Ethnicity and Identity in Media

Discourse
Desislava Cheshmedzhieva-Stoycheva

Konstantin Preslavsky University Press

2013
 Desislava Cheshmedzhieva-Stoycheva

ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY IN MEDIA DISCOURSE

Konstantin Preslavsky University Press

2013
Ethnicity and Identity in Media Discourse focusses on the problems of ethnicity and identity and
the way they have been presented in the Bulgarian and the British media through the prism
of tolerance and/ or intolerance.
The subject at hand is such that it requires some preliminary knowledge in linguistics, text
linguistics, discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis, that is why it is aimed primarily
at students in English Studies or Applied Linguistics in their third or fourth year of study,
presuming that they have already had lectures in syntax, lexicology, and text linguistics, so
that they are familiar with the terminology used. The textbook, however, can be used by
anyone interested in the topic as it provides guidelines into the conducting of CDA projects
on one’s own.

© Desislava Cheshmedzhieva-Stoycheva
© Ethnicity and Identity in Media Discourse
© Cover Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
ISBN: 978-954-577-741-7

Българска, първо издание

Рецензент: доц. д-р Румяна Тодорова
Научен редактор: гл. ас. д-р Ирина Иванова

Konstantin Preslavsky University Press

2013
 CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED 1
FOREWORD 2
1. DISCOURSE, CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
BULGARIAN AND THE BRITISH MEDIA DISCOURSE 5
1.1. Discourse Analysis 6
1.2. Critical Discourse Analysis 7
1.3. Main Characteristics of Media Discourse in Bulgaria and the UK
9
2. TOLERANCE 12
2.1. Different Views on the Notion of Tolerance 12
2.2. Political Correctness 16
2.3. Hate Speech 17
2.4. Zero Tolerance 18
3. ETHNICITY 21
3.1. Different Views on Ethnicity 21
3.2. Racism 24
3.3. Ethnocentrism. Whiteness. Nimbyism 27
3.3.1. Ethnocentrism 27
3.3.2. Whiteness 28
3.3.3. Nimbyism 31
4. IDENTITY 33
5. ETHNIC IDENTITIES IN THE BULGARIAN AND THE BRITISH MEDIA DISCOURSE
36
5.1. Use of Ethnonyms 36
5.2. Paradigms of References 46
5.3. New Interpretations of Words 49
5.4. Pejoratives 51
5.5. Stereotypes 55
5.6. Metaphors 64
5.7. Symbols of Identity 69
6. APPENDIX I 70
7. KEY TO THE SELF-TESTS 72
8. REFERENCES 81
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

Abbreviation of newspapers:
24 часа – /24Ch/; Атака – /A/; Дневник – /Dn/; Дума – /D/; Нова
зора – /NZ/; Новинар – /N/; Сега – /S/; Стандарт – /St/; Труд –
/T/
British National Party – /BNP/; Daily Express – /DE/; Daily Mail –
/DMl/; Daily Mirror – /DMr/; Daily Telegraph – /DT/; The Daily Star
– /DS/; The Guardian – /G/; The Independent – /I/; The Metro –
/M/; The Morning Star – /MS/; The Sun – /Sun/

Parts of Articles
Headline – /h/; subheadline – /sh/

Abbreviated references:
Oxford Etymological Dictionary – OED
Etymological Electronic Dictionary – EED
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy – SEPh
Wikipedia – Wiki/En/; Wiki/Bg/

1
 FOREWORD

White, black, Afro-American, Bulgarian, British, Gypsy, Roma,

Pakistani, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish … these are all labels
the media frequently use to describe one group of people or another.
What do these labels tell us? What do the media tell us about any of
these? How are the groups behind the ethnonyms presented? What
terms are being used in the creation of their image? How do these
terms influence our attitude towards the people described by these
labels? … These are all questions this module is trying to answer.
To do that Critical Discourse Analysis is chosen as the method
of analysis using the presumption that the media do convey the
thoughts of those in power or follow a specific ideology, even if that
ideology be of those considered the norm in the British or the
Bulgarian society.
The textbook has the objective of shedding some light into
some of the most contemporary processes in the modern mass
media. The findings are based on an excerpted material of more than
3000 articles from Bulgarian and British newspapers gathered over
the period from 2001 to 2012.
The topic is quite interesting and thought provoking, as well
as very contemporary, as in today’s fast moving world notions such
as nationality, ethnicity, identity, among others, get mixed up and
sometimes lose their meaning or merge into one another. The topic at
the same time is a very broad one and could be viewed from different
perspectives. It touches not only on linguistics, but on psychology,
sociology, history, etc. The textbook, however, due to the restricted
number of classes, tries to provide the basic tools students could use
for future research on the subject on their own.
The textbook searches for answers to questions such as: What
is ethnicity? Does it have anything to do with identity? What is
identity? How are these two notions presented in the media?
The textbook has as its focus ethnicity and identity
presentations in the printed media primarily because the author
thinks that the media being the fourth power do influence and
change people’s perception of what those different than Us look like.
Having said this, it logically follows that this textbook also deals with
the dichotomy Us vs. Them, Own vs. Other/ Foreign and the images
the media create about each member of the dichotomy, not excluding

2
the image of Us. The set of lectures also looks into the reasons
behind one presentation over another and how the repetition of one
and the same trait or specificity could lead to the establishment and
later on to the fossilization of a stereotype of those considered
“foreign”, “other”, “unfamiliar”, or simply “different”.
The subject at hand is such that it requires some preliminary
knowledge in linguistics, text linguistics, discourse analysis and
critical discourse analysis, that is why it is aimed primarily at
students in their third or fourth year of study, presuming that they
have already had lectures in syntax, lexicology, and text linguistics,
so that they are familiar with the terminology used.
Still, in order to make the transition from these fields to
critical discourse analysis smoother and more palpable, the textbook
starts with an introductory Chapter I, which focuses on terms such
as discourse, viewed from different perspectives, i.e. linguistic and
non-linguistic, discourse analysis, as well as critical discourse
analysis. This first chapter uses the research of some internationally
recognized scholars in the field who are supposed be familiar to the
students and at the same time it makes references to the research of
some Bulgarian scholars, particularly those from the University of
Shumen, most of whom students might have met personally.
Chapter II looks into the notion of tolerance as it proves to be
a key notion predetermining the attitude exhibited towards those
who are different than Us. Presence or lack of tolerance governs the
language used by the media in the presentation of a specific group.
This chapter, as well as chapters three and four, starts with the
etymology of the terms discussed, then presents the critical views on
the notions, and finally looks at some phenomena which are related
to the main one discussed. Thus, chapter two also discusses the
manifestations of Zero tolerance, as well as Political correctness and
hate speech.
Chapter III focuses on the notion of ethnicity and its
connection with ideas like racism, ethnocentrism, whiteness, and
nimbyism.
Chapter IV provides the critical findings on the topic of
identity, looking into the different views on that notion and searching
for an answer to the question “Who are I?”1 It is with this chapter

1 The use of the verb in the plural here is intentional suggesting the multiple identities one “wears”. The
topic is further discussed in Chapter IV.

3
that the more theoretical part of the module is completed. Finishing
chapter four students should be able to provide reasons for the
preference of one presentation of ethnic identity over another, or give
answers to questions such as “why is one ethnic group denigrated,
while another one is being put on a pedestal by the media”, etc.
Chapter V is more practically inclined using examples from
the Bulgarian and the British media in order to show how different
ethnic identities are presented in the printed media. The examples
show linguistic devices used on different levels of text, all
contributing to the development of the identity of the group
discussed. The chapter provides examples of use of ethnonyms,
nouns in the plural, metaphors, stereotypes, as well as some other
markers of ethnicity. Each section of this chapter features a question
aimed at the allocation of linguistic devices in a sample article on a
Russian billionaire. Representations of the ethnic group chosen as
the subject of the article for analysis are not discussed in the
module. Thus these pointing questions strive to show students that
the analysis presented in the module could be applied to any media
text on an ethnic group.
The questions for self-test which follow each chapter require
analytical thinking and description of some of the main ideas
discussed.
At the end of the textbook there is a comprehensive test which
tests students’ overall knowledge on the main topics discussed. The
test is prepared in such a way so that it offers the opportunity for
more than one correct answer. Completing the test would also assist
the students in the understanding of the terminology used and the
essence of the issues included in the course on Ethnicity and Identity
in the Media Discourse.

4
 CHAPTER I. DISCOURSE, CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BULGARIAN AND THE BRITISH MEDIA
DISCOURSE

 Annotation: The topic introduces students to one of the main

terms used in this course. It builds on their previous linguistic
knowledge and broadens it with some of the concepts of
discourse. It also touches upon Discourse Analysis and Critical
Discourse Analysis. In addition, students will be introduced to
some of the main similarities and differences in the media
discourse of Bulgaria and the UK.
 Aims and expected results: Widening students’ basic linguistic
knowledge.
 Additional aims and results: Development of analytical thinking.

The term discourse derives from the Latin discursus

(‘statement, conversation’). Contemporary English dictionaries like
Miriam-Webster, Collins, as well as many others, define the term
mentioned as: 1. “Verbal communication, conversation; 2. Lecture; 3.
A linguistic unit, i.e. conversation or story bigger than a sentence”.
The definitions mark out the two main trends in the
understanding of discourse as a scientific term. On the one hand, in
the field of linguistic science, discourse is understood as any
sensible piece of communication, i.e. any meaningful stretch of
lexemes composing a text and exceeding the size of a sentence. In
this sense discourse appears as synonymous to text (see Salkie 1995;
Dobreva, Savova 2000; Dobrev, Dobreva 1994). On the other hand,
the term is used in spheres different from the linguistic one and is
defined as “a focused exchange of information through signs in
real communicative situations” (see Dobreva, Savova 2010: 30). In
this second usage the term discourse covers not only the linguistic
units but also the conditions and the environment in which they are
formed. The definition, suggested by Fairclough (1995: 18),
combines the two views on discourse and defines it as “a social
activity and mutual influence, people who interact in real social
situations [as well as] a social creation of reality, a kind of
knowledge”. A. Georgakopoulou and D. Goutsos suggest a different
definition of the term discourse. They view it from the position of text
linguistics and exclude the influence of the socio-cultural practices

5
that take part in the creation of discourse as defined by Fairclough
(see Todorova 2012: 190).
Apart from being an abstract notion discourse could also
be treated as a text functioning in a specific sphere of the social
life connected with an institution which controls and governs
the creation of a particular discourse, e. g. media discourse,
political discourse, etc. (see Dobreva, Savova 2000; Todorova
2012). Each discourse is characterized with some peculiar rules
about the type of linguistic and non-linguistic means which could be
used in it, by whom, and under what circumstances.

1.1. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

The discipline Discourse Analysis developed at the end of the

1960s and 1970s within the humanities and social sciences. As a
new analytical field it was and is still interested in the research of the
different levels and scopes of discourse (sounds, intonation, lexicon,
etc.), the different genres, the connections between text and context,
as well as between discourse and power, and discourse and thinking,
among others2.
Discourse Analysis explores language in social contexts
and language in action. It studies texts or parts of texts (written,
oral, or non-verbal) offering explanation on the structure of the
separate text building elements and on the information they carry.
Discourse analysis also explores the ways for the establishment of
links between parts staying at a distance from each other.
At the same time rather than being interested only in the
phenomena happening in the text itself, discourse analysis also
pays attention to the extra-textual influences which lead to
changes in the structure of the created texts. That is why Discourse
Analysis is used in studying personal and social identification. It also
studies the ways in which people define and talk about life processes
(old age, disability), conflicts and exhibition of aggression (racism,
ethnicism), self-perception and understanding of those around them
(see Johnstone 2002).

2For a survey on the scholars who have contributed to the development of Discourse Analysis, see
Todorova 2012: 184-189.

6
 1.2. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

A new approach called Critical Discourse Analysis appeared

toward the end of the 20th century. This new approach explored in
detail the interrelationship between a specific type of discourse
and the ideology conducted through it, or, in other words, the
dependency between discourse and power.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is “a democratic approach
which is highly influenced by the context and takes ethic stance on
social issues with the aim of improvement of society” (Huckin 1997:
78). This new approach focuses on the idea that the different
structures are not equally accessible to all members of society
and that the unequal distribution of power predetermines the
unequal distribution of resources (see Fowler 1991; Fairclough
1994, 1995; van Dijk 1993b, 1995b; Reisigel, Wodak 2001).
CDA views discourse as a conductor of power and control,
as well as an instrument for the social creation of reality (see
Van Leeuwen 1993:193). Although CDA can be used for the study of
different types of discourse it is also extremely useful for the
analysis of media language due to the fact that the media not
only reflect and create reality but also conduct the ideas of the
organizations that own them or of those in power (see Cottle
2000; Fowler 1991; van Dijk 1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1995a, 1995b).
CDA focuses mainly on the analysis and critics of unjust
social and political activities. At the same time CDA is also an
integrated approach because it applies different levels of analysis:
“the text, the discursive practices, which create it and the more
general social context” (see Fairclough 1995; Huckin 1997;
Todorova 2000). Some of the most famous names that have
contributed and still contribute to the development of the CDA are N.
Fairclough (1994, 1995, 2003), R. Fowler (1991, 1996), Т. van Dijk
(1985, 1987, 1993а, 1993b, 1995а, 1995b, 1997а, 1997b), R. Wodak
(2001), and others.
N. Fairclough is considered to be one of the founders of CDA
and his field of research is defined as textually oriented discourse
analysis. The main point in Fairclough’s research is that public
activities are formed and exhibited through discourse. That is
why he pays special attention to the connection between language
and the wider public and social structures and institutions. Put in a

7
different way, he studies the link between ideology and discourse
and especially the linguistic ways for manipulation of public
opinion through the media (Fairclough 1994, 1995, 2003).
R. Fowler (1991, 1996) holds the opinion that the different
styles in language, both written and oral, do not present one and
the same point of view but some specialized ideas referring to
different specific situations and events. Fowler’s contribution to
the development of CDA, apart from his research on stylistic variety,
is in the analysis of news texts. According to him information is
always conveyed through the prism of someone else’s point of
view or ideology. That is why there is no possibility for impartial
portrayal of reality in the form of only facts and events.
Teun van Dijk (1985, 1987, 1993а, 1993b, 1995а, 1995b,
1997а, 1997b) explores the socio-cognitive dependencies
between the social structures and the discursive ones, as well as
the discursive exhibition of racism by the so-called “symbolic
elites” (politicians, scholars, journalists) (see van Dijk 1993a, 1993b,
1995a); the ways the press presents the news (see van Dijk 1987,
1995b); the link between ideology and context (see van Dijk 1991,
1997a); etc.
Ruth Wodak (2001) contributes to CDA with her research on
the manifestations of prejudices and racism. Similar to the three
scholars mentioned so far, Wodak also supports the opinion that
social discrimination as well as the exhibitions of racism,
ethnicism, and anti-Semitism are discursively created (see
Reisigl, Wodak 2001). In her analyses on racism and anti-Semitism
Wodak, together with M. Reisigl (see Reisigl, Wodak 2001) use the
historical approach to Discourse Analysis. Both emphasize the
importance of the historic and social aspects for the tracing of
exhibitions of discrimination and racism.

