ahmadinejads
explicitly stated anti-Western policies and orientations. Currently, the countrys nuclear
undertaking is out on a limb, notwithstanding sporadic talks between the parties involved
due to Israels continuous threats to bombard Irans nuclear installations.

A note on the method

Broadly speaking, the methodology observed in this piece of research falls into the socalled cover-term category of qualitative research. More specifically, it belongs to the
recent category of (qualitative) CDA as one notable type of the socially committed
research. Such a method targets (social) problems brought off by the injudicious use of
language (Bloor and Bloor, 2007: 2), whose findings aim at being of use and practical
relevance to society at large.
As far as the present study is concerned, the reason for the qualitative strand of discourse analysis rather than the traditionally quantitative one here is the justification that
it is supposed to yield a more in-depth analysis of the relevant data. As such, during the
course of interpreting the data under consideration, emergent patterns detected in them
are given followed by excerpts in support of and for the purpose of elucidation of those
patterns to be taken up by thick analyses of those excerpts. It is hoped that such a
method of analysis sheds newer light on the results of the study.

The nature of the data

The data used for analysis in the study come from the British newspaper The Economist.
Altogether, the study is predicated on an aggregate of 23 articles taken from The

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

733

Economist, published between 2007 and 2010. As previously stated, analysis of the
media in general and of the press in particular is accorded much significance within various CD analytic frameworks. This is because the media are not responsible solely for
shaping public discourse; rather, they also function as channeling the discourse-producing
and legitimation-seeking voices of other elites. Van Dijks account of the dependence of
other elites on the media in this particular regard is quite illuminating:
The power of the media is not defined only by their broad ideological influence on their
audiences. . . . [A]s institutions, broadcast organizations, television networks, and newspapers,
they also participate in complex networks of elite organizations or other powerful social actors.
Due to the specific and nearly exclusive role of the mass media in communication and the
production of the public discourse, other elites need the media to inform both the public at large
and each other, to exercise their power, to seek legitimation, and to manufacture consensus and
consent. Modern political and corporate power is unthinkable without having recourse to such
mass-mediated processes of their own reproduction. This means that despite their dependence
on other, for example, political, corporate, academic, and social elites, mass media institutions
have at least some means to control those other elites. (1993: 243)

No doubt The Economist as an elite paper has a part to play in the inculcation of the
ideologies of other elite institutions and persons. Apart from this, the choice of The
Economist articles as the object of study was driven by several other considerations.
Quite understandably, it is a Western quality paper targeting a vast audience across the
globe, hence its large circulation size. Likewise, the very fact that it is a Western paper
indicates that it is relevant to the purposes of the present study, which strives, inter alia, at
showing how Irans nuclear activities are delegitimated in typical Western press. Also, it
being a quality paper reveals its select audience. It aims at convincing, inter alia, an elite
circle of readers into accepting its ideology of imposing harsher sanctions on Iran. The
Economist does so, among other things, through the argumentative genre. The paper is
influential too in that it is more often than not cited or translated as a major source of news
all over the world. Finally, the stance taken by the newspaper, that is imposing further
limitations and embargoes on Iran to leave its nuclear activities, presupposes some sort of
delegitimation of Irans nuclear efforts. Last but not least, the choice of the aforementioned paper is motivated theoretically by its role in the reproduction and legitimation of
hegemonic discourses.
In conducting the present piece of research, the researchers availed themselves mostly
of the representational resources and tools of actor analysis as developed and applied by
Van Leeuwen (1996), the (de)legitimation categories as elaborated by him in his 2007
article, and the five discursive strategies of positive self-presentation and negative otherpresentation as developed within Wodaks discourse historical approach (DHA). The
choice and utilization of Van Leeuwens categories of analysis within Wodaks DHA is
justified by the fact that Wodaks model of discursive strategies, as stated by her (in
Reisigl and Wodak, 2001), in effect as far as her referential strategies are concerned, is in
part predicated on Van Leeuwens framework of actor analysis (1996). There are also
conceptual affinities between Wodaks argumentative strategies and Van Leeuwens justificatory tools. What is more, as a prolific writer, Wodak more often than not employs
Van Leeuwens analytical tools in her numerous investigations.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

734

Discourse & Society 23(6)