 Self-test tasks:
A. What are some of the main definitions of the term
discourse?
B. What is the meaning of discourse in linguistics?
C. What is the main focus of Discourse Analysis?
D. Who are some of the main scholars in the field of CDA and
what is their main contribution to that approach?

8
 1.3. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF MEDIA DISCOURSE IN
BULGARIA AND THE UK

The changes in Bulgaria that have affected public life after

1989 have influenced the language used for communication in both
personal and social space. The media also became influenced by the
processes of democratization and liberalization and this was reflected
in the language they used.
After 1989 the Bulgarian media got distanced from the
influence of Russian culture and politics and showed an interest
to what was happening in the Western media. There were, and
still are, many Western productions that appeared in the Bulgarian
media and Bulgaria started copying the journalism practiced by its
western colleagues. This naturally influenced the Bulgarian media
discourse and led to considerable changes.
One of the main changes was the “spawning” of a variety
of new newspapers that flooded the local market. According to
O. Spassov (2003: 5) due to the lack of newspapers which could
be defined as homogeneous serious press (see also Znepolski
2004) the most frequently used way for presentation of
information in the Bulgarian media was through sensation,
while popular journalism played a major role.
A very thorough analysis of the changes observed in the
Bulgarian media discourse after 1989 and 1990 was carried out by
Dobreva (2009). The main characteristics which she mentions are
variety in genre and thematic repertoire, high usage of ‘colourful
lexis’ (slang, colloquial, vulgar phrases/ expressions), an increased
amount of English borrowings, neologisms and at the same time a
resort to some already forgotten Turkish words and expressions. The
changes noted by Dobreva (op. cit.) influenced all levels of
language: phonetic (the usage of the phonetics of the slang and
everyday speech even in headlines); morphological (intensified usage
of verb forms in the first person plural and the second person
singular); syntactical (usage of headline constructions typical of the
non-Bulgarian media, preference to the present instead of the future
tense, as well as presence of evidentiality in the headlines). Dobreva
also notes the usage of first names, nicknames, or assumed names,
and the imitation of colloquial everyday speech. In order to be more
expressive and to attract readers’ attention the Bulgarian media

9
resorted to high usage of metaphors, increasing the
colloquialization of language (see also Fairclough 1995). There
were also footnotes, thematic resumes, preference towards news
stories and publications where the main principles of narration
appear in the headlines. All these changes led to “the elimination
of the line between what is considered serious and what
entertaining, something which in the reference books is defined
as infotainment3” (Dobreva 2009: 49; see also Spassov 2003: 6-8).
Similar processes were observed in the British media as well.
The main reason for the infotainment, or tabloidization (see
McNair 2003; Pavlik 2001; Malovicz, Vilovicz 2004), the “search for
what is sensational” (see Connel 1998) in the serious media, was
and still is the strife towards maintenance and increase of
readership (Sparks 1992). The response to the changes in the media
discourse in the UK is both negative, due to the reduction of the
quality of serious reports, and positive, because of the increase of the
readership not only with members from the majority but also with
members from the different ethnic minorities as well (see McNair
2003: 46). At the same time there are also opinions that deny the
spread of the process of tabloidization.
As stated by Fowler (1991) the characteristics of the media
discourse in the UK are: high frequency of metaphors,
overlexicalisation (the usage and repetition of various different
terms for one and the same event, occurrence, or character),
phonetic presentation of oral speech, the usage of epithets,
derogative, as well as words of endearment and affection,
pejoratives, slang, etc. All these specificities were viewed in lieu of
the presence of discrimination and prejudice in media discourse.
Pavlik (2001) and Connel (1998) also mention the increase of direct
speech which is quoted or reiterated in media texts. Connel (1998:
13) also talks about the personalization of media discourse and
in this he does not include only the use of expressions in the
first person singular but also the reiteration of information from
a personal point of view, on the basis of one’s personal
experience via intensifying lexis and lexis showing subjectivity.
Another very characteristic feature of media discourse in
Bulgaria and in the UK is the high implicitness in the transfer of

3The term infotainment itself is attributed to Neil Postman and it was used for the first time in 1980. It
marks the line between informativity and entertainment in different informative texts (see Dobreva 2009).

10
information. In many of the cases the lexical units used for the
development of the surface structure of the media texts hide layers of
meanings that get activated as a result of the interaction between all
linguistic units composing the text. Todorova (1996: 11) is of the
opinion that “the surface structure reflects only those parts of
the expression which are the most salient according to the
author of the message. Those parts which could be understood
or inferred by the receiver based on his/ her knowledge about
the world, etc., are being left out.” In this respect B. Alexieva
(1993a: 101) claims that “the peculiarities of the situation that are
being chosen for explicit presentation are such as those that most
strongly influence the addressee counting that they would cause the
revival of the whole situation in his consciousness although that
recreation could not completely respond to the way the addressor
has envisioned”.

 Self-test tasks:
A. What are the main characteristics of the Bulgarian media
discourse?
B. What are the main characteristics of the British media
discourse?

11
 CHAPTER II. TOLERANCE

 Annotation: This chapter aims at clarifying some of the main

notions around the understanding and manifestations of
tolerance. It strives at showing the ambiguous nature of the
term and the fact that in order to be tolerant one should learn
to live in understanding and appreciation of Others.
 Aims and expected results: Providing an insight into notions such
as eurocentrism, whiteness, zero tolerance, etc., which
predetermine to a higher degree the attitude the media exhibit
to the ethnic Other.
 Additional aims and results: Raising students’ awareness of the
ideological incline of the press. Development of analytical
thinking.

2.1. DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THE NOTION OF TOLERANCE

Tolerance has been and continues to be the object of various

researches in the field of Psychology, Philosophy, Culture Studies,
Ethnic Studies, Sociology, History, Political Studies, Linguistics, etc.
As a separate lexeme tolerance /tolerantia/ was first used by
Cicero around 46 BC and the first exhibition of tolerance was
observed in the laws of the Roman Empire where the subjects of the
Empire were free to follow and practice their religious beliefs (see
Robinson 2006; Raunig 2006). That is also one of the first
meanings of the word tolerance, i.e. tolerance to a different
religion or culture.
The Etymological electronic dictionary (EED)4 shows the year
1412 as the time when the word appeared in English with the
meaning of “stamina, strength of the spirit”. The verb tolerate
according to the same source appeared a lot later – in 1531. The
second lexeme: toleration, which stems from the same root
morpheme, was used in 1517 with the meaning “permission given by
the authorities”.
Some of the contemporary meanings of the word tolerance
related to the analysed problem and shown in the MSN Encarta
dictionary read: “1. Condition or quality of being tolerant; 2. The

4 For the abbreviations used look up the List of Abbreviations.

12
ability to bear something, especially pain or difficulties; 3. The
acceptable variation in a measure or other characteristic of an article
or a product”.
The meaning of the second lexeme: toleration given by the
same dictionary is: “1. an act or a practice of toleration; 2. the liberty
to hold religious opinions that differ from the established norms or
religion in the country”. In the context of the the 21st century,
however, tolerance does not serve mainly the religious issues
but is observed in all spheres of public life where one can
encounter difference. In this role tolerance is closely connected
with the subject of intercultural communication: respect, esteem and
acceptance of differences. Because of the changeable character of the
interpersonal relationships tolerance could also be changed and
modified (see Creppell 2003: 127).
The difference which could be observed in the meanings of
the two derivatives: tolerance and toleration in English is on
the basis of passivity/ activity (see also Dobreva 2009c: 14-15).
Toleration carries in itself the notion of action, i.e. to be the
one who exhibits this quality, to be the one who could patronize
s.b. To exhibit tolerance, in the sense of a quality or a state, on
the other hand, has some associations with passivity: being in
the state of tolerance, i.e. being the one who endures and suffers
(see also Goodwin-Gill 2002: 26).
Preston King (1976: 222) distinguishes between the two terms
on the basis of their generality and specificity. According to him
toleration is the more general term, while tolerance, the more
specific one. Based on the fact that there is only one verbal5 and
one adjectival form, i.e. tolerate and tolerant, deriving from the
nouns, King is of the opinion that the two nouns, toleration and
tolerance, can be considered interchangeable.
The three main components crucial to the understanding of
the essence of tolerance are objection, acceptance, and rejection
(see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Without even one of these
components the understanding of the phenomenon would be
incomplete.

5The verb tolerate out of which both nouns derive has only one form. Some of its meanings are: “1. permit
something: to be willing to allow something to happen or exist; 2. endure something: to withstand the
unpleasant effects of something; 3. accept existence of different views: to recognize other people’s right to
have different beliefs or practices without attempting to suppress them” (MSN Encarta).

13
 For instance, if we lack the critical attitude, or if we lack any
objection, towards a specific type of behaviour or even if we lack any
kind of emotion, we cannot talk of an exhibition of tolerance but
of being indifferent (see Denkova 2002: 136-140; Bischur 2003;
SEPh).
The second component – acceptance - has to do with the
ability of people to accept difference. Or, as Kirstеn Hastrup (2002)
states “[toleration is] not simply a matter of non-discrimination but
of recognizing the value of difference” (qtd. Goodwin Gill 2002: 26).
The third component, rejection, suggests that toleration is
realized in situations of conflict, disagreement or strong
dissatisfaction. Put in other words, toleration helps people find
alternative ways to cope with the dissatisfaction and these ways
are different than rejection of public opinion.
The meaning of tolerance itself is that it views conflicts in
which differences from a moral or identity point of view are so
strong that the opinion of the Other is not considered valid at
all. In this sense, active tolerance is based on “the total
acknowledgement of the difference in point of view or the moral of
the Others”, even in the cases in which these views or moral are not
shared (Hersh 1995: 140; see also Creppell 2003: 126).
At the same time, tolerance cannot be unlimited and
unconditional. It should be exhibited within specific limits as
tolerance could also cause harm (see Todorov 2002: 208 and
following). This, however, brings forth the paradox of tolerance:
it could also be restrictive, because it is actually those in power
who are entitled to exhibiting it, or as D. Bischur puts it “only
those who have power could tolerate” (Bischur 2003: 5; see also
King 1976). Let’s take ethnic minorities for example: even in a
democratic country the laws fostering recognition of their rights
are passed and accepted by the majority, while the groups
concerned rarely have a say in these matters. In this aspect,
Goeutte (2000: 5) relates the exhibition of tolerance to an insult.
That is why, tolerance has to be “transitional” and to lead to
recognition and “acknowledgement” (see Bischur 2003: 75).
According to Todorov (2002) racism and sexism are the most
frequent exhibitions of intolerance nowadays (ibid.).
Freedom is also mentioned as a substantial part of the
essence of tolerance by Bodin, Locke, Montaigne, Defoe and other

14
authors from the Enlightenment period as well as by some
contemporary authors like Rawls and Todoroff.
It should, however, be borne in mind that freedom brings
responsibilities as well. We are free to choose the way we want to
act but we should also be able to explain the decisions behind
our actions and to take responsibility for them. In this line of
thought Todoroff (2002: 216) states that we “could enjoy the
unlimited freedom of speech, but we have to be ready to take
responsibility for our words especially when their aim is a
specific act against another person and are not restrained only
within the search for truth” (translation mine). This principle is
especially true for media language as well as for notions like
hate speech, and politically correct language, associated mostly
with the exhibition of (in)tolerance (see 2.2. and 2.3.).
The ultimate goal of tolerance is the achievement of what
Ratcliffe (2004: 166) defines as an inclusive society. The main
characteristics of this type of society, according to him, lie within the
sense of common national adherence, together with “respect
and acceptance of difference and diversity”. In such a society
where active tolerance is put into practice there are no exhibitions of
racism and discrimination. Ratcliffe realizes that in order for such an
inclusive society to exist the economic differences should be
eradicated because material inequalities cause inequality in the
social status and in the application of power. This is very hard to
achieve as there should be sacrifices by those in dominant position
and people with power would rarely agree to give it away out of their
own free will. That is why the step from tolerance to intolerance is a
very small one.
As can be concluded from everything said so far, the essence
of tolerance is based on freedom in its broadest sense but with the
notion that the exhibited freedom does not hinder, harm or hurt
anybody else’s rights. There should also be recognition and
acceptance of differences. All these elements, however, taken with a
negative sign formulate the essence of intolerance. So, tolerance and
intolerance can be regarded as two sides of the same coin.

 Self-test tasks:
A. In what way is active tolerance different from the passive
one?

15
 B. Why is tolerance considered restrictive?

2.2. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

The term Political Correctness (PC) is comparatively new. It

dates back to the 1970s and is connected with the debates in the
States about the talk about certain “unprivileged” groups (see
Johnson, Sur 2003).
The advocates of PC are trying to change the pejorative or
slighting terms with politically acceptable terms, while the
adversaries are trying to prove the statement that PC is just a set of
euphemisms6 put into use. The way to express PC is via politically
correct language (see Wikipedia/ BG/).
On the one hand, PC is that range of rules that restrains
the transfer of freedom into anarchy and establishes the
restriction which Todoroff (2002) considers necessary for the
application of tolerance, while on the other hand, the norms of
PC restrict the freedom of speech, action, and thought.
Here, as in the views on tolerance mentioned above, the
social status, possession of power and authority by those who
actually need the politically correct language, play a
considerable role. PC also hints on the relationships between
different groups of people trying to protect the rights and freedoms of
the members of different minority groups as well as the members
themselves, from humiliation, and to restrict the ones in power in
order to prevent the exhibition of intolerance. That restriction in
particular is considered wrong by the adversaries of PC. As stated by
Deborah Cameron (1994: 33) though, “the politically correct
language does not threaten our freedom to speak as we choose … It
threatens only our freedom to imagine that our linguistic choices are
inconsequential, or to suppose that any one group of people has the
inalienable right to prescribe them” (qtd. in Blommaert, Verschuren
1998: 2). Cameron also claims that PC is a type of cultural politics
that aims at obtaining social change through change of presentations
and identities. The means which can foster such a change is the
media (see Fairclough 2003).
The trend observed in the printed media is for explicit use of
politically incorrect language to be minimal, especially in the serious

6 On the interrelation between euphemism, PC and taboo see Dimitrova 2007.

16
press, because of the presence of specific censorship imposed by the
journalistic code of ethics7. There is, however, a boom of politically
incorrect, pejorative and abusive language in the forums of the
electronic versions of these serious national newspapers. The
intolerant attitude is hidden under the codes of PC while in the
personal space under the mask of anonymity this intolerant
attitude appears on surface level and attracts more followers.
That is why, if on the pages of the serious Bulgarian newspapers
there are no cases of words like мангал (pronounced [mΛn’gΛl]),
кюмюр (pronounced [kjυ’mjυr]) (both referring to the dark
colour of the skin of the members of the group and used
pejoratively for the Roma)8, or circumcised people, such uses
abound in the forums of these newspapers and are freely used
along with other derogative words. There is a similar trend
observed in the UK. The pejoratives most frequently used by the
British are pikey, tinker, gippo, Paki, etc. The changes imposed
by PC and defined by Fairclough (2003) as “cultural interventions”,
could significantly change the attitude of the majority to the different
ethnic groups when they are actively encouraged by the national
media and thereby foster the acceptance and understanding of the
ethnically different which could lead to the exhibition of active
tolerance.

 Self-test tasks:
A. What is Political Correctness?
B. What are the views of its supporters?
C. What are the views of its adversaries?

2.3. HATE SPEECH

Looking at some of the definitions of hate speech in some

of the dictionaries one can come across explanations like:
“speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion,
gender, or sexual orientation” (Dictionary.Com), or “speech

7 The Bulgarian media signed the ethical code on Nov. 26th, 2004 (BHC). The full text of the ethical code
can be seen on the site of the National Council for Journalistic Ethics Mediaethics <
http://www.mediaethics-bg.org >
8 Proykova-Ali (2007) provides an analysis on the presentations of the Other in Bulgarian media. She

reviews not only the serious but also the “yellow” (entertaining) press. Her analysis shows use of
pejoratives for the Bulgarian Roma but they are mostly in the newspapers considered tabloid.

17
disparaging a racial, sexual, or ethnic group or a member of such a
group” (Collins). These definitions clearly show the nature of hate
speech. It is the direct opposite of politically correct language
and is therefore a straightforward expression of intolerance.
The following acts can be described as an exhibition of
hate speech: verbalizations, written messages, symbols, or
symbolic acts that demean and degrade, and, as such, can
promote discrimination, prejudice, and violence toward targeted
groups. Hate speech often stems from thoughts and beliefs such as
hatred, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, or stereotyping (Allport 1954).
Common forms of hate speech include racial slurs and epithets (in
Bulgarian: мангал ‘mangal’, кюмюр ‘kyumyur’ referring to Roma,
резаняк ‘circumcised person’ referring to Turks; in English: Negro,
Paki, Gyppo), sexist comments (Could you organize coffee? aimed at a
female senior in an office full of males all of whom her inferior; Why
don’t you show some leg to get that job?; forms of address, such as
sweetie, pussy, sexy, etc.), and homophobic speech (e. g. faggot, so
gay, dyke, etc.).
Because of the ability of hate speech to instill hatred and stir
people into action, its use is forbidden in various countries by law,
e.g. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South
Africa, Australia and India. Therefore, anyone feeling oppressed
through verbal abuse or anything written s/he considers offensive
could resort to court. In addition, some countries, e.g. Israel and
France, strongly oppose the sale of Nazi paraphernalia. Other
countries like Canada, Germany and France have accepted the
existence of the Holocaust by law and any denial is considered a
criminal offence (Liptak 2008).

 Self-test tasks:
A. What is the essence of hate speech?

2.4. ZERO TOLERANCE

Zero tolerance is a comparatively new term. It basically refers

to the “automatic punishment for infractions of a stated rule,
with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct”
(Wikipedia/ EN/).

18
 The term was mentioned for the first time in 1994. It was
used in a report on the so called ‘broken window theory’ of
crime (see also Wikipedia/ EN/). However, zero tolerance is also
connected with the policy of prevention of drugs, weapons and
overall crime in American schools.
Jock Young (1999: 124) summarizes the concept of zero tolerance in
six key components: 1) the objective is to lower the level of tolerance
towards crime and deviance; 2) this objective is pursued by means of
punishment, to some extent through the application of extreme
measures; 3) it is believed we can step back into the kind of
traditional village community that is characterized by respect, order
and courtesy towards fellow human beings; 4) it is assumed there is a
continuum that runs from petty offences that adversely affect the
‘quality of life’ through to a major crime; 5) which implies that people
committing petty offences must be recognized as a serious social
problem: unless the problem is tackled straightaway, it will eventually
lead via various avenues to crime; 6) the key text that is quoted all the
time is the article by Wilson and Kelling (1982) on ‘Broken Windows’.
(Torronen 2004: 29)

The theory behind zero tolerance states that there should be

no tolerance exhibited in matters of drugs, weapons, drunkenness,
public disturbance, crimes, vandalism, drink and drive incidents,
sexual exploitation, etc. which should be sanctioned immediately
regardless of the position of the culprits in the respective society (see
also Dobreva 2009). Put in this way, zero tolerance rules
application of the law as it is, with no subjectivity on behalf of
authorities to any of the culprits, no additional interpretations
based on situations, simply rules and regulations applied by the
book.
The idea of zero tolerance policy has developed into a
policy of irreconcilability and it became clear that zero
tolerance is quite different from intolerance or tolerance.
Various scholars call it “courageous interference” (von Thun 2002:
177; Dobreva 2009: 32), “that which is not tolerance” (Marcel 1995:
114 in Dobreva 2009: 32), “a specific attitude” (Torronen 2004: 30),
etc. As stated by Thun, “when the other threatens, torments, bothers
me or the others through the actions in his life” then “courageous
interference” (von Thun 2002: 177 ibid.) is needed.
Dobreva (2009: 33-34) concludes that zero tolerance,
similar to intolerance, could have both physical and discursive

19
representations. As some of the discursive representations of zero
tolerance she shows pursuit, punishment, denial, challenging,
disapproval, branding, standing against some practice or point of
view, call for the suspension of an action or for change of opinion. In
everyday situation, zero tolerance is observed in statements such as
“I would not tolerate…”, “I would not allow…”, “… is unacceptable in
my house/ home”, etc.
The proverb that best summarises the essence of zero
tolerance is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”.

 Self-test tasks:
A. What is zero tolerance?
B. When is zero tolerance necessary?

20
 CHAPTER III. ETHNICITY

 Annotation: This part of the module focuses mostly on the

theoretical findings on the subject of ethnicity. Students will be
introduced to the ideas of ethnicity as a defining characteristic
acquired at birth, as well as a notion that can be developed and
changed over time.
 Aims and expected results: Adding to the knowledge students
already have on ethnicity.
 Additional aims and results: Raising awareness of the different
aspects of the notion discussed.

3.1. DIFFERENT VIEWS ON ETHNICITY

The term ethnic is used for the first time in the UK in 1375
meaning ‘heathen, pagan’, while ethnos derives from Greek ‘band of
people living together, nation, people’ or ‘people of one’s own kind’
(OED). The meaning ‘peculiar to a race or nation’ was noticed for the
first time in 1851 and in 1935 it was used with the meaning of
‘different cultural groups’.
The term ethnicity appeared in 1953. Ethnic meaning ‘racial,
cultural, or national minority group’ has been used in American
English since 1945 (MSN Encarta). The meanings of ethnic which are
mentioned in the contemporary English dictionaries are: “1.
pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group)
sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the
like; 2. referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of
such groups; 3. being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group
that is a minority within a larger society: ethnic Chinese in San
Francisco” (Dictionary.com).
In the Bulgarian dictionaries ethnos is explained as ‘a people,
nationality, tribe’ (Contemporary Bulgarian Dictionary 1995), while
ethnic as ‘characteristic of a tribe or nationality; tribal, national’
(Bulgarian dictionary 1976) and they give examples with ethnic
group, ethnic conflicts. The word ethnicity is not included in either of
the quoted Bulgarian dictionaries.
As the information received from Encarta English Dictionary
shows, ethnic and ethnos have existed in English since the 14th
century. Ethnos meaning “a feature, different from race”,

21
however, was used for the first time at the end of the 19th c. (see
Gossieux 2004: 16).
Various scholars define ethnicity as a comparatively new
term (see Eriksen 1993; Fitzgerald 1991) and give different
information on the person who used it for the first time. Some
of them mention the American sociologist D. Riesman in 1953
(see Eriksen 1993: 4), while for others it is W. Lloyd Warner in
1941 (see Fitzgerald 1991). The term appeared in the Oxford
English Dictionary in 1972.
Many research studies show the similarity between the terms
ethnicity and race.
The opinion held in this course is that race is a term
referring to the phenotypical features that divide the population
of the Earth into three main races: white, Negroid and
Mongoloid, while ethnicity does not include only kindred
features but also cultural ones.
The views on ethnicity could be defined in two main trends:
Primordialism and Instrumentalism.
Primordialists support the view that ethnicity is static.
For them ethnicity is something “given” (Geerz 1963), its primariness
is “assigned by the individuals to the relationships of religion, blood,
race, language, region and customs but it is not an essential part of
them” (see Hutchinson, Smith 1996).
On the other hand, it is not necessary for ethnicity to be
closely connected with the genetic characteristics but rather with the
self-determination of an individual or a group of individuals. The
newly established countries and those in the process of
establishment and ethnic groups are a proof of the last statement.
Therefore, the ethnicity an individual specifies as his/ her own
is a matter of personal choice (see Fitzgerald 1991). This second
point of view is supported by Instrumentalists. One of their main
ideas, quoted by G. Hutchinson and A. Smith (1996: 9) is “the
socially constructed essence of ethnicity and the ability of the
individuals to ‘separate from and mix with’ the diversity of
ethnic heritage and cultures and to form their own individual
and group identities”.
As stated by Hutchinson and Smith (1996)
Instrumentalists are criticized because they pay too much
attention to the material side of the term. That is why most of the

22
scholars try to combine the two above mentioned approaches. F. Bart
(1996: 79) views ethnic groups as “imposed units where the social
borders assure the stability of the group”.
Regardless of whether ethnicity is viewed following the
ideas of Primordialists or Instrumentalists, or of those
combining the two approaches, the main characteristic of
ethnicity is diversity. This difference could be biological
(physical traits) or cultural (language, custom, traditions, attire,
religion, etc.). According to Fitzgerald (1991: 199) “[e]thnicity
often includes colour, class, and culture. Today we are prone to
give highest importance to the culture”.
Just like difference cannot be defined by itself without the
juxtaposition of two things, in the same way a specific group cannot
be defined as ethnic without the presence of another group
considered different from the first. T. Eriksen (1993) supports the
statement that for ethnicity to exist there should be at least two
groups that would establish a minimal contact and define themselves
as culturally different. The fact that each one of us defines ourselves
as different from the others is truly of great importance while for a
third person a specific difference cannot be so obvious, at the same
time, however, it is defining for the other two groups involved.
It is important to note that nowadays people often consider
ethnicity as meaning the same as minority, or said in another
way when people talk about an ethnic group in most cases the others
think it is a matter of minority (see Fitzgerald 1991). It is like that
because the ethnicity of the dominant group is accepted to be
the norm, while those who differ from it in some way or in some
features are qualified as ethnically different. In its essence ethnicity
is a characteristic defining both dominant and dominated cultures
(see Eriksen 1993). The link between ethnicity and minority
maintains the negative connotation of ethnicity. This fact is
confirmed by collocations like ethnic conflicts, ethnic
cleansing, ethnic wars or as Gossieux (2004: 12) puts it
“[ethnicity] defines what is unknown and disturbing bringing the
connotations of an exotic otherness. The ethnic – that is the
others”.
Only with the increase of interest towards the variety of
cultures and the transfer of different cultural characteristics
from one group to another did the term begin to lose its

23
negativism and started to be associated with the attractively
exotic, interesting, unique, like in ethnic cuisine, ethnic motifs,
ethnic music. In this way, the term “acquires the meaning of
authentic or specific … natural” (ibid.).
The idea that ethnicity is not such an important characteristic
of the separate individual and that it is softened by other identity
markers like gender, class, and region, gathers more and more
prominence (see Hutchinson, Smith 1996; Eriksen 1993).
In this course the term ethnicity will be used to mark a
set of physical and cultural characteristics important for the
self-determination of a specific group as different from another
without any hint of minority.

 Self-test tasks:
A. How do Instrumentalists define ethnicity?
B. What is different in the understanding of Primordialists?
C. Why is ethnicity considered as similar to minority?

3.2. RACISM

Racism is defined as an exhibition of discrimination towards

the representatives of an out-group. I. Law (2002: 16-17) summarizes
the views of Mason (1992), Mile (1989) and Banton (1970) according
to whom the notion of racism should be restricted only to the
biological explanations and representations of the different groups
(see also Eriksen 1993; Lustig, Koester 1999).
Due to the fact that the visible or physical/ genetic traits
become harder to distinguish people resort to the use of cultural
specifics to determine their difference. Van Dijk (1991) uses the
term ethnicism to qualify the exhibitions of discrimination
towards the representatives of other ethnic groups.
There are generally two directions in the views on racism: the
first one, focusing on the distinction between different groups of
people on the basis of physical traits, i.e. a narrower perception; and
the second one, taking into consideration not only physical traits but
differentiating people on the basis of cultural differences as well (else
called ethnicism as understood by Van den Berge 1996; Essed 1955),
i.e. a broader view (see also Fitzgerald 1991; Dobreva 2009a).

24
 Lustig and Koester (1999) distinguish six varieties of racism:
1) Old-fashioned racism connected with fanaticism and open
demonstration of hostility towards representatives of other
races; 2) Symbolic racism understood as a threat to specific values
in a society; 3) Tokenism (from the English token ‘sign’). The
advocates of this type of racism consider themselves unbiased
and in order to maintain their own appraisal as individuals who
believe in equality for all are prone to making compromises even
to the so-called reverse discrimination; 4) Aversive racism (Lat.
aversus ‘turned to the other side, with its back’) characterized with
avoidance of contacts with representatives of other “races”; 5)
Spontaneous dislike (e. g. members of cultures who are mostly
vegetarian can develop negative feelings for cultures who usually
consume meat); 6) Racism because of lack of knowledge – it is
considered the least dangerous form of racism which simply
shows negative attitudes or reactions of discomfort towards
unfamiliar people or practices (see Lustig, Koester 1999: 128-129).
The exhibitions of racism can also be observed at an
individual level – prejudice towards a specific group of people
characterized with specific phenotypic features, and at institutional
level – rejection of employment, placement of the so-called
“glass ceiling”9, refusal of accommodation (see also 3.3.3. for
Nimbyism or environmental racism), health service on the basis of
racial or ethnic features and at a cultural level – rejecting the
culture and all its features characterizing a specific group (see
Dobreva 2009a; Bonilla-Silva 1994).
Ph. Essed (1955) conducts interviews with women of Afro-
American origin in the USA and the Netherlands with the goal of
exploring the exhibition of everyday racism. To the author, everyday
racism differs from the common understanding of racism in that it
“includes only systematic, repeating and familiar practices”
(Essed 1955: 3), i.e. practices that can be summarized and are
connected with some attitude or a type of behaviour and are included
at different levels. Essed’s research shows that the Dutch exhibit
ethnicism, i.e. cultural oppression, to a far greater extent than the
Americans. Essed also supports the opinion that racism operates

9The phrase refers to the limit placed on professional advancement, especially as imposed upon women,
which is not readily perceived or openly acknowledged (Dictionary.com).