Social actor identification in the British newspaper data

After an initial investigation of the overall approach adopted and adapted by our study, it
would make sense to winnow out all the social actors portrayed in the British paper more
or less explicitly to see, at the very inception, the patterns of inclusion/exclusion. By
exclusion, we understand the radical exclusion as proposed by Van Leeuwen (1996).
It is a kind of exclusion which leave[s] no traces in the representation, excluding both
the social actors and their activities (1996: 39). The ways in which the parties included
in the data are nominated or represented will be elaborated on later. A thorough analysis
of the data yielded the following major social agents as inclusive:
Iran (represented mostly through the words and/or actions of President Ahmadinejad);
the West (realized mostly in the association of the USA and its major European
partners or via its institutions);
Russia (represented mostly negatively either as a meddler in Irans affairs or as an
opportunist, but at times associated with the Western camp whenever it goes for
sanctions against Iran);
China (mostly associated with Russia in its deeds or policies and therefore given
the image of an opportunist and an economic parasite);
mediative countries, for example Brazil and Turkey (represented as spannerthrowers or saboteurs in the way they help Iran out of harsher sanctions);
Israel (almost excluded from the discussions, yet, whenever it is mentioned, is
treated metonymically as a politically unanimous state which may act only in the
face of any threat from Iran);
the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) and its inspectors (mostly
positively evaluated except in cases when they are not set on being a challenge to
Iran);
the arguer(s) (belonging to the editorial staff of The Economist whose presence is
inferred through the argument they go for, namely placing harsher sanctions on
Iran to leave its nuclear efforts).
Also, the following minor agents were detected in the course of the data analysis
agents who carry significance in so far as they associate or dissociate with one of the two
camps of Iran or the West:
Hizbullah (represented as Irans puppet and a terrorist organization backed
strongly by Iran);
Hamas (represented as yet another puppet in Irans hands);
Iranian masses (realized only in passing in the form of the Iranian youth or bazzaris);
the Middle East (represented vaguely and quite negatively as a combustible region);
editorial writers of The Economist (named explicitly and represented as being far
from dreaming on);
Irans revolutionary guard (represented as defending the Iranian regime).
What was noticeable at this point in the study was the revelation that the ordinary
Iranian people were only marginally alluded to. This is a fact that seems strategically

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

735

vital to the interests of the said newspaper, as it argues for an issue on which the existence
of the Iranian masses depends critically (a point to which we will return later on in our
discussion).

Strategies of positive self-presentation and negative

other-presentation
According to Wodak (2001), the construction of insiders and outsiders is related to a
treatment of five broad categories of discursive strategies: how agents are named; what
qualities are ascribed to them/their actions what argumentation strategies are deployed
by/against them; how they are perspectivized vis-a-vis a certain aspect of reality; and
finally, how action is mitigated or intensified depending on the perspective taken towards
it. Since there is a large margin for overlap between the first two strategies (i.e. referential and predicational strategies) on the one hand, and the last two (i.e. perspectivization
of action and mitigation/intensification thereof) on the other, we synthesized the five
discursive strategies into three as formulated by our research questions. The
following is an application and discussion of the polarizing strategies of positive
self-presentation and negative other-presentation relating to the social actors and their
measures in our data.
It should be emphasized at the beginning of the discussion of referential/predicational
strategies that we have followed the example of Wodak in borrowing Van Leeuwens
analytic categories of action/actor representation as suits our treatment of the data a
powerful framework where the socio-semantic categories are not necessarily realized
linguistically; for example, passivization does not occur solely through the use of passive
voice. It can be realized in other ways, such as in the use of prepositional phrases, as in
the following example: The UN is after imposing sanctions on Iran (here, Iran is at the
receiving end of the action).

Patterns of referential and predicational strategies

An examination of the way the two main parties implicated in Irans nuclear issue,
namely Iran itself and the West, are represented in the data under consideration revealed
a polarizing dichotomy in terms of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation, where we of the West were portrayed positively as far as they stood for
stronger sanctions against Iran and they of the Iranian camp were associated with negative traits. Iran was portrayed, in effect, as a token of evil (in a way reminiscent of
George W. Bushs proclaimed axis of evil in his 2002 State of the Union address). Our
study revealed not a single virtue in the remarks or actions of the Iranian authorities, in
effect, the Iranian West-opposing president:
Excerpt 1
This weeks talks open the first formal, direct negotiations between America and Iran in 30
years. On the table, despite the violent clampdown after Irans stolen election which kept
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, is an offer from the six not just of diplomatic and trading
ties, and talks on regional security that would acknowledge Irans growing clout. If Iran tells

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

736

Discourse & Society 23(6)

inspectors the truth and curbs its most dangerous nuclear activities, there would also be
co-operation in other advanced nuclear technologies, including the civilian power-generation
that it claims to be its sole aim.

The above extract is representative of the many passages in the British paper which,
directly or indirectly, hold Iran accountable for a range of negative actions and atrocities
from fixing elections and tightening up to lying to and not cooperating with the IAEA
inspectors. This is shown through various linguistic and pragmatic devices which will be
elaborated on and exemplified in the (sub)sections to come.
On the other hand, in the treatment of countries or figures associated with the West, mixed
(critical) reception was found to occur. For instance, only those Western officials were lionized who took sides with the main line of the argument in the articles, that is the logic behind
imposing further limitations on Iran. Thus, American Stuart Levey, who was in charge of
making sure the sanctions were applied whole-heartedly, was praised while President Obama
was criticized for not giving his full attention to sanctions against Iran:
Excerpt 2
The UN Security Council had already slapped new sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend its
suspect nuclear work. That put once-friendly Russia and China in Irans bad books too, for
going along with the vote. Even Brazil and Turkey, clumsily trying to get some nuclear talks
going, tell Iran must show that its nuclear work is peaceful, as claimed . . .
Spearheading this is the United States Treasury Department, under a vigorous official called
Stuart Levey. Since 2007 financial intelligence on the deceptions practised by Irans banks and
firms has helped officials convince private companies around the world of the growing risk of
finding they have inadvertently supported Irans blacklisted nuclear or missile programme.