25
through the discourse of tolerance because the dominant group
accepts its own norms and values as better and not liable to
change. Essed concludes that the dominant groups usually do
not notice the exhibitions of racism in their everyday lives
because they do not encounter problems of a racial or ethnic
character. According to the same author this is so, because in
the States, as well as in the Netherlands, racism is exhibited
very rarely in the main systems for transfer of information: the
mass media and education (see Essed 1955).
Paul E. Martin (1998: 92) accentuates on another peculiarity
of the attribution of the term race: “[it] has been used for groups of
people like Jews, Afro-Americans in the USA, ‘Orientals’, ‘Asians’”.
The term race has been used for everybody who is different from
the Arian or Indo-European type. Thus for example “although
the history of the United Kingdom is connected with encounters
and coexistence with people with different colour of the skin the
British are still quite reserved to them” (ibid.). This attitude is
highlighted by the usage of the colour marker ‘black’ as a
definition not only of groups of Afro-Caribbean origin but also of
groups like the Asians who are frequently defined as ‘brown’.
The aim of both modifiers is to show the minority status of the
groups they are being attributed to. In many of the cases the
groups themselves prefer to be marked with one and the same
qualifier, not because they are physically or culturally black but
because they are defined as such politically, i.e. the attitude to
them is similar to people who are ‘black’ or ‘non-white’ (see
Martin 1998: 92 and following).
According to Yansen (2003) in the States “it is expected
from the East Europeans and the Irish to accept the values of
northern and western Europeans and that is why it is believed
that they could turn into true Americans but the Afro-
Americans, Asians and the Mexicans are considered a lower
category of people and they are denied the opportunity of
becoming true Americans” (qtd. in Dobreva 2009a). That exhibition
of racism Yansen (2003) defines as “traditional Eurocentric racism”
(ibid.). Todoroff (2002: 213-214) makes a similar observation. For
him the most active form of racism in contemporary society is
the one towards foreign workers which could escalate from

26
religious intolerance through the creation of negative
stereotypes to the exhibition of physical violence.

 Self-test tasks:
A. What are the two approaches to the understanding of
racism?
B. Why does Essed state that racism operates through the
discourse of tolerance?

3.3. ETHNOCENTRISM. WHITENESS. NIMBYISM

3.3.1. ETHNOCENTRISM

In order for the exhibitions of ethnicism / racism to be better

understood, it is necessary to look at another phenomenon which
represents one’s own point of view as the most correct and
authoritative while everything else is positioned around it.
In 1940 W. Sumner introduced the term ethnocentrism and
defined it as “the technical name for the view of things in which one’s
own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and
rated with reference to it” (qtd. in Lustig, Koester 1999a: 120).
According to Lustig and Koester (1999) ethnocentrism highlights
and exaggerates the cultural differences. It defines everything
that is familiar as always correct, good and natural, while what
is unfamiliar as wrong, bad and unnatural. This categorization of
the unfamiliar as wrong and unnatural can hinder
communication with other cultures.
Ethnocentrism is broadly defined as “the belief in the inherent
superiority of one’s own ethnic group or culture” (see Dictionary.com;
WiseGeek; NewWorldEncyclopaedia; Wikipedia/En/). It can be
present in every possible form of contact between different
groups. J. Kellas (1991) views ethnocentrism as an individual
process because the individual establishes his/ her connections
with the group they belong to and only then can they establish
their connections with the world around them (see also Axelrod,
Hammond 2003). “Ethnocentrism means the interpretation and
evaluation of another’s behaviour using one’s own standard, i.e.

27
distinguishing between a positive Us and a negative Them” (Baraldi
2006: 57). Following this same principle, the dominant group
positions the dominated group on the basis of their own ideas
about the world and based on these ideas they draw conclusions
about the place which the dominated group takes within the
range of the dominant one.
The definition of the term itself as “a view of the things” and “a
belief”, i.e. some kind of a cognitive process the result of which is the
establishment of a relationship, presents ethnocentrism as both a
positive and a negative phenomenon. On the one hand, it has a
unifying function: people can turn their backs to the individual
differences in the name of the common good (see also Axelrod,
Hammond 2003: 5). On the other hand, the development and
promotion of a specific image and the inherent characteristics
foster the creation of negative assessment of those who are not
members of an ‘in-group’. The exhibition of negative values to
those who are different can turn into discrimination (racism,
ethnicism) or xenophobia, but can also remain solely at the level
of differentiation.
At the same time we cannot accept that the preference to a
particular group can produce a feeling of hatred or hostility to
another group right away as well as vice versa, although the two can
be related (see also Axelrod, Hammond 2003).

3.3.2. WHITENESS

In reference books on the topic of ethnicity, as well as in

western studies on the topic, in the 1980s there appears a new term
which is closely connected with the understanding of both ethnicity
and ethnocentrism as presented above. The term which the
scholars use is whiteness, or the understanding of whiteness as
opposed to what it means to be black. Gabriel (1998: 87) talks
about “understanding whiteness” as a result of the processes of
globalization and the reestablishment of whiteness which is very
active in the maintenance of traditions, influx of cultures and the
fossilization of identities in cases of quick economic and cultural
change (qtd. in Law 2002: 27).

28
 When conducting analysis of media texts on the topic of
ethnicity scholars usually comment on the way national media
present ethnic groups, the number of journalists, editors and other
staff in the media production who are of ethnic origin different from
the one of the dominant group. Sometimes scholars even forget
that there is an ethnic group which, although not explicitly
mentioned, is present in the media in a very powerful and
tangible way. That is the dominant group which is served by the
national media. One of the reasons to avoid explicit naming of
this group, via an ethnonym for example, is the fact that its
presence is taken for granted. Lustig and Koester (1999: 4),
quoting the research of some scholars on Americans, state that many
white people do not realize the impact their skin colour has on their
everyday life simply because as the “privileged group” they accept
their identity as the standard the others should follow and do not
realize the invisible character of their identity. That is why the
presence of those who are different is easier to notice than the
presence of the dominant group. That difference, as was
mentioned above, is assumed because of different skin colour,
shape of the eyes and nose, type of hair, different culture, or
different religion.
Whiteness in Bulgaria as well as in the UK is understood as:
white colour of the skin, Christianity as religion, common homeland
(Bulgaria, resp. the British Isles), common mother tongue (Bulgarian,
resp. English). Each ethnic group that is marked with a darker
skin colour is automatically considered as Other. Thus the Roma
in Bulgarian society are perceived as the Other. When the colour of
the skin is no longer the differentiating factor for an individual
to be judged by, other norms, such as religion, customs,
language, homeland, habits, etc., apply. In most cases only one
feature is enough for a group to be defined as Other, different
than the dominant white group.
There are many examples of white people who are considered
as similar to the dominant group in Bulgaria or the UK but who are
still regarded as different, i.e. they possess whiteness “of a
different colour” as defined by M. F. Jakobson (1958). Some of
the members of the Travellers and Gypsies in the UK have white skin
which does not qualify them as different from the majority (see also
Halloway 2003, qtd. in Hubbard 2005), their itinerant way of life,

29
however, does. The other immigrants from Central Europe like
Poland, the Czech Republic, etc. who do not differ in colour but in
culture and mother tongue are treated in a similar way (see also
Hubbard 2005; Jacobson 2002). The situation with the ethnic groups
of Armenians and Turks in Bulgaria is the same, i.e. their difference
is marked by a different mother tongue, culture, and, in the case of
the Turks ethnic group, religion.
As becomes clear although whiteness in national media is
not usually explicitly mentioned, the dominant role of the first
is indisputable because it sets the norms on the basis of which
everybody else is being judged and perceived. According to R.
Dyer (1997) the fact that a person is white already positions him/
her as a part of the big group which enjoys other privileges simply
because of the colour of their skin and not because of their skills.
Peggy Machintosh (2004: 188) has attempted to enumerate the
social, political and cultural advantages attributed to whites in the
American society. In her opinion these advantages seem invisible
for most of the whites but are quite obvious to the other groups.
To Mackintosh the white privileges are “an invisible package of
unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but
about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (see Wikipedia/En/).
Realizing the dominant position of those who are understood as
being white, as well as the presence of white privileges marks
the first step to the acceptance of those who could be defined as
“non-white”. I. Law (2002: 28) states that some of the steps which
are undertaken against the omnipresence of whiteness are the
problems of hybridity and difference in media presentations, as well
as the problems of prejudice, accuracy, and truth.
Focusing on the local ethnicity is a prerogative of national
movements and nationalistic doctrines. Nationalists do not readily
accept the changes that are happening or the transfer from
monocultural to multicultural society. They see multiculturalism as
a threat to the existence of the majority and a way for minorities to
obtain power. In order to provoke public opinion and to revert to the
idea of a pure nation or a powerful majority and weak and invisible
minorities, nationalists emphasize the idea that multiculturalism
would efface whiteness. To obtain their goal they present the local
whites as repressed by the minorities and to that end the white
colour as the marker of the dominant group and the ethnonym

30
naming it are very frequently used in the nationalistic press. They
need an explicit naming of the group in order to develop their
idea of a contrast between natives and foreigners and place
white people in the position usually attributed to minority
groups. On the other hand, the nationalistic media very rarely
present the view points of the “ethnic Other” which additionally
strengthens the dominant position taken by whites (see also
Husband 1975). The faces that appear in national shows are also
primarily white, which in itself, as stated by Husband, enhances the
feeling of the superiority of whiteness as a characteristic of the
majority.

3.3.3. NIMBYISM

One of the exhibitions of whiteness is a movement which

appeared for the first time in American context. NIMBY or
Nimbyism, which is an acronym of the English Not In My Back Yard
or Not In My Back Yonder, was used for the first time by the British
politician Nicholas Ridley in the 1980s (see Wikipedia/En/). The
geographer F. Hubbard (2005) reviews the exhibitions of Nimbyism in
the USA and the UK as a way for white people to protect and fight for
the privileges of whites and to define the territory on which they
would like to live. According to Hubbard (2005: 52) Nimbyism is
“racism exhibited at the level of environment – the numbers of
structures, institutions and practices which could not be deliberately
and threateningly racist but which serve to maintain the privileged
status of the white areas”.
The British, as well as the Bulgarian reality, are rife with
examples of Nimbyism: the seclusion of different ethnic groups
in separate quarters, the creation of ghettos, various camping
sites for the Gypsies in the UK, which are usually away from the
areas inhabited by the ethnic group characterized as white, the
protests against the settlement of ethnic groups on territories
considered samples of everything that is included in the
definition of “British” or “Bulgarian”, the reluctance in the
provision of housing or religious and cultural centers close to
establishments servicing the white group. All these topoi, because
of their connection direct or indirect with the history or culture of the
white ethnic group, are of “great importance for the maintenance of

31
the dominant position of a specific white group” (see Hubbard 2005:
52) and therefore their protection from the Others is of extreme
importance. According to Hubbard (2005: 53) nimbyism provides the
necessary distance between the white group and the Others.
Similar ideas are presented in several other acronyms
used mostly in disputes on the ownership of a specific site or on
the presence of a group in a specific spot: NOTE – Not Over There
Either; ABH – Anywhere But Here; NOPE – Not On Planet Earth;
LULU – Locally Unwanted Land Uses; NIOBE – Not In Our Beautiful
Environment; NOOS – Not On Our Street; NIMEY – Not In My
Election Year; NIMTOO – Not In My Term Of Office; NOABY – Not in
Anyone’s Back Yard; BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Near
Anyone (see Coggins 2004: 2).

 Self-test tasks:
A. What does the term ethnocentrism mean?
B. What is understood by whiteness?

32
 CHAPTER IV. IDENTITY

 Annotation: This part of the module focuses mostly on the

theoretical findings on the subject of identity. It provides the
answer to questions like: Who are I? How am I different/ similar
to the others? How do I define myself in terms of the others?
The notion of multiple identities is also discussed.
 Aims and expected results: Adding to the knowledge students
already have on identity.
 Additional aims and results: Raising awareness of the different
aspects of identity.

Identity – from Late Latin identitās, equivalent to Latin ident

(idem) repeatedly, again and again: 1. the state or fact of remaining
the same one or ones, as under varying aspects or conditions; 2. the
condition of being oneself or itself, and not another; 3. condition or
character as to who a person or what a thing is (Dictionary.com).
Identity is of a particular importance not only for the self-
determination of the individual as a part of a culture but also for
the determination of the individual as something authentic (see
also SEPh; Taylor 2002). In order, however, for an individual to
be identified with a specific culture s/he has to distinguish him/
herself from the other cultures s/he comes into contact with.
Due to this reason the relationships with the Other are one of
the most important dimensions of identity.
What we understand in our everyday life under identity is the
self-awareness and self-perception of an individual or a group of
individuals. According to S. Hall (1996: 2):
In common sense language identification is constructed on the
back of a recognition of some common origin or shared
characteristics with another person or group, or with an ideal,
and with the natural closure of solidarity and allegiance
established on this foundation. In contrast with the ‘naturalism’
of this definition, the discursive approach sees identification as
a construction, a process never completed – always ‘in process’.
The understanding of identity as a process brings it closer to
Mason’s (2003) perception of identity as “situational” (qtd. in Smith
1991: 20). A person can have various identities which he could

33
exhibit at different times based on the situation he is into (see
also Smith 1991). For instance, a person could identify
him/herself with the ethnic group they belong to, with the
religion they profess, with the gender s/he possesses or shows,
or, in general with the culture s/he adheres to. This
identification is of major importance for the formation of
identity and identity politics (see Axelrod, Hammond 2003).
The understanding of identity receives especially broad
popularity with the appearance of identity politics in the second half
of the 20th c. The term covers a wide array of political acts
striving to assure political freedom, acknowledgement and
respect to the “difference” of the marginalized groups (Krux
2001 in SEPh). Thus, the focus of identity politics falls on the self-
determination of individuals from marginalized groups, on their
feelings and experience, and differs from the accepted norm of
identity which is marked as “white, male, middle class, physically
healthy and heterosexual” (see SEPh; Hall 1996). This popularity of
identities which are different from the norm has a negative
effect as well, mostly because it is accepted by the majority as
an exhibition of privileges to the Others and stimulates the
exhibitions of intolerant attitude, discrimination, and racism.
The reason for the latter lies in the fact that we use our own
categories to define what is different, who is Other, who is
perceived by us as foreign and when the incompatibility between
our notions and the thing that is presented as foreign differ
considerably, we reach what is described by Blommaert and
Verschueren (1998: 19) as the hyperbolization of the
abnormality of the foreign, i.e. the attribution of traits or habits to
a specific group is done with the sole purpose of establishing
stereotypes and prejudices that will present the Other in an
abnormal environment and thus maintain our own positive self-
esteem. The more permanent the negative image of the Other, the
higher the positive self-esteem.
The media play a considerable role in this respect due to their
ability through “exaggeration, distortion or enhancement of the
demonized image of the Other” to keep the population in a state of
“moral panic” (see Cottle 2003: 9 and following). This in itself is
conducive to the exhibition of intolerance and can be achieved either
through physical or discursive acts.