The above extract is typical of the many ways linguistically or otherwise employed
by the British paper to create an us (the West) versus them (Iran) ideological dichotomy. To borrow Van Leeuwens activation/passivization categories of action (1995)/
actor (1996) analysis, it can be said that in most cases in the data Iran is passivized visa-vis sanctions and activated in relation to a lack of compliance with the wishes of the
West. That is to say, Iran is activated with regards to deplorable acts and passivized in
relation to confidence-building activities and also to the force of sanctions against it.
This helps to represent Iran as a recalcitrant regime, yet a very weak one in the face of
sanctions, thus adding to the force of sanctions in bringing the regime to its heels.
To reinforce the construction of us versus them, the passage ascribes acts of criminality and double-dealing to Iran. Iranian banks (mostly those state-backed) and companies are said to be involved in deceptions and Irans nuclear work is said to be suspect.
The articles also indicate the possible force of the sanctions through a frequent use of
hit verbs (e.g. hit, slap, strike ) verbs belonging to the semantic field of hitting, as
is evident in the use of the verb slap here.
Another interesting pattern of representation happens in the case of Van Leeuwens
categories of association/dissociation. According to Van Leeuwen (1996: 50), association refers to groups formed by social actors and/or groups of social actors as juxtaposed against another group. Groups may be formed or unformed (dissociated) in a text

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

737

or body of texts. With regards to the data at hand, the association/dissociation pattern is
most notable where mention is made of the two countries of China and Russia. It is not
unusual for the two nations to associate with the West when they support (harsher) sanctions against Iran, and dissociate from the Western camp whenever they do not go for
the vote. In the latter case negative traits are attributed to them, whereas in the former
they are represented more positively or, at the very least, neutrally.
Aside from the analytic tools mentioned so far, whose occurrences are high, positive
self-presentation of the West and negative other-presentation of Iran is accentuated via
the use of conceptual metaphors metaphors which have been manipulatively employed
to add to the black-and-white portrayal of the parties involved. As such, they are far from
being as innocent as their use in literature is assumed to be. In the words of Goatly:
Metaphor is not a mere reflection of a pre-existing objective reality but a construction of
reality, through a categorization entailing the selection of some features as critical and others as
non-critical metaphors can consciously be used to construct reality. (1997: 5)

In short, metaphors are not out there to be used objectively. They are selectively used,
whether they are already in use or (re)constructed for the purposes of coloring ones
impression of a specific group or issue. The following are among the more frequently used
metaphors in the data analyzed, as far as the main social participants are concerned:
Dilution metaphor: this happens exclusively in the case of Russia and China.
Here, the two countries are represented as watering down sanctions on Iran. In
such cases, they are dissociated from the West:
Excerpt 3
Other critics despair at the way harsh Western plans were watered down by China and Russia,
keen to protect their own industries and squeamish about taking on Iran. (emphasis added)

Trading metaphor: parties involved in nuclear talks over Irans case are depicted as
involved in actions such as haggling and bargaining; at times, Irans dealing with
the world over its nuclear program is shown as incurring high costs on its regime:
Excerpt 4
Military strikes could interrupt Irans nuclear effort, but the gains are as uncertain as the costs.

Legalizing metaphor: this adds to the image of Iran as a country involved in acts
of criminality. Here, Iran is given the image of a culprit deserving to be punished
for its rule-breaking and suspect nuclear and missile activities; it is also shown
to be under custody of the IAEA.
Metaphor of pressure: sanctions are said to squeeze Iran and they are supposed
to be tighter.
Parasite metaphor: Russia and China are insinuated to be in a state of parasitical
relation with Iran.
Metaphor of pain/violence/attack: sanctions are represented as hurting or biting:

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

738

Discourse & Society 23(6)

Excerpt 5
More painful sanctions, then, are the only sensible alternative to leaving Iran to enrich its way
to the dangerous point where it can declare it has a bomb.

Animalizing metaphor (with Iran depicted as the weaker animal and the West or
the institutes thereof depicted as the stronger ones): the IAEAs image as the UN
watchdog (heedful of Irans suspect nuclear activities); Iran as a cat (to be
chased by a dog); Irans president is said to be cocky.
Youth/old age metaphor: Irans revolution is said to be decrepit and in crying need
of being rejuvenated; Irans oil installations are also further portrayed as decrepit.
Playing/gambling metaphor: nuke talks parties are represented to be involved in
games of chess, billiards, etc. (e.g. the new American president is seen as fumbling
at men).
Double-dealing metaphor: Iran is shown as fixing elections or laying its hands in
the black market (see excerpt 2 above for one such metaphorical usage).
Body parts metaphor: this is most remarkable in two cases: in Ahmadinejads
representation and in mediative countries depictions (e.g. Ahmadinejad is seen as
a clench-fisted president evoking head-scratching reactions in others).
Metaphor of time and hourglass: Iran is represented as killing time in negotiations
to speed up making the bomb.
Metaphor of building/window/gate: Iran is shown as keeping itself to itself in a
house with a window still open to negotiations; and in the emergence of Iran as
a nuclear gate-crasher.
Metaphor of racing: Iran is depicted as a racer nearing the finishing line to become
a new atomic power in the world. Such metaphors intensified by and used in joint
combination with spatializing or fast-forwarding metaphors add to the sense of
urgency and Iran-phobia created by the British newspaper.
Fire metaphor: Iran is depicted as working secretly in the combustible Caucasian
region or its president is described as being fiery.
Such metaphors are mainly used in referring to and ascribing negative qualities to Iran
or countries deemed as unwanted by the West. As such, they are far from being innocent,
since we observe their combination with evaluative adjectives or words as having
negative connotative meanings:
Excerpt 6
Beaming like cats at the cream, a posse of Iranians went to Januarys World Economic Forum
in Davos claiming a double vindication. Had not America itself now said that Iran had no
weapons programme? Was not Iran about to give the IAEA the answers it needed to close its
file? In circumstances like these, purred Irans foreign minister, there was no case for new
sanctions, not even the light slap Russia and China prefer.
. . . Some countries, it is true, are allowed to enrich uranium without any fuss. The reason for
depriving Iran of what it calls this right is a history of deception that led the IAEA to declare it
out of compliance with its nuclear safeguards. So it is essential that Mr Elbaradeis desire to end