34
 Lustig and Koester (1999) define three types of identity:
cultural, social and personal. These three overlap with the
characteristics mentioned so far. Regardless of which of the
identities a person decides to exhibit in a specific situation this
identity serves him/ her to identify him/herself with or
differentiate from the representatives of the in- or out-group, i.e.
identity is based on the creation of oppositions, the exclusion of one
or another member of these oppositions (see Bischur 2003; Hall
1996).
According to Lustig and Koester (1999: 7) “the cultures you
identify with influence the points of view of where you belong and
whom you consider as ‘us’ and ‘them’”. Defining your own cultural
identity is in the basis of the understanding of the Other as well
as of the distinction from him/ her. In this sense, apart from
having a solely uniting function, i.e. assigning an individual to a
specific group, identity plays also a disuniting function showing
what we are in reality (see also Bischur 2003) or “what we have
become” (Hall 1998). In other words, identity is not presented as
a solely static condition but also as a dynamic and a changing
one. According to Baumann (1996) the maintenance of the
dynamism and the open character of identity is the task of
Postmodernism (see Hall 1996a: 18). The open identity is
predisposed to the recognition and interaction with other identities
up to the moment in which it evolves from an identity of a
monocultural individual to the identity of the intercultural
individual. Adler (1982) describes the identity of the intercultural
individual as an identity “on the border” and as “a style of self-
awareness which is capable of discussing the continually creating
new formations of reality” (see Kim 1990: 60).

 Self-test tasks:
A. Why does Hall define identity as always in process?
B. Why do we use the question ‘Who are I?’ rather than ‘Who am
I?’ when we talk of identity?

35
 CHAPTER V. ETHNIC IDENTITIES IN THE BULGARIAN AND THE BRITISH
MEDIA DISCOURSE

 Annotation: This section of the course builds on the knowledge

received in the previous four chapters and adds the application
of the theoretical findings into the discourse of printed media
on ethnic groups. Students are urged to share their experience
with the local press and discuss the examples that are
presented from the Bulgarian and the British media. Particular
attention is paid to the usage of specific lexemes, linguistic
structures, metaphors, and stereotypes in the creation of the
image of the ethnic Other in both the Bulgarian and the British
press.
 Aims and expected results: The main goal is for students to be
able to apply their knowledge in linguistics to the analysis of
media texts in relation to the creation of ethnic identities.
 Additional aims and results: The course as a whole provides
students with an insight into CDA of media texts and can serve
as a foundation for future research on other phenomena in the
press.

5.1. USE OF ETHNONYMS

The most frequently encountered and evident way of
expressing one’s ethnic adherence in media discourse is through the
usage of an ethnonym which marks the group the article talks
about. Whether this ethnonym is used to create a positive or a
negative image, thereby present the ethnic identity in question in a
tolerant or intolerant way, depends on the context in which it
appears, as well as on the interaction between the ethnonym and the
other linguistic units in the text.
The appearance of an ethnonym marking an ethnic group in
the media speaks of existence and recognition of the group
mentioned on the one hand; while on the other, providing
information on any ethnic group introduces this group’s culture and
character to the members of the majority, thereby fostering
intercultural awareness and competence.
Gossieux (2004) states that the name is one of the most
significant markers of identity. An ethnic group cannot exist without
being named not only by its own members but also by the members

36
of the other ethnic groups because the ethnic groups are born on the
basis of contrasts (see Eriksen 1991). In practice Gossieux (2004)
defines exonyms (the way groups different from one’s own are called)
as being more in number than the autonyms / endonyms (the way
one identifies one’s own group) because identification is important
for the presentation of Otherness.

The ethnonym is something like a reflection or a metaphor of

ethnicity. It possesses the inherent simplicity of ethnicity: there is a
specific name for the one who is different from me and my own people;
the one who is called in a specific way is different from me and my
own people. The ethnonym possesses the estranging character of
ethnicity: to be named, means to be categorized (Gossieux 2004: 40,
translation mine).

That is why it is important to analyse the use of both

endonyms and exonyms when talking of the presentation of ethnic
identities in the media.
Looking at the coverage different groups received in the
Bulgarian and the British press in 2001-2005 and at the beginning
of 2011 there are two figures that can be analysed: Figure 1, which
presents the groups that received widest coverage in the Bulgarian
media, and Figure 2 presenting the findings in the British press10.

10 The corpus used for the structuring of the two figures is based only on the articles on ethnic groups in
the Bulgarian and the British printed media published at the beginning of the century (2001-2005) – 6572
articles and at the beginning of 2011 (February – March 2011) – 889 articles. There are also articles from
2012 which have been analysed in this chapter but are not included in the two figures. The analysis of the
articles from 2012 though, confirms the trend observed in the articles from 2011.

37
 Fig. 1. Ethnic groups represented in the Bulgarian press

Looking at the results presented by Fig. 1, it can be concluded

that the groups which received widest coverage in the two periods of
the research were those of Roma and Turks11. The rest of the
groups, such as Armenian, Jewish, Bulgarian Mohammedans,
Karakachan, Gagauz, etc., are only barely touched upon both in
2001-2005 and in 2011. This already provokes the conclusion that
Roma and Turks are the groups that are presented as the most
visible ones in the press due to their difference from the
majority. While Roma differ from ethnic Bulgarians mostly in their
skin colour, Turks differ in religion and culture.
The rest of the groups, even though different in culture, are
not so visible as Armenians and Jews have managed to adapt to
Bulgarian way of life, and Karakachan, Gagauz, and Bulgarian
Mohammedans are of such small numbers that they do not prove to
be of interest to the majority, therefore are not so much looked into
in the Bulgarian press.
Roma and Turks receive wider coverage for a different reason
as well: they usually create problems for the majority – Roma
because of their high rate of illiteracy and criminality, and Turks
because of their strife for recognition and their representation in
Bulgarian politics.

11This observation is interesting, as Turks actually take bigger percentage of the demographic structure but
receive smaller coverage in the media – a fact which is in contradiction with the notion that ethnic groups
receive media coverage that is reciprocal to their representation in society.

38
 The corpus from the British press shows more dynamism than
the one in the Bulgarian press. Similar to the Bulgarian press
though, one can notice the preferred coverage mostly on two to four
of the ethnic minority groups in the UK.

Fig. 2. Ethnic groups represented in the British press

As shown on Fig. 2, the two groups that enjoyed widest

coverage at the beginning of the century were Asians and Indians,
while in 2011 these two groups were exceeded in coverage by the
colour marker black referring usually to Africans and Caribbeans,
and by an increased coverage on the community of Gypsies and
Travellers. This change is interesting for analysis as the group of
Gypsies and Travellers in the UK is significantly smaller in number
than that of Asians.
Here the coverage on ethnic groups is also based on difference
in colour, religion, and culture, with the difference that it is Asians
who can be distinguished on the basis of colour and religion, while
Gypsies and Travellers in the UK – mainly in lifestyle. The press
coverage on ethnic groups in the British press is governed on
the one hand by the nuisance Gypsies cause and on the other,
by Asians’ strife for recognition and acceptance.
Analyzing the use of ethnonyms in the Bulgarian and the
British press further, one could not miss the fact that the
ethnonyms used are mostly in the plural which reveals a tendency

39
similar to the one observed by Siegfried and Margret Jäger (qtd. in
Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 25) in the German media, i.e. the perpetrators
of crime who are not a part of the majority are presented as a
group:

(1) Цигани убиха бивш (1`)13 Gypsies killed an ex-cop

полицай, спасил студент /з/12 who had saved a student /h/
Роми пребиха до смърт Roma beat the ex-boss of PD-
ексшефа на РДВР-Видин Vidin Vylcho Vylchev to death
Вълчо Вълчев /пз/ (St/ /sh/ (St/ 24.12.05);
24.12.05);
(2`) Gypsies stone policemen to
(2) Цигани бият полицаи с death /h/ The men in uniforms
камъни /з/ Униформените were saving a missing girl /sh/
спасявали изчезнало момиче (St/ 14.12.05);
/пз/ (St/ 14.12.05);
(3`) Roma flogged a policeman to
(3) Роми пак пребиха полицай death again /h/ (St/ 15.12.05).
/з/ (St/ 15.12.05).

The tendency of the Bulgarian media to use the

grammatical marker of plurality is especially strong in materials
on crime or on the welfare system where the number of the Roma,
who are shown as participants in the problem, causes concern and
fear, and creates the impression that the presented events are
characteristic of all members of the community. Thus the Bulgarian
press develops the identity of the whole group as criminals and
people who leech on the welfare system.
It should also be noted that most of the articles, which talk of
big numbers of Roma involved in the committed crimes, do not
mention the exact number of perpetrators in the headline. In the
main body of the article, though, it is clearly shown that the thefts,
attacks, and the other offences are committed by two to maximum
ten Roma men or women with children – a number that is far smaller
than the big group suggested by the plural number in the headline.
This preference on behalf of journalists clearly shows the
intention to denigrate the whole group, thus creating a bad

12Check with the List of Abbreviations

13 Translations of the examples from Bulgarian are done by me in order to maintain uniformity in the
language of the presentation. All translations are marked by a prim after the number of the example, i.e.
(X`). When translating the Bulgarian exonym Tsigani I have chosen to use as its equivalent Gypsies as the
more common and familiar term in English.

40
image and fostering the stereotype of Roma as natural born
criminals.
The articles on Turks in Bulgaria simply present them as a
group and not as individuals having their differences.
One of the peculiarities of the ethnonym which marks the
representatives of the Gypsies and Travellers in the UK is that in its
politically correct form it is composed of two separate nouns
both of which are in the plural. That is why in the texts in which
the ethnonym is present in its full form the number is generally
plural. The articles which use the compound ethnonym are very
specific, usually discussing the problems of the community and the
exhibitions of racism against them. The language of such
publications is generally more official, thereby requiring the usage of
the full form of the ethnonym.
The frequency of usage of one of the two ethnonyms to mark
the whole group is quite high and, similar to the Bulgarian printed
media, in most cases the ethnonyms are used in the plural: (4)
Gipsies stop play by camping on cricket square /h/ (DT/ 16.04.05);
(5) Gypsies leave council with £90,000 utilities bill /h/ (DT/
16.10.05); (6) Travellers move into Charles’s show village /h/ (DT/
12.08.04).
The notion of a size of the ethnic Other exceeding the
locals is further enhanced in both the Bulgarian and the British
newspapers by the use of a numeral which shows the exact
number of the Roma or Gypsies involved in the issues discussed:

(7) Петстотин цигани (7`) 500 Gypsies storm a hospital

щурмуват болница /з/ (St/ /h/ (St/ 20.08.05);
20.08.05);
(8`) 80 Gypsies mauled people
(8) 80 цигани млатиха from Sofia /h/ (St/ 25.05.05);
софиянци /з/ (St/ 25.05.05);
(9`) 120 Roma attack a cowfarm
(9) 120 роми нападат /h/ (S/ 30.07.05).
кравеферма /з/ (S/ 30.07.05).
(10) About 200 gipsies, travelling in 30 caravans, pitched up on the
field five days ago without warning. They have caused extensive
damage to the pitch and, despite demands from the local council, are
refusing to budge (DT/ 16.04.05); (11) Village ‘besieged’ by 5,000
gipsies at church festival /h/ (DT/ 02.08.01); etc.

41
 The size of the ethnic groups and the feeling of the members of
the majority that they are being outnumbered suggest the outcome of
the clash. It also brings associations with criminalization of the
community and could lead to the outburst of panic and intolerance.
This strategy also serves the purpose of stressing the bad image
of the ethnic Other.
The bad image of the Other is further highlighted by the
syntactic position usually attributed to the ethnonym. In many
of the analysed examples the position that the ethnonym
occupies is initial, i.e. that of subject with the semantic
function of agent. This is especially true of articles about Roma
involved in criminal activities where the ethnonym takes the
position of subject in 380 articles. On the one hand, the initial
position of the ethnonym gives it the character of a theme, i.e. the
information that the ethnonym carries is familiar, known or
expected. On the other hand, the subject position of the ethnonyms
presents the members of the ethnic group as the active perpetrators
of the action (see e.g. 7, 8, 9 above). A similar trend is observed in
the British media using the ethnonyms Gypsies and Travellers and
the derivatives of Roma which occupy subject position in 50% of the
headlines of the articles from the British corpus.
Most of the British articles featuring an ethnonym in subject
position introduce one of the two major topics: establishment of
illegal camping sites or exhibitions of discrimination against Gypsies
(see e. g. 4, 5, 6 above).
The trend of using other ethnonyms in subject position in
headlines is rarely observed in articles on Asians, blacks, Somalis,
etc. in the UK or on Armenians, Jews, Turks, etc. in Bulgaria.
Articles on the other ethnic groups in Bulgaria or the UK rarely use a
specific ethnonym directly in the headline and the ethnic adherence
of the people mentioned is discussed mainly in the main body of the
article.
There is a slight nuance to this trend observed in the articles
which talk about Bulgarian Turks. The publications on Turks in the
beginning of the century and in 2011 establish a connection between
the Turks in Bulgaria and the activity, members, and campaigns of
the political party Movement for Rights and Freedoms. The MRF or
its leader Ahmed Dogan are the subject of 405, or 53.4%, of all 759
articles comprising the corpus on Turks for the period 2001-2005,

42
and of more than a half of the articles in 2011. This leads to the
conclusion voiced by Daynov (2002) and Markov (2002) that the
image of Bulgarian Turks has to some extent merged with that
of the political party representing them. Whenever the political
party is mentioned in the text, the name of the party itself or its
political leader is presented in the headline of the article. This
reiteration of the link between ethnicity and political adherence
strengthens the notion that all Bulgarian Turks are members of that
party and agree with the views of its leader.
Another specific noticed in both the Bulgarian and the British
press is the use of ethnonyms in paratactic structures.
In the Bulgarian media, the groups which appear together are
usually Roma, Turks, Armenians, and Jews or Bulgarian
Mohammedans:

(12) […] от едната страна сме (12`) […] On one side we are
българи, турци, помаци, Bulgarians, Turks, Bulgarian
арменци и всички останали, Mohammedans, Armenians
които живеем бедно, но and all those who live poorly
запазваме достойнство, и от but maintain our dignity, and
другата страна са on the other there are the
изпадналите на социалното dregs of society, the
дъно декласирани и declassed and degraded
лумпенизирани роми, […] Roma […] (Dn/ 01.09.04);
(Dn/ 01.09.04); (13) Защото и (13`) Because Turks and
турци, и татари, и Tatars, and Bulgarian
българите мохамедани, и Mohammedans, and
каракачани, и власи, да не Karakachans, and Wallachs,
говорим за евреи и арменци, not to mention Jews and
са хора на реда и закона (St/ Armenians are people of law
28.05.05); (14) България ще and order (St/ 28.05.05); (14`)
стане чиста и свята Bulgaria would become a
република, в която българи, pure and holy republic in
турци, арменци и евреи ще which Bulgarians, Turks,
живеят в мир и Armenians, and Jews would
разбирателство (Dn/ live in peace and
26.08.01). understanding (Dn/
26.08.01).