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

739

this confrontation does not now tempt him to gloss over the many unanswered questions. With a
lame duck in the White House and sanctions unraveling, Iran really would be home free then.

In this passage, Iran is given a feline image (an animalizing metaphor). This is realized in the explicit comparison of Iranians to cats and the use of an out of the extraordinary reporting verb to quote the remark of Irans foreign minister (purred). With regards
to the data under consideration, this metaphorical pattern gains significance in two ways:
time and time again the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) is represented through the metaphorical compound watchdog, which is due to do its actual job
of sniffing out the details of Irans nuclear activities (emphasis added). It is true that the
IAEAs former chief, Elberadei, and his inspectors are criticized in some cases (the latter
flanked as going for putting less pressure on Iran and the former as saying that Iran has
ended its potentially weapon-useable nuclear activities); all the same, in the majority of
cases they are shown as being on guard vis-a-vis Irans nuclear activities which are said
to be clandestine by the newspaper. It is as simple as that: the dog is carefully watching
every single movement of the cat.
Another reason why Iran has been compared in the above excerpt to a coquetting cat
is that the newspaper analyzed tries to show that the Iranian authorities are needlessly
and unreasonably confident about and boastful of their activities which they say are
innocent. They are heedless of the dog they are going to fall prey to. This extended metaphor is ideologically exploited by The Economist to give a negative image of the country;
a fact which is accentuated by the use of dysphemistic and evaluative words employed to
refer to Iran (words such as posse; evaluative reporting verbs like claim), as well as
insinuations about the country.
The metaphor used here in the case of the American government is also striking.
The article from which this extract has been taken was written at a time when Barack
Obama was about to start his office term, while announcing something like his policy
of extending his hand towards Iran. This is one of the few cases where the US president is outrageously reproached and negatively labeled in the form of an animalizing
metaphor (lame duck). The newspaper considers the possibility of leaving or suspending any effort to pressure Iran as an act of inefficiency, hence the use of the
metaphor.
The representation of the different parties reactions as categorized and elaborated
upon by Van Leeuwen (1995) is also of relevance in rendering Iran as an outsider.
Generally, unlike those of the Westerners, the reactions of the agents relating to the
Iranian side are shown to be unpredictable, bizarre, emotional, and unreasonable. Most
notably, Ahmadinejad is represented most often as a fiery president (fire metaphor).
This representation (as we will explain in the next section on (de)legitimation) serves as
a cover for any military reaction against Iran by the West and Israel. The image is used
to justify any possible military strike against Iran on the part of the Western countries.
Any attack on Iran is legitimated, since it is Iran which is asking for it due to its
presidents unreasonable actions.
This is also true of the reactions of the Iranian masses which, as stated earlier, are
excluded from almost every discussion of sanctions which is not in their interest. In a few
instances where they are mentioned, they are shown as acting dramatically due to the

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

740

Discourse & Society 23(6)

governments policies (with regards to not quitting or suspending its nuclear program)
and neglect of them:
Excerpt 7
Complying with recently tightened international sanctions, financial regulators in the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) . . . have frozen dozens of Iranian bank accounts and clamped strict
controls on currency transfers to the Islamic Republic. The sudden squeeze on foreign-currency
supplies, which also hit Dubais large and lucrative merchandise re-export trade with Iran, sent
Irans rial . . . into an abrupt 15% plunge late last month. Jittery citizens mobbed Tehrans
currency dealers, desperate to buy dollars before another fall.

As is evident, all Tehrani citizens (one of the many instances of collectivization where
they are given an image of a homogeneous consensual group who are on a limb as a
result of the actions of their leaders spinning uranium regardless) are portrayed negatively as nervous people who desperately mob currency dealers with an eye to another
fall in the value of the rial (a predication strategy of legitimating their unverified act of
mobbing places where they can get currency exchanges).
Also notable in the passage mentioned is the metaphor of pressure or hanging (realized in the use of the words squeeze and clamp here and such words as stiffen or tighten
elsewhere) to show the efficacy of sanctions on Iran in an attempt to bring it to its heels.
An analysis of predicational strategies used to ascribe action to Iran and its opposing
camp, namely the West, has also unraveled some intriguing results. One can find an array
of negative traits and qualities attributed to Iran (with some of them already stated) or
observe the country as involved in a range of deplorable activities, as shown through the
pages of the British newspaper. In sum, Iran is given the following negative ascriptions
and allegations in the paper:
Iran is friendless (for a variety of reasons, including its president being xenophobic, as well as refusing to comply with the wishes of the world community and
contributing to acts of terrorism);
Iran is indifferent to its people;
Iran is out to build atomic warfare;
Iran boasts about its capacities and potentials (although it is doing its best to
achieve nuclear weaponry);
Iran fixes its national elections;
Iran provokes other countries;
Iran is seeking to wipe Israel off the map and is out to damage American
interests across the globe;
Iran is uncooperative with the IAEA inspectors;
Iran is Hamas and Hizbullahs paymaster;
Iran has an ailing economy;
Life in Iran is not running smoothly; people are jittery;
Iran abuses human rights.
With regards to the actions and qualities ascribed to the West, we see a totally different picture in that positive traits are attributed to it and its allies and institutions. Offers