The use of the paratactic structures, on the one hand,

suggests an equal status attributed to the ethnic groups, while on

43
the other hand, it leads to the observation made by Dobreva (2009:
254-258) that the higher use of the ethnonyms Roma14, Turks,
Armenians, and Jews, gives them the position of the
prototypical ethnic minority groups in Bulgaria, while the other
groups, i.e. Karakachan, Gagauz, Bulgarian Mohammedans, etc.
are of lower importance and are left somewhere “at the
periphery of the notion of ethnic minority” (see Dobreva 2009:
256). Therefore, the message conveyed by the Bulgarian media about
these latter groups is more or less of invisible ethnic groups (see
Daynov 2002), which is also directly stated in some publications.
Another way of interpreting the scarce coverage on other
ethnic groups is that it is done as an attempt at implying the fact
that all other ethnic groups, but the Roma and the Turks, have
managed to adapt to the customs and way of life of the majority.
The British press shows preference in using the colour marker
black together with the umbrella term Asian as modifiers in noun
phrases: (15) black and Asian staff (DT/ 19.06.01); (16) “more black
and Asian characters are likely to feature in the Afternoon Play […]”
(DT/ 13.02.11), thus uniting the two groups.
In addition, the paratactic structure attributes equal status
to the members adhering to each of the two groups. Still, the
usage of exactly these two identity markers, both of which are quite
broad in their meaning, gives the feeling that all ethnic groups are
involved in the issue discussed in the articles where these two
markers appear together. The reason for this inference is based on
the overgeneralizing quality of the colour marker (referring usually to
Africans and Caribbeans), as well as on the fact that the ethnonym
Asian can be applied to any person coming from Asia, i.e. Indian,
Pakistani, Chinese, etc.
The analysed corpus of articles from the British press also
features occurrences of the colour marker black used as a hypernym
to Asian. Examples of the latter are encountered mostly in cases of
quoting the speech of members of the majority: (17) “After Mr Patel

14 Analysing the articles on Roma in the two periods one can notice a change in the use of the endonym
Roma and the exonym Tsigani when referring to the group of Roma in Bulgaria. While at the beginning of
the century, the ratio was Roma used in 78% of the examples, Tsiganin - in 22%, in 2011 due to pressure
from the government and human rights organizations towards a more politically correct language in the
press, the use of the exonym Tsiganin was reduced to only 12% (for more information on the distinction
between Roma and Tsiganin, see Cheshmedzhieva 2009). The nationalistic press, however, continues to
show preference to the use of Tsiganin to Roma.

44
got up to leave the room, Mr Major was heard to say to a colleague:
‘Good candidate... shame he’s black’. Mr Patel, an Asian, quit the
interview process […] ‘Mr Patel isn’t even black, he’s Asian.’15” (DMl/
19.02.11). The example confirms the statement that in the mind of
the majority the colour marker black is still sometimes used to
describe “all those ethnically, and therefore culturally, and
sometimes economically and politically associated with 4 main
regions […], i.e. Africa, the Caribbean, India and Pakistan/
Bangladesh” (UNESCO 1977: 28), i.e. all those who are not
considered “white”. In cases like these we could talk of
overgeneralization of the colour marker black.
As a conclusion to this section it could be stated that the use
of ethnonyms in articles on ethnic groups is an important device to
analyse as it gives readers the feeling of the group: whether the
group discussed is big or small, what kind of activities it is usually
involved in, whether people from that group are discussed on their
own or together with members of other groups. On the other hand,
the use of exonyms over endonyms speaks of disrespect on behalf of
journalists to the members of the analysed group, especially in cases
when the exonyms are viewed as insulting to the group. The use of
ethnonyms also clearly states who the article talks about and sets
the opposition ethnic group vs. the majority.

 Self-test tasks:
A. Why is it important to analyse the ethnonyms used in the
media?
B. Bearing in mind the examples discussed in this chapter,
analyse the provided article (Appendix I, p. 65) in terms of
ethnonyms used and the information on the identity of
Russians in the UK that they convey: is it positive or
negative? How can you tell?

15 It should be clarified that the last utterance belongs to an Asian who comments on the remark made by
Mr Major. Thus the final utterance is meant to stress on the difference in usage between the colour marker
black and the ethnonym Asian. It also speaks of the fact that Asians do not always identify with the colour
marker black.

45
 5.2. PARADIGMS OF REFERENCES

As stated above the use of an ethnonym itself could not

present the identity of an ethnic group in the press. The identity of
an ethnic group is created through the paradigms of references used
in the articles, the stereotypes, or the metaphors attributed to that
group.
Looking at the paradigms of references, we can notice both
positive and negative references to the ethnic groups discussed.
The examples of positively charged lexemes naturally foster
the development of a positive image of the ethnic groups presented in
the article. Some of the references used in the Bulgarian press are:
красива ромка (‘a beautiful Roma woman’), талантливата ромка
(‘the talented Roma woman’); представител на ромската
общност, допуснат [...] до високите етажи на властта (‘a
member of the Roma community allowed […] to the higher levels of
those with power’), трудолюбиви (‘hard-working’); чистници
(‘immaculate’; ‘good housekeepers’); добри домакини (‘good
housewives’); стремящи се да бъдат първи (‘striving to be first in
everything’); остроумен (‘witty’); сръчни (‘skillful’).
As can be seen from the examples provided, some of the
references are used in the plural, while others in the singular, thus
describing only one individual. The latter are characteristic mostly of
the description of Roma who are attributed positive qualities, thereby
who obviously deviate from the general image of the group as a
whole. The positive references in the plural are usually encountered
in articles on the other ethnic groups, i.e. Armenians are usually
described as witty, striving to be the first in everything, skillful,
Armenian women as good housewives, Jews as rich and business
inclined, Gagauz as keeping everything clean and tidy, as well as a
closed community.
The analysed corpus of British articles shows examples of
positive qualities attributed to both the whole Gypsy community and
to separate individuals: welcoming / immaculate; very polite,
extremely helpful, no trouble / always help me out / nice people,
precious groups of people, poor buggers, really nice, well enough
behaved, an extremely charming human being, very jolly / spoke his
mind. The epithets focus only on separate characteristics like

46
politeness, cleanliness, etc. that are generally used to refute the
existing negative stereotypes.
The other ethnic communities in the UK enjoy positive
characteristics, such as united (Asians), supportive of each other
(Asians, Muslims, blacks), having big families (Asians, Muslims),
clever, intelligent (Asians), etc.
There are some conclusions which can be made on the basis
of the positive lexis used:
Communities which are not considered as a threat to the
majority usually enjoy positive qualities in the plural, i.e. Armenians,
Jews, Bulgarian Mohammedans, although different in culture, they
are very small in number and are usually invisible for the majority,
so they are not frequently discussed in the press and at the same
time when they do appear their image is always positive and the
members are always presented as a group.
The same trend is observed with some of the ethnic groups
inhabiting the UK. Chinese for example, although a considerable
group and part of the Asian identity, are very rarely talked about. In
cases where there are articles on Chinese they are usually presented
as a group and are attributed positive qualities such as studious,
hard-working, respectful, etc. In this case, Chinese present a
deviation to the general rule that Asians usually cause trouble and
they are seemingly accepted, by the British press at least, as equal to
the majority.
Based on the analysis so far we can state that the use of
positive lexis in both the Bulgarian and the British media is quite
sporadic, used primarily to present separate individuals who are
seemingly exceptions to the rule that ethnic groups different than the
dominant one are bad. So even if these personal identities are
positive, the group identity thrown at the readers, time after time, is
generally charged with negative qualities: all Roma in Bulgaria are
thieves/ criminals, welfare leeches, all Turks are members of MRF,
all Asians marry into the family, all Muslims are terrorists, etc.
The use of negative references to describe the ethnic groups
viewed as nuisance or threat to the majority is justified with the
willingness of the press to present a negative image of ‘Them’ and
thus bring up the self-esteem of ‘Us’, the majority. On the other
hand, as stated above (see Chapter IV), the majority need scapegoats
they can blame for everything bad happening in their society.

47
Therefore, it is not surprising that the ethnic groups of Roma (and
sometimes Turks) in Bulgaria, and Gypsies and Travellers, Asians,
and blacks in the UK are charged with the biggest number of
negative references.
The negative emotions in the language about the Roma are to
be found within the paradigms of references presenting Roma as
criminals. The paradigm of expressions used in the articles on crime
includes phrases like: озверелите цигани (‘the ferocious Gypsies’),
бесни роми (‘raging Roma’), крадците (‘the thieves’), мургавите
крадци (‘the swarthy thieves’), убийците (‘the killers’) that attribute
to the Roma not only deviant behaviour but also animal cruelty.
The paradigms of references that mark the members of the
Travellers and Gypsy community in the British press are explicitly
negative as well: rogues and vagabonds, nuisance, itinerant criminals,
criminals, thieving layabouts, career criminals, dirty troublemakers,
adjectives like dirty, violent, noisy and phrases the great unwashed,
hell-bent on terrorising law-abiding denizens.
It is interesting to note that the negative lexis used to describe
the places where these groups live is similar in both languages. Both
the Bulgarian and the British press define Roma neighbourhoods
and Gypsy camps as: nuisance, eyesore, blot as well as source of
crime and a menace, a surge of vandalism, drunkenness and looting
and a threat.
The paradigms of references used to describe Asians include:
gangs, ferocious gang leader, polygamist, Muslims, terrorists, rapists,
animals, etc. Blacks are given the following characteristics: illiterate,
gangsters, drug dealers, gang leaders, terrorists, etc.
As can be inferred from the examples provided, the references
used for the various ethnic groups are quite similar not only in the
respective languages and societies but internationally as well. The
image created is of the ethnic Other who is evil, criminally inclined,
and causing problems in the society they consider their own.

 Self-test tasks:
A. Going back to the article on the Russian billionaire
(Appendix I, p. 65), allocate the references used for the
development of Russian identity. Are the references
positive or negative? Why?

48
5.3. NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF WORDS

A device which is very frequently used by the Bulgarian

media, but not so characteristic of the British press, is the
change in the interpretation a word based on a distinctive
characteristic of the ethnic group discussed. The new
interpretation of the word comes to serve as a common noun for all
members of the community.
The analysed corpus marks the use of the adjectival phrase
временно зает (‘temporarily employed/ employed on a half
shift/part-time’). The term in its primary sense describes all people
who, due to various reasons, are forced to work on an hourly basis.
In the press, however, it narrows its meaning to cover the
representatives of only one group – that of the Roma. Readers
come to think that all people included in the programs for
temporary employment are Roma. That is mostly due to the fact
that a bigger part of those employed on an hourly basis are actually
members of that community. In this case there is generalization of
the community achieved on the basis of their type of
occupation.
As mentioned above, one of the distinctive features which hint
on Roma origin is dark skin colour. This characteristic is frequently
expressed through the use of the adjective мургав (‘swarthy’).

(18) Мургави дами (18`) Swarthy ladies offer

предлагат секс пред
съпругите и децата на
гостите /нз/ (St/ 10.07.03);
(19) Мургави гратисчии
нападат влакове /з/ (St/
15.09.05).
sex in front of the guests’
wives and children /oh/
(St/ 10.07.03);
(19`) Swarthy gratis
travellers attack trains
/h/ (St/ 15.09.05).

Although the physical traits are not of primary importance for

the determination of the ethnic adherence of a specific individual, in
the Bulgarian media the colour of the skin is still accepted as the
defining marker of ethnic origin. In order for that characteristic to
acquire the functions of a noun, i.e. to be able to name, journalists
substantivise it and thus from a quality of the object (in this case the
Roma community) they produce a noun that could stand for the
community itself.

49
 This observation is confirmed by the frequent usage of the
substantivised adjective with the marker of definiteness
мургавите (‘the swarthy ones’) as a substitute of the ethnonym
Roma / Gypsies:

(20) Контрольорите в (20`) The ticket collectors in

градския транспорт не the public transport should
трябва да обиждат not insult the swarthy ones
мургавите /нз/ […] (S/ /oh/ […] (S/ 01.08.03);
01.08.03);
(21`) ‘They steal from us’, said
(21) ‘Крадат ни’, the swarthy ones indignantly
възмущаваха се мургавите (St/ 04.08.05).
(St/ 04.08.05).

The use of the Bulgarian colour marker мургав (‘swarthy’) can

be compared only with the use of the colour marker black with
reference to Africans and Caribbeans. Still, it can be stated that the
term black has imposed its usage due to the big variety of ethnic
groups that are marked by it. To the majority the differences between
the various ethnicities in Africa are indiscernible; therefore, the use
of a generalizing feature seems to have facilitated any future
reference to any members of the ethnic groups inhabiting Africa or
the Caribbean.
There are no similar references used to mark any of the other
ethnic groups in Bulgaria.
Although not a new coinage, the use of the lexeme minority
should be mentioned here as the original meaning of the word is
narrowed in Bulgarian context marking primarily the members of
Roma community (see also Chapter III):

(22) Ударни групи от (22`) Hit groups from the

малцинството използват minority avail themselves of
малката скорост, с която the low speed of trains when
влаковете се движат в they pass through populated
населените места, и ги areas and attack them […]
нападат [...] (St/ 06.04.05); (St/ 06.04.05); (23`) The
(23) Очакванията за промяна expectations for a change in
в живота на малцинството the life of the minority have to
са свързани със страха на do with the fear of the
европейците, че ще им се Europeans that they will

50
 наложи да съжителстват с have to live together with
около 5-те милиона about 5 millions of extremely
изключително бедни роми от poor Roma from Bulgaria,
България, Румъния, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary,
Словакия, Унгария и Чехия and the Czech Republic /sh/
/пз/ (S/ 03.05.05). (S/ 03.05.05).