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

741

and proposals on its part, for instance, are said to be dignified and well-designed, while
in the case of the mediatory countries they are said to be awkward and clam-fisted
and, in the case of Iran, they are shown as intended to buy time to pursue its suspicious
clandestine nuclear activities, and its presidents actions are head-scratching. All in all,
descriptions of the Western countries in the data, in as far as they go for sanctions against
Iran, are accompanied by the following main positive traits:
1. Israel and America will/may take pre-emptive military action if faced with a
threat from Iran.
2. Since Iran is a gloomy threat to the world as a whole, the said countries are justified in thinking about all the options on the table, including a military strike
against Irans nuclear installations.
3. Unlike Iran, the West is out to build confidence in nuclear negotiations.
4. The West is patiently cooperative in talks over Irans nuclear issue (the US
president is pictured as stretching his hand out towards Iran).
5. The West is not opposed to other countries peaceful nuclear programs.
Predications or attributes in the case of the major parties involved in the row over
Irans nuclear activities are realized or intensified through pragmatic devices such as
manipulative presuppositions (occurring most notably in headlines and leads, e.g. Iran
and the Bomb), as well as through metaphors, certain semantic fields, euphemism (in the
case of the Wests actions) and dysphemism, which is the opposite of euphemism (in the
case of Irans actions and words). With regards to the latter case, Irans nuclear activities
are dysphemistically described as Irans nuclear ambitions or Irans nuclear expansionism, while an attack by the West on Iran is euphemistically labeled the military
option or called a pre-emptive strike. Such euphemistic expressions used in the British
paper not only help to form a positive conception of the West and a negative view of Iran,
but also help legitimate the launch of any possible attack on Iran, whatever its
consequences, and delegitimate Irans furthering of its nuclear activities.

Argumentative strategies
Any argumentation serves a legitimatory or delegitimatory purpose. In other words, any
argumentative act helps either to show a course of action as rational or to deplore another
(usually alternative) course of action. The same thing happens in The Economist concerning Irans nuclear undertaking. In order to analyze the justificatory linguistic mechanisms used by the British paper in representing the voice of the West in this particular
regard, Van Leeuwens categories of (de)legitimation, outlined and explicated in his
2007 article and Wodaks inventory of topoi, were taken into account. (Both scholars
have employed the joint use of the two models in their 1999 article on the Austrian
governments anti-immigration policies.)
It was found in the course of the present study that such categories of (de)legitimation
as personal and impersonal authorization, time summons, and analogy played a very
important role in delegitimating Irans nuclear program. The first category was realized
either as quotes of the IAEA officials questioning the peaceful nature of Irans nuclear
activities, or as the selective use of fragmented speech (see Smirnova, 2009) in relation

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

742

Discourse & Society 23(6)

to the remarks of the Iranian authorities revealing, in some contexts, irony, disbelief, or
sentiments such as Iran-phobia on the part of The Economist:
Excerpt 8
Iran is a self-proclaimed theocracy. Yet it has conducted foreign relations since the revolution
of 1979 in a way that seems perfectly rational even if it is not pleasant. Its president, the
Holocaust-questioning Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is widely reported to have threatened to wipe
Israel off the map . . . Knowing that a nuclear attack on Israel or America would result in its
own prompt annihilation, Iran could probably be deterred, just as other nuclear powers have
been. Didnt Nikita Khrushchev promise to bury the West?