5.4. PEJORATIVES

The use of emotionally coloured lexis in the national press

clearly shows the attitude the majority exhibits to the ethnic Others.
In this case pejoratives speak of hatred and disrespect.
The analyzed corpus of Bulgarian articles from the beginning
of the century shows only 9 cases of pejoratives, 8 of which refer only
to the Roma community. The usages are mostly in indirect
speech, quoting someone else’s opinion or words.
Apart from the very rare occurrences of циганьори (‘Gyppos’),
e. g. (24) “Тия циганьори, ако не се изнесат от планината, тук ще
стане екологична катастрофа […]” (‘If these Gyppos do not leave the
mountain we are faced with an ecological catastrophe’ – S/
14.08.01), мангал (‘brazier’) only twice, and турчуля (‘Turkos’) once
in (25) “Къде-къде по-лесно и безопасно е да седнеш в някое
питейно заведение, […] и да отправяш люти закани към ‘гадните
циганьори и турчуля’” (‘It is much easier and safer to sit in a pub
[…] and to hurl heated threats to ‘the nasty Gyppos and Turkos’’ – S/
25.07.05), there are no other pejoratives used to mark any of the
other ethnic groups. The trend to omit any possible occurrences of
pejoratives is even stronger in the corpus from 2011. There is only
one occurrence of the derogative мангал (‘brazier’) (26) “В журито са
още ‘почетният мангал’ Андрей Слабаков, Иво Папазов - Ибряма
[…]” (‘The honorary ‘brazier’ Andrey Slabakov, Ivo Papazov – Ibryama’
– St/ 10.02.11), which, however, is not used in order to insult the
people mentioned but in a jocular fashion.
In the readers’ response sections one can notice the use of
phrases like: свиньо рязана (‘you circumcised swine’ – A/08.03.11),
мръсен рязан фес (‘dirty circumcised fez’ – 24Ch/17.03.11), or
омразни фесове (‘obnoxious fez’ – 24Ch/17.03.11), etc. used as

51
slurs to Bulgarian Turks. Such phrases, however, are not
encountered in the main publications and are therefore not analysed
in this module.
The corpus of British publications shows higher occurrence
of pejoratives. The highest use is marked by the pejorative Paki. In
2001-2005 the word was used 194 times in 101 issues: (27) “The
child, from the Ipswich area, allegedly retaliated by calling the other
boy ‘a Paki bastard’ and punching him” (DT/ 10.04.01). The same
pejorative occurs 18 times in 2011 out of only 7 articles in reported
speech: (28) “The ‘Paki’ Priti Patel is far from pretty – in fact she is
ugly as hell!’ he wrote in his blog, Jailhouselawyer” (DMl/ 06.02.11).
The corpus shows the use of the derogative to insult not only people
who are from Pakistan but all people who resemble Pakistani in
appearance. At the same time, we should also clarify the fact that
while Paki is considered offensive when used by non-Pakistani, it is
considered completely acceptable when it is used by people of
Pakistani origin.
Other derogatives used at the beginning of the century were
nigger – 64 times out of 42 issues: (29) “Other recovered letters
showed that Stewart had referred to ‘a lot of niggers on the wing’,
that he had Mubarek’s home address” (G/ 04.09.01), and black
bastard 25 times in 22 issues: (30) “She said he boasted: ‘I’ve
stabbed the black bastard.’” (G/ 25.11.01). Such usages are not
encountered in the corpus from 2011.
Other pejoratives, which occur but very sporadically (in only
one issue), are wog, coon, and Chink. These are simply mentioned by
Asians as slurs used by whites at non-whites.
Pejoratives like pikey, tinker, mink, gippo, gyppo, or gypo, as
well as the common nouns diddicoys and hillbillies used to name the
British Gypsies are encountered in 40 of the examples from the
British media at the beginning of the century usually in reports on
cases of racism: (31) “[…] The charity said the children are frequently
called ‘mink’ and ‘tink’ or ‘dirty gypo’” (I/ 20.12.03) or in reported
speech: dirty Gypsy bastard; a fucking Gypsy; gypo scum; dirty
gyppo; feckless gyppo scum. The examples analyzed here, show an
interesting tendency: the group that in 2001-2005 was one of the
least presented in society is attributed the highest variety of
pejoratives used to mark its members in 2011. This can be

52
interpreted both as an exhibition of hatred and as lack of any respect
for that group.
In addition, it should also be noted that this is the only
ethnic group whose ethnonym characterizing nationality or
ethnicity is sometimes written with a small letter rather than
with a capital letter required by English grammar. This fact in
itself depersonalizes the groups and assigns material character to the
ethnonyms. In the case of Gypsies and Travellers the appearance of
the ethnonym with a small initial letter does not mark ethnic
origin but a lifestyle. This phenomenon is frequently observed in
the analysed examples from the British press:

(32) British condemned as racists over attitude to gipsies /h/ (DT/

27.04.05); (33) THE Royal Albert Hall is due to be picketed today by
protesters angry at the description of the heroine of Carmen as a
‘gipsy girl’ without a capital ‘g’. The European Roma Federation is
hoping that up to 50 people will join the demonstration to express
their unhappiness at being treated as a ‘lower-case group’ […] In an
email to the promoters, Ladislav Balaz, the chairman of the federation
says: ‘Carmen is a great work but you insult Roma by promoting this
event with the word ‘gipsy’. Would you write ‘Jew’ without a capital?
No. (DT/ 09.12.01); (34) In Ireland, travellers are now a legally-
recognised ethnic minority – we even spell the word ‘Traveller’ with a
capital ‘T’ - but with no legally-binding definition (DT/ 03.10.04).

It is worth mentioning that while The Guardian apologizes in

cases of Gypsy / Gypsies or Traveller / Travellers written with a
small letter in its articles, The Independent does not even mention it,
which implicitly shows the disregard to and lack of acknowledgement
of the ethnic identity of the community by the editors of The
Independent.
The nomadic way of life is proven to be a part of the Gypsies
and Travellers’ identity. That is why it is not proper to use an
ambiguous definition especially in a regulative document. It is
unacceptable that the newspapers that use the ethnonym with a
small letter want to stress on that specificity and not on the ethnic
origin of the community. The latter is confirmed by the fact that in
the examples shown, the members of the community are thought of
as ethnic Gypsies and Travellers and not as individuals who follow a
specific itinerant lifestyle. The mentioned censorship of some of the

53
newspapers about the use of the ethnonym with a small letter also
confirms that statement.

 Self-test tasks:
A. What is the significance of pejoratives when we talk of
ethnic identities?

54
 5.5. STEREOTYPES

“The subtlest and most pervasive of all influences are those that
create and maintain the repertory of stereotypes. We are told about
the world before we see it. We imagine most things before we
experience them. And those preconceptions, unless education has
made us acutely aware, govern deeply the whole process of perception.
They mark out certain objects as familiar or strange, emphasizing the
difference, so that the slightly familiar is seen as very familiar, and the
somewhat strange as sharply alien” (Lippmann 1922: 89-90).

When the word stereotype appeared in the English language

for the first time in 1798 its meaning ‘a method of printing on a plate’
held little of its meaning today. After that in 1850 its meaning
underwent a slight change and read ‘an image retained without
change’.
These two definitions, despite their remoteness from the
meaning of stereotype nowadays, still hint on the essence of the
term, i.e. a kind of “image”, an idea which we use to explain the
world around us or as W. Lippmann concluded in 1922, stereotypes
are “pictures in our heads”. The current definition of the word dates
from the same year “previously created and simplified belief about
the characteristics of a person or a group” (see Encarta Electronic
Dictionary). In Bulgarian the meaning “a system of habits which
motivates similar behavior on similar occasions” appears on the third
place (Contemporary Interpretation Dictionary 1995).
People are used to availing themselves of the images and
ideas that are readily presented to them not doubting their
validity. That is especially true in cases of stereotypes about
groups that are further away from the place where the
stereotype was formed. According to the sociologist Ch. Hurst
(2007) the lack of interpersonal relation is one of the reasons for
the creation of stereotypes. The unawareness of the characteristics
of the Others makes people take one feature as specific of an
individual or a part of a group and automatically transfer it to the
whole group or all groups on a metonymic principle (see Lakoff 1987:
94).
The creation of stereotypes and the maintenance of
differences between the groups is also observed in cases in
which the groups are close to each other but there is fight for

55
resources (see Sheriff 1961, 1996, qtd. in Axelrod, Hammond
2003: 5-7). The creation and maintenance of a stereotype can
also be due to lack of interest or indifference. According to W.
Lippmann (1922: 81) “[i]n the great blooming, buzzing confusion
of outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined
for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in
the form stereotyped for us by our culture”. To Hooks (1992)
stereotypes are similar to fiction as they are fabricated and stand for
reality (see Campbell 1995: 83). They offer a way out, if what we are
trying to achieve is not allowed or cannot be understood. That is why
even the slightest difference is sufficient for the out-group to be
categorized and stereotyped and this happens very quickly and even
subconsciously (see Axelrod, Hammond 2003: 5-7; Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Ch. Stangor and M. Shaller (1996: 4) view stereotypes as a
part of 1) “the mind of the individual person” (the so-called
individualistic approach) and 2) “part of the social fabric of a society,
shared by the people within that culture” (the so-called cultural
approach). The individualistic approach defines the relationship
of an individual to another individual from a different group
based on the developed notions about the characteristic features
of the social groups that are important in his/ her environment.
Stereotypes do not only influence information that is
remembered and used later on, but have an impact on the social
behaviour of the person as well (see Stangor, Schaller 1996).
The cultural approach is broader. It states that
stereotypes are entangled in the culture of society as a kind of
common knowledge, i.e. they are transferred from one
generation to the next or are acquired through everyday
communication with the other representatives of the group we
form or via the media. That is why the cultural approach clearly
focuses on language as a source for the presentation of the social
groups (see Stangor, Shaller 1996: 10). The way an individual
becomes acquainted with the surrounding world is through
language. He/ she names, categorizes and arranges the surrounding
objects and people thanks to language, that is why it is natural to
state that language is one of the main means for the creation,
maintenance and promotion of stereotypes.

56
 Stereotypes can be positive and negative. They can also be
divided into heterostereotypes, i.e. such that define the out-group,
and autostereotypes, which define the in-group.
On the basis of semantic and logical criteria Uta Quasthoff
(1973, 1987) distinguishes between four different types of
stereotypical expressions according to the different degrees of
directness:
a) Analytical expressions that claim to tell the truth are the
main form of stereotypes, e.g. “Germans are studious and hard-
working”;
b) Modified (restricted) statements are restricted to the
strength or the ability to confirm the viewpoint of the writer or
speaker through signals such as subordinate or interrogative mood
or impersonal constructions with verbs expressing speaking or
feelings in the surface structure of expressions, e. g. “It is said that
the Gypsies have the reputation of thieves”, “It is accepted that the
Turks do not care about decent living conditions”;
c) Direct stereotypes are expressions in which the speaker
addresses him/herself directly using personal constructions which
are comprised of the deictic expression ‘I’ and a verb expressing
belief or a cognitive process (e. g. “I don’t think that the Americans
could equal us in intellect”);
g) Implicit expressions of stereotypes, e. g. “He is Jewish
but he is very kind”. The prejudice which got activated in that
expression can be presented as “Jews are usually not kind”.
According to Quasthoff because of the norms of tolerance we
encounter the second and the fourth type most frequently (see
Reisigl, Wodak 2001: 19-21).
Looking at the corpus of Bulgarian articles one can notice
analytical statements describing the various ethnic groups. Many of
the lexemes comprising the paradigms of references to each ethnic
group are used in the creation of stereotypes:

(12) […] от едната страна (12`) […] On one side we are

сме българи, турци, помаци,
арменци и всички останали,
които живеем бедно, но
запазваме достойнство, и
от другата страна са
изпадналите на социалното
Bulgarians, Turks,
Bulgarian Mohammedans,
Armenians and all those
who live poorly but maintain
our dignity, and on the
other there are the dregs of

57
 дъно декласирани и society, the declassed and
лумпенизирани роми, […]”
(Dn/ 01.09.04); (13) Защото
и турци, и татари, и
българите мохамедани, и
каракачани, и власи, да не
говорим за евреи и арменци,
са хора на реда и закона
(St/ 28.05.05).
degraded Roma […] (Dn/
01.09.04); (13`) Because
Turks, and Tatars, and
Bulgarian Mohammedans,
and Karakachans, and
Wallachs, not to mention
Jews and Armenians are
people of law and order (St/
28.05.05).

Apart from the general stereotype of all ethnic groups in

Bulgaria, except for Roma, as being “good”, there are also stereotypes
expressed through analytical structures referring to each ethnic
group separately. Armenians are presented as “proud”, “modest”,
“willing to be first”, “witty”, “with good sense of humour”, but also
sometimes as “stingy”, i.e.:

(35) Арменците са много (35`) Armenians are very

задружни […] Тя знаела, че
арменките са много добри
домакини и въртокъщници
(S/ 06.05.04); (36) Познавам
арменците като добри и
грижовни съпрузи […] (D/
26.03.11).
united […] She knew that
Armenian women are very
good housewives and good
house keepers (S/
06.05.04); (36`) I think
Armenians are very tender
and caring husbands (D/
26.03.11).

Bulgarian Mohammedans are described as (37) “затворена

общност и не допускат чужди хора до себе си” (‘a closed
community not letting strangers near them’ – S/ 09.08.01), or through
their trade: (38) “Преди повечето помаци от този край били
овчари” (‘Most of the Bulgarian Mohammedans from this region used
to be shepherds’ – Dn/ 30.03.06); Jews: (39) “евреи, а на
последните можеш повече да разчиташ, защото са по-еластични,
по се увират навсякъде и имат достъп до тайните на
обществото” (‘Jews, and you can count more on the latter as they
are more flexible, have their fingers in every pie and have access to
the secrets of society’ – S/ 24.05.01); the community of the Gagauz is
also positively presented: (40) “Пословичната за добруджанските

58
гагаузи чистота е белязала всяко кътче – от мегдана до крайните
махали” (‘From the main square to the remote quarters of the village
one could notice a kind of immaculateness which is characteristic of
the Gagauz from the region of Dobrudzha’ – St/ 20.07.02);
Karakachan: (41) “Помнете, че за каракачаните няма невъзможни
неща, защото животът ни е научил да бъдем твърди”
(‘Remember that there are no impossible things for the Karakachans
because life has taught us to be tough’ – St/ 04.07.05).
The general image of the Turks that is being created by the
analyzed newspapers at the beginning of the century is positive:
hard-working, honest, but poor and in their bigger part illiterate
people whose life is hard and their living conditions bad. On many
occasions the Turks are presented as similar to Bulgarians, the only
difference being language and traditions: (42) “Българските турци
са наследили донякъде български качества, които ни сближават
– може би човечност и български нрави като разбирателство с
околните, отстъпване” (‘Bulgarian Turks have to a certain extent
inherited Bulgarian qualities, which bring us closer together:
probably humaneness and Bulgarian features like living on good
terms with the others, yielding’ – S/ 12.04.03). At the same time they
are described as (43) “втора категория хора – общи работници,
тютюнджии и прочие нискоквалифицирани професии” (‘being
considered second-hand people: common workers, tobacco growers
and other positions requiring low qualification’ – Dn/ 28.02.02), which
shows the condescension of the majority.
Another trait of the stereotypical image of Turks in Bulgaria as
mentioned above is their adherence to the Movement for Rights and
Freedoms which is suggested by the big number of articles in which
the Party or their leader is mentioned. In these articles the stereotype
presented is of Turkish people as weak-willed, almost like puppets
following their leader: (44) “Научени сме обаче да си мълчим,
защото не знаем какво ще стане” […] Българските турци нямат
избор” (‘We are taught to keep silent because we don’t know what will
happen […] The Bulgarian Turks have no any other choice’ – T/
18.02.11).
An additional tinge to the image of the Turks is added by the
nationalistic press. Touching on past history, Ataka links the
Ottomans with nowadays Turkey and insists that the policy of
influencing Bulgaria in order to deface the country is still active.