In this extract, an analogy has been drawn between Iran and other nuclear powers.
This has been carried out via the use of the cohesive device of comparative referencing
(i.e. other) textually. Rhetorically, however, the same observation has been made through
the use of the final rhetorical question, thereby relating Iran to and comparing it with the
former nuclear USSR. Such an analogy is founded on a discourse of fear. (Beware! We
are dealing with a country as ideologically oriented as the former self-proclaimed communist USSR.) It furthermore conjures up a range of negative values vis-a-vis Iran. The
analogy is also drawn between the two leaders, and by extension, the two countries, so
as to distance Iran as much as possible from the Western world and its allies.
At another level of delegitimation, the words of the two leaders of Iran and the former
USSR have been selectively and manipulatively cited. Such a type of speech, called
fragmented speech (Smirnova, 2009) in the data under consideration, serves two purposes: sometimes it is used to create feelings of terror in readers; at other times, it reveals
the ironical viewpoints of the editors and writers of the articles towards the stated remarks
of the two leaders. In the latter case, they have the function of and can be replaced simply
by the expression the so-called, showing feelings of irony and disbelief on the part of
the British newspaper. And such quotes are very terse, unlike those quotes employed to
justify the stance taken by the Western paper which occupy a larger space. In such cases,
the purpose is not so much to render as accurately as possible the words of the speaker,
and the general vocabulary words formally do not need to be put into the quotation
marks (Smirnova, 2009: 83). By contrast, [b]y emphasizing with the use of the quotation marks the foreignness of the quoted words the journalist can express a whole range
of attitudes, most notably the (much more frequent) irony (Smirnova, 2009: 83). What
supports this negative ironical stance taken towards Irans president is the appositive
component of the agent being quoted, namely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here, Irans
president has been explicitly referred to as a Holocaust-questioning person. This is put
in sharp contrast, in the following paragraph in the article, with the fact that Israel has
memories of a real Holocaust.
The occurrences of times summons as a special case of impersonal (de)legitimation
are also notable in that they create in the reader a sense of fear-based urgency in dealing
with Irans nuclear issue, and they also seek to render Irans nuclear activities as dangerous
and illegitimate. Further, the articles are abundant in terse final sentences saying something about the necessity of taking swift action against Iran (in this case, as stated and
supported by the paper, such an action would consist of imposing more sanctions on Iran):

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

743

Excerpt 9
The window for a negotiated restraint on Irans nuclear activities in which others could have
confidence is closing fast.

The above extract is an instance of what Van Leeuwen calls time-summons legitimation. The element of time is mentioned again and again in the remarks of Western politicians, as well as in the media in that sphere of the world, in order to urge the reader into
accepting and believing that the prospect of an atomic Iran is looming large. It thus adds
to the Iran-phobic sentiments harbored by some Western papers. The metaphor of a window chosen strategically here is also of paramount significance. It conjures up the idea of
a condemned prisoner with a slim chance of survival segregated from the rest of the world.
Here, a striking case of indetermination (Van Leeuwen, 1996) in the form of the
word others can be observed. This lexical choice serves several strategic purposes: it
endows social actors with a kind of impersonal authority, a sense of unseen, yet powerfully felt coercive force (Van Leeuwen, 2008: 40); it instills in the mind of the reader the
idea of a consensual international group whose confidence in Irans nuke activities is
wearing out, and who has always sought a negotiated solution in dealing with Iran which
is developing its nuclear technology; and it anonymizes the social actors in the rival
camp to create a discourse based on fear of Iran.
Excerpt 10
So far Iran has evaded or strung out talks, as its uranium-enrichment machines have spun on.

A common thread running through many of the extracts taken from the data in The
Economist is time urgency, which is realized in different forms and configurations. More
specifically, it is shown through metaphors having to do with time. On the one hand, Iran
is insinuated as killing time to further its atomic plans. On the other, the sands are running out for other countries and they have no choice except to resort to whatever options
they have at hand to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear efforts. It thus legitimizes, in
effect, the restrictions the West has placed on Iran. The time element is evident in words
and phrases such as so far, sprung out, as, and spun on.
Closely related to Van Leeuwens analytical categories of action (de)legitimation, that
is arguing for or against some act, is Wodaks inventory of topoi. By topoi is meant parts
of argumentations that belong to the obligatory premises. They are content-related warrants or conclusion rules that connect the argument with the conclusion (Resigl and
Wodak, 2001: 7475). Our analysis of the British newspaper data at hand yielded the
following (mostly inferable) topoi:
Topoi of uselessness/disadvantage: according to the viewpoint taken by the editors of The Economist, an atomic Iran, as they call it, is a threat to the world. Time
and time again, Iran is explicitly juxtaposed to the world in that it is assumed to be
a real global challenge, as if the world is a homogeneous geographical and political entity with regards to a unanimous decision taken to stop Iran from developing
its nuclear program.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

744

Discourse & Society 23(6)

Topos of definition or name interpretation: this topos is widely employed in the

data, some of whose occurrences have already been mentioned. One such striking
case is the way the British paper conceives of the Middle East. Arguing against an
atomic Iran, The Economist maintains in several cases that Iran is contributing to
an arms race in the Middle East. Here, the paper stereotypically refers to the
Middle East as the least safe region in the world. This is done in such a way that
is reminiscent of George W. Bushs remark that the region is the most dangerous
(cf. George W. Bushs 2002 State of the Union address) in the whole world. It
goes on to name the countries it assumes may follow Irans example but, in all its
discussions of the issue, it strategically glosses over atomic Israel as if Israel has
nothing to do with nuclear technology and the Middle East! The paper tries, by
backgrounding Israel, to give it an image of a distant observer: one which has no
close affinity with this part of the world.
Topos of danger: this is the most frequent topos used by the paper to delegitimate
Irans nuclear efforts. This is achieved, as mentioned earlier, through the words or
descriptions of Ahmadinejad as the fiery president of a country who is asking
for it.
Topos of justice: this topos is used to justify Irans use of nuclear energy for
civilian purposes to indicate the humanitarian (topos of humanitarianism) intentions of the Western parties. After all, Iran is entitled to have a peaceful
technology!
Topos of responsibility: based on this topos, the IAEA is accountable for delving
into Irans clandestine nuclear activities, hence the legitimation of many of the
measures taken by the IAEA in dealing with the country.
Topos of burdening: according to this topos, by insisting on furthering its
nuclear installations, Iran is putting an extra load on its citizens who are already
overloaded by economic woes.
Topos of finances: not unrelated to the previous topos, this maintains that Iran is
going to be financially in trouble since it is advancing its nuclear technology.
Topos of reality: this line of argument assumes that the realities of the world
(especially after the US strike on and invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) are such
that another strike on Iran seems far-fetched and unrealistic. The British paper
proposes the sanctions alternative, thereby justifying its own standpoint.
Topos of numbers: this topos has numerous realizations and usages. One special
case with considerable frequency, however, is the British newspapers weighing
up of Irans nuclear development against the amount of enriched uranium it has at
its disposal to build a bomb:
Excerpt 11
What has changed in the intervening seven years is far from reassuring. Iran is much further on
with its enrichment plans. Natanz has some 8,000 centrifuge enrichment machines (out of a
planned 54,000), though only about half are spinning with uranium gas. It has accumulated a
stock of 5% enriched uranium which, if Iran breaks out and enriches it further to a bombusable 90% (easy compared with achieving the first 5%), it would be enough for a bomb, and
will soon be enough for two. . .

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

745

Topos of law: most often Iran is accused of breaking international laws, in effect,
those of the IAEA in relation to the non-proliferation treaty.
Topos of authority: closely related to Van Leeuwens category of personal authorization, this topos is used while quoting the selective remarks of those experts and
officials warning about the nuclear capabilities of Iran.
Topos of history: related to Van Leeuwens category of analogy (mentioned
above), this topos juxtaposes Iran with other nuclear pariahs, countries with a
history of pursuing their own nuclear programs ostracized by the world community, as claimed by the newspaper.
Topos of abuse: based on this topos, Iranian authorities abuse human rights in
their countries. It further maintains that since they treat their citizens in ways
which are harsh, they cannot be trusted with regards to their nuclear program.

Perspectivization and intensification/mitigation strategies

Perspectivization defined already as how speakers position themselves vis-a-vis a certain point of view in the case of the British newspaper happens mostly in three important ways: first, it is done through the abundant spacious allotment given to the voices in
the West delegitimating Irans use of atomic technology. This spacious allotment is evident in the large number of quotations of the Western authorities and the surprisingly
small number of references to Iranian authorities. Second, it is, as stated by Reisigl and
Wodak, highly dependent on the discourse genre and the field of action with which the
genre is associated (2001: 83).
The genre of the data considered hitherto, as stated earlier, is that of argumentative or
rather persuasive discourse. The articles argue for imposing harsher sanctions on Iran
and against Iran developing its nuclear activities. This means that the editorial staff of the
British paper try to align with and involve themselves in giving a dark image of Iran,
while at the same time distancing themselves from the stance taken by the country in
pursuing its nuclear program.
Finally, the paper shows its ideological positioning of the involved agents via strategies of obscure agency. This glossing over of the agency is realized through the classic
means of nominalization and agentless passive voice. For instance, instead of explicitly
putting the blame for attacks on Iraq on the USA and its allies, The Economist refers to
the happening as the mayhem in Iraq, thus excluding America and exonerating it of a
consequential attack on Iraq.
Excerpt 12
It doesnt take a fevered brain to assume that if Irans ayatollahs get their hands on the bomb,
the world could be in for some nasty surprises. Irans claim that its nuclear programme is
entirely peaceful is widely disbelieved.

This extract is rich in words and phrases showing its writer(s) footing in relation to
Iran. For one thing, the choice of dysphemistic words and expressions used to refer to
Iran is indicative of the black portrayal of the country by the British paper. Irans leaders
have been referred to as ayatollahs; a religionym (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001)

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

746

Discourse & Society 23(6)

collectivized which seeks to hammer home the idea that Iran is not run by secular forces
but only by religious figures who are ideologically oriented. Note also the evaluative
reporting verb employed to refer to Iranian authorities remarks (i.e. claim). Iran is consequently juxtaposed with a slippery concept of the world as an exclusionary strategy.
And there is the peculiar case of an exaggerating indetermination realized in the form of
the adverb widely to help arouse suspicions of Iran at its worst.

Concluding remarks
All in all, the present study yielded the following conclusions:
1. A glimpse at the results of data analysis of the British newspaper tells us that it
gives a systematic biased treatment of the participants involved in Irans nuclear
program and the actions thereof one which is consonant with its advocated
ideology of applying more sanctions on Iran.
2. Iran is given the image of a rogue regime in the British paper. This finding is in
keeping with that of Behnam and Moshtaghi Zenouz, where they maintain that
[m]isrepresentation of the Iran nuke program and, thus, Persephobia an
unfounded hostility towards Persia and Persians were reflected in English papers
via the choices made with the help of the strategy of vilifying, justifying, or
establishing a view of a polarized world (2008: 213).
3. The British paper, namely The Economist, leaves nearly all discussions of
other nuclear weapons-owning countries as irrelevant to the issue at hand, thus
supporting the findings of the study done by Izadi and Saghaye-Biria in assuming that ([w]hereas Irans alleged violation of its commitments under the NPT
is important, the failure of the United States and the other nuclear weapon
states to follow through on their promise to work toward the elimination of
nuclear weapons is not deemed worthy of discussion. (2007: 162)) by the elite
Western media.
4. The British paper excludes almost totally the Iranian public from discussions of
such a grand issue of interest to them as Irans nuclear program. It is as if the
masses have nothing to do with such an issue or it is political (and elite) talk. This
exclusionary image of the people of the nation is realized, most notably, through
a lack of spatial allotment in terms of quotations to them in the said paper, as well
as a dearth of too frequently employed cases of overcompleteness (Van Dijk,
1991) associated with and often used relative to the masses in Western papers
dealing with other social or political discourses.
5. Israel is a heavily felt presence in the paper. In The Economist, it is seen as a
country legitimate in its own right and entitled to defend itself against the
dangers of an atomic Iran.
6. Metaphor is not used innocently (i.e. aesthetically) in the political discourse of the
paper. The editorial staff of the British newspaper apparently mean more than they
say through their selective choice of certain metaphorical scenarios. This is accompanied and accentuated by the use of the highly evaluative language it adopts, in
particular, in representing the words and actions of the Iranian officials.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

Rasti and Sahragard

747

7. Judging by the bulk of the results gleaned from the British paper, we can say
that The Economist provides us with a rich picture of the various linguistic or
other ways through which the agents are represented. This is justifiable on several planes: for one thing, the genre of the British paper data is exclusively
argumentative. Also, it seems that the paper is concerned to give as dark an
image of Iran as it can so as to win the approval of readers worldwide vis-a-vis
its advocated policy of applying more pressure on Iran to stop its controversial
nuclear program.
The limitations and drawbacks associated with case studies notwithstanding, the present
research opens viable venues of investigation into future studies concerned with probing
into one of the most newsworthy yet controversial issues of the past decade or so. Further
studies can be conducted with an eye to comparing the differential modes through which
the various papers of the Western camp seek to delegitimate Irans nuclear efforts.
Alternatively, the way in which Iranian mostly state-backed newspapers rationalize and
legitimate the countrys nuclear undertaking is also bound to provide insight into the discursive mechanisms employed or deployed by them in rendering this sensitive issue to the
public at a domestic level.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

References
Behnam B and Zenouz RM (2008) A contrastive critical analysis of Iranian and British newspaper reports on the Iran nuclear power program. In: Nrgaard N (ed.) Systemic Functional
Linguistics in Use. Odense: University of Southern Denmark, Odense Working Papers in
Language and Communication, vol. 29, pp. 199218.
Bloor M and Bloor T (2007) The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction.
London: Hodder.
Bush State of the Union address (2002). Bush State of the Union address. CNN Politics,
22 January. Available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2002-01-29/politics/bush.speech.txt_1_firefighter-returns-terrorist-training-camps-interim-leader?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Caldas-Coulthard CR (2003) Cross-cultural representation of otherness in media discourse. In:
Weiss G and Wodak R (eds) Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. New
York: Palgrave, pp. 272296.
Goatly A (1997) The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
International Atomic Energy Agency (n.d.) Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT). Available at: www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html (accessed
19 April 2012).
Izadi F and Saghaye-Biria H (2007) Discourse analysis of elite American newspaper editorials:
The case of Irans nuclear program. Journal of Communication Inquiry 31(2): 140165.
Jones J (2010) Controlling the discourse: Interviews with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Critical Discourse Studies 7(2): 127141.
Reisigl M and Wodak R (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and
Antisemitism. London: Routledge.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012

748

Discourse & Society 23(6)

Smirnova AV (2009) Reported speech as an element of argumentative newspaper discourse.

Discourse & Communication 3(1): 79103.
Squassoni S (2006) Irans nuclear program: Recent developments. CRA Report for Congress.
Available at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf (accessed 19 April 2012).
Van Dijk TA (1991) Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk TA (1993) Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Van Dijk TA (2001) Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In: Wodak R and Meyer M (eds)
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 95120.
Van Leeuwen T (1995) Representing social action. Discourse & Society 6(1): 81107.
Van Leeuwen T (1996) The representation of social actors in discourse. In: Caldas-Coulthard CR
and Coulthard M (eds) Text and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Routledge, pp. 3270.
Van Leeuwen T (2008) Texts and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. New York:
Oxford.
Van Leeuwen T (2009) Critical discourse analysis. In: Mey JL (ed.) Concise Encyclopedia of
Pragmatics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 166169.
Wodak R (2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak R and Meyer M (eds) Methods
of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 6395.

Author biographies
Alireza Rasti holds an MA degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from Shiraz
University, Shiraz, Iran. He is currently teaching general English courses at Farhangian University
(Shahid Rajaee Paradise, Shiraz). His current line of research is critical discourse analysis, metaphor analysis, and media discourses on Irans nuclear power program.
Rahman Sahragard is an Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics. He obtained his PhD degree
from University of Leicester, England in 2001. He is now affiliated with the Department of Foreign
Languages and Linguistics at Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. He teaches Discourse Analysis,
Pragmatics, Research Methods, and Materials Development at postgraduate level. He has three
books on research methods, language teaching, and letter writing. He has published 26 articles in
scholarly journals and has presented papers at both national and international conferences.

Downloaded from das.sagepub.com at National School of Political on December 6, 2012