59
 The lexemes that are the strongest in conveying this message
and thereby contributing to the creation of a negative image are: (45)
“Турците са физически и духовни убийци на нацията ни” /h/
(‘Turks are the physical and the spiritual killers of our nation’ – A/
25.03.11), referring to the process of converting Bulgarians into
Turks presented through an analytical statement, as well as (46)
“Цели региони от страната се обезбългаряват и ислямизират”
(‘Whole regions of the country are being de-Bulgarized and Islamified’
– A/ 29.03.11), the latter referring to the idea that the Bulgarian
Turks actually serve the interests of another country and another
culture.
While the groups mentioned above enjoy more or less positive
stereotypes, the Roma community in Bulgaria is charged with the
highest number of negative qualities. The stereotype which was
implicitly suggested about the Roma at the beginning of the century
can be summarized by a publication in Sega:

(47) Не турците, арменците (47`) […] The Turks, the

и евреите са тези, които Armenians, and the Jews
чакат наготово от are not the ones who rely
държавата, дишат лепило, on the country to support
ходят мръсни, крадат, them, get high on glue, go
имат по дузина деца, за about dirty, steal, have
които не се грижат, dozens of children for
необразовани са, обитават whom they do not care at
гета, живеят ден за ден и all, they do not have any
т.н. Това е не просто друг education, live in ghettoes,
етнос, а радикално друга live for the day, etc. This is
цивилизация – not just a different ethnic
цивилизацията (за едни) group, but a totally
или не-цивилизацията (за different civilization, the
други) на ромите. (S/ civilization (for some) or
27.01.01). the non-civilization (for
others) of the Roma. (S/
27.01.01)

The negative qualities are repeated to a certain degree in 2011

as well: (48) “неграмотно и безработно [малцинство]” ([a minority
that is] ‘illiterate and unemployed’ – 24Ch/ 01.03.11); (49) Пиян до
козирката ром (‘a Roma deadly drunk’ – 24Ch/ 04.03.11); озверели
(‘fierce, savage’). In addition, the corpus provides lexemes like

60
напаст (‘pest’); хлебарки (‘cockroaches’); “мародери, вандали,
апаши” (‘marauders, vandals, thieves’); “бабаити” (‘huskies’);
“нападатели” (‘attackers’); “многодетни роми” (‘Roma having many
children’), which add up to the negative stereotype. Thus, in readers’
minds, the group is stigmatized as criminals, people who could do
only harm and no good.
The stereotypes connected with Asians in the UK are implicitly
stated through references to the speaker’s/ interviewee’s personal
experience:

(50) She added: ‘[…] If I keep completely quiet on forced marriages,

lack of English, drug dealing in the community … nothing will change.’
[…]. (DT/ 06.07.02); (51) Britain’s first Muslim peer has linked
unhappy arranged marriages to the grooming of girls by Asian gangs.
[…] He starkly stated that there was a connection between forced
marriages and the Pakistani gangs in the north of England convicted
last month of entrapping and grooming young, often white, girls for
sex. (DMl/ 05.02.11); (52) The attacks were carried out by four British-
born suicide bombers of Pakistani origin, led by Mohammad Siddique
Khan, a 30-year-old Muslim from Leeds, who detonated a bomb on a
train at Edgware Road (G/ 23.03.01).

The general image created is of Asians as intermarrying within

the family, thereby creating unhappy marriages and looking for sex
outside these marriages. At the same time Asians are described as
very close to their immediate relatives, forming close-knit units.
Another stereotypical feature is of the respect children have to their
parents to the degree that parents choose spouses for their children
and they have their children’s lives at their disposal.
Muslims and blacks are usually associated with the image of
the terrorist. That image is ever so present after the attacks on the
World Trade Center in the USA on Sept. 11, 2001, and the bombings
of the London metro on June 7, 2005:

(53) War On Britain: Suspect Osman Is Held As A ‘Global Terrorist’

/h/ (DMr/ 02.08.05); (54) A shocking documentary by Channel 4 was
then aired which showed that hate-filled Muslim supremacy is taught
in “private” Islamic schools in Britain (BNP/ 18.03.11).

61
 In order to support the above mentioned stereotype articles
very often use the language of terrorism and war when referring to
the activities carried by members of the two communities. Another
hell-raiser in example (54) is the mentioning of Islamic schools. This
reference plays on the fear felt by the British that terrorists are bred
in their own country, right under their noses. The latter is yet
another aspect of the terrorist stereotype, i.e. its connection with
Islaam and people converted to it who turn terrorists. In addition,
blacks are usually associated with riots, gangs, and robberies:

(55) 28pc of robbery arrests are black people, says report /h/ (DT/
19.06.01); (56) This follows several cases involving Asian gangs
targeting teenagers in much the same way as the Muslim paedophile
gangs have targeted young white girls in northern towns across
Britain (BNP/ 12.03.11).

Gypsies and Travellers are also charged with negative

stereotypes which show them to be deviants and outcasts:

(57) ‘It’s a minority that causes the problems but when these people
are in the area, crime always goes up,’ (G/ 01.08.01); (58) To middle
England they are the great unwashed, hell-bent on terrorising law-
abiding denizens. According to urban myth, Pikeys pillage villages,
hurling excrement on gardens and intimidating those who dare cross
their path (G/ 08.08.04); (59) They have no waste facilities and locals
have complained about litter, including nappies. (DT/ 16.06.04); (60)
At Smithy Fen, the site is a mix of caravans and brick houses. The
surrounding roads are littered with rubbish, there are old bikes in
drainage ditches and graffiti on walls. No one at the site was willing to
talk (I/ 10.11.04).

A nuance to the generally negative stereotype of Gypsies and

Travellers as criminals is brought about by a show called My Big Fat
Gypsy Wedding which strives at introducing Gypsy’s lifestyle as it is.
This show tries to create the image of Gypsies as family-loving,
throwing lavish marriages, but still a patriarchal society: (61) “While
every gypsy and traveller woman wants to be a princess on her
wedding day […] the reality is that the man is king on every other
day of her life. (DE/ 08.02.11). Still, the negative stereotypes prevail.

62
 Self-test tasks:
A. What is a stereotype?
B. What is the difference between the individualistic and the
cultural approach to the creation of stereotypes?
C. How are stereotypes expressed according to Uta Quasthoff?
D. Go back to the article on the Russian billionaire (Appendix
I, p. 65). Are there any stereotypes used in the
development of the Russian identity?

63
5.6. METAPHORS

One of the features that characterize media discourse in

Bulgaria and the UK is the high frequency of metaphor usage (see
Fowler 1991). Metaphors, as figures of speech that connect two
seemingly unrelated fields, are highly expressive and very
provocative. Metaphors achieve their influential character
through the transfer of features from one more specific domain
to another which is more abstract. The usage of metaphors in
media discourse facilitates a more vivid presentation of the
images that are created and distributed.
That is one of the main reasons why metaphors provoke the
interest of critical discourse analysts. As Charteris-Black (2004: 28)
concludes, metaphor is “central to critical discourse analysis since it
is concerned with forming a coherent view of reality” (qtd. Hart 2008:
91). As part of discourse metaphors are also used in order to achieve
certain strategies.
As stated by Hart (2008: 99)

Referential and evaluative strategies have been identified as

particularly important in racist discourse. Referential strategies are
used in discourse to represent/ construct social actors (participants)
in a given scenario. Typically, this involves the construction and
polarisation of an in-group and an out-group. Such a strategy is
achieved linguistically through categorisation, for example, in the form
of ethnonyms and toponyms.

Metaphors, however, can also play a very important part in

that process as they can very skillfully be used in the negative
representation of the out-group. In this respect Hart (2008: 91)
continues to explain that:

CDA (and critical linguistics in particular) has been concerned

with ideological and mystificatory structures of discourse, and
metaphor is just such a structure. Hodge and Kress (1993, p. 15)
contend that ideology involves ‘a systematically organised
presentation of reality’. Metaphors are ideological, then, in so far
as they ‘define in significant part what one takes as reality’
(Chilton& Lakoff, 1995, p. 56). According to Chilton (1996, p. 74),

64
 metaphors ‘can contribute to a situation where they privilege one
understanding of reality over others’.

The way a metaphor is realized is as a surface linguistic

expression in the form of a word, phrase or sentence, of a conceptual
structure (see also Hart 2008: 94; Lakoff 1993). However, despite
the high productivity of metaphors some metaphors might not
have realization in linguistic expressions, while others can
reveal themselves in everyday expressions.
The reason for the high usage and productivity of metaphors
is the fact that metaphors, as stated by Lakoff (1987), are born by
and reflect people’s experience: “[O]ur bodily experience and the way
we use imaginative mechanisms are central to how we construct
categories to make sense of experience” (Lakoff 1987: xii; see also
Kovecses 2005: 6).
Another reason for the high usage of metaphors is the fact
that they are not only very productive, as one metaphor can be
realized in various ways, but they are also thought provocative.
At the same time Lakoff claims and proves with various
examples, further on supported by Kovecses (2005), that there are
some universal metaphors that present similar cognitive patterns in
various cultures mainly due to the fact that all of us as human
beings are the same. Differences in metaphor representations occur
on the basis of different personal experiences and emotions mainly
because emotions are considered highly individual, private, and
culture specific. That is why the study of metaphors provides
interesting examples of common cognitive patters between the
various cultures.
Based on these characteristics it could be stated that
metaphor is not only a solely conceptual or linguistic phenomenon,
but also socio-cultural, neural, and bodily phenomenon which exists
at all these levels at the same time.
In relation to ethnic identities, a metaphor can further
enhance or add a nuance to an existing image created through a
stereotype or through the various paradigms of references.
The analysed corpus once again provides the biggest number
of examples in the articles on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the
UK. Some of the most frequently encountered metaphors are:

65
 Metaphor of WAR /ETHNIC GROUPS ARE AT WAR/

(62) Христо Змияра поведе (62`) Hristo the Snake

опълчение срещу ромите catcher led a rebellion
/з/ Българите се against the Roma /h/ The
заключили в домовете си Bulgarians locked
в нощта на битката themselves up in their
/пз/ (St/ 08.06.05); houses on the night of the
battle /sh/ (St/ 08.06.05);
(63) Ромска вендета
потроши 8 къщи /з/ (St/ (63`) Roma vendetta
04.04.02). destroyed eight houses
/h/ (St/ 04.04.02).

The metaphor is activated in many of the articles

discussing attempts upon one’s life. The lexemes that are used
present a hyperbolized picture that heightens the panic which
the readers experience. The topic is usually connected mainly with
some killing or punishment introduced through nouns like бой
(‘fight’), опълчение (‘volunteer force’), гранати (‘granades’), битка
(‘battle’), бунт (‘rebellion’), вендета (‘vendetta’), размирици
(‘unrest’), барикади (‘barricades’), протести (‘protests’), погром
(‘pogrom’), патрули (‘patrols’), война (‘war’), derivatives of бия
(‘beat’): пребивам (‘beat the life out of s.o.), убивам (‘kill’), as well as
verbs like вилнея (‘rage’), линчувам (‘lynch’), атакувам (‘attack’),
щурмувам (‘storm’), окупирам (‘occupy’), нахлувам (‘invade’),
воювам (‘be at war’), бомбардирам (‘bombard’), нападам (‘assault’),
атакувам (‘attack’), троша (‘break down’), паля (‘set on fire’).
The same metaphor is realized in the British context through
the derivatives of the verb invade:

(64) The land has been in Lord Gage’s family for 500 years, and this is
the first time that travellers have invaded his East Sussex estate (DT/
26.12.03); (65) ‘The potential is there for 2,000 people to move in, a
village within a village. An invasion? Well, yes, how else would you
describe it?’ (DT/ 15.08.04); (66)’But their community just grew and
grew and others came in. They took over four housing estates’ (DT/
01.06.04).

Another group of lexemes facilitating the metaphor of war is

formed around the notion of battle: battlefield, lengthy eviction battle,

66
long-running legal battle, series of court battles, a long battle,
battlegrounds, battle lines, gipsy battle, eight-year legal battle, pitch
battles, locked in battle, fight. As the following examples clearly show
the metaphor is developed around all stages of a battle – the attack,
a siege, conquest, stand-off, victory, etc:

(67)[…] a naked attempt to ram through a change of planning use […]

(DT/ 26.10.04); (68) A group of villagers has raised £27,500 to buy a
plot of land to prevent it falling into the hands of gipsies (DT/
29.10.04); (69) The village residents’ association said it was now
advising locals to pay the tax but claimed its campaign had ended in
victory, with bailiffs set to remove foundations for more caravans at
the site (G/ 07.06.04); (70) A four-hour standoff, observed by 40 police
officers and a number of firefighters, followed before the bailiffs were
called off. The travellers’ spokesman, John Lee, said: ‘I think we can
claim a victory’ (G/ 13.01.04).

Another metaphor which is frequently used in articles on

Roma and Gypsies and Travellers is the metaphor of Disease/
Parasite /THE ETHNIC OTHERS ARE VERMIN… DISEASE/:

(71) Повечето от 145-мата, (71`) The bigger part of the

които вземат помощи, са 145 people who receive social
роми. Те до съвършенство aid are Roma. They have
са изучили социалното mastered the social law to
законодателство и ползват perfection and avail themselves
в максимална степен of its directives to the greatest
благата му (St/ 14.02.03); extent (St/ 14.02.03);
(72) ‘ВРЕМЕ Е ЦИРЕЯТ ДА (72`) ‘It is time the boil be
СЕ ПУКНЕ’ категоричен е burst’ states firmly Assoc. Prof.
от своя страна шефът на Eng. Valentin Kirchev – the
‘Електроразпределение – head of the electric company in
Пловдив’ доц. инж. Plovdiv (Dn/ 06.03.02).
Валентин Кирчев (Dn/
06.03.02).

(73) They were blighting the area (G/ 16.11.03); (74) Wakefield is the
first council in the country to announce a trial use of Asbos on five
sites […] which have been plagued by illegal encampments (G/
2.06.05); (75) […] the villagers, who complain that neither the
Government nor South Cambridgeshire district council has done

67
 enough to move on the travellers while they have been plagued by
crime and antisocial behaviour since the influx of caravans […] (DT/
02.06.04); (76) It comes at a time when animosity against travellers
has never been more rabid (I/ 01.03.05); (77)’These are not just
diddicoys. They drive very expensive Mercedes, Audis and Range
Rovers.’ Mr Brownbill said the Irish families were exploiting their
traveller status to carry out a sophisticated property scam (DT/
01.06.04).

The analysed metaphor is quite insulting as it diminishes the

people it describes to the status of pest and attributes to them the
lowest possible position in the society they adhere to. The image is
very negative and can provoke exhibitions of racism and intolerance.
A metaphor which is quite characteristic not only of Roma and
Gypsies and Travellers but to all immigrants when discussed in the
British reality, is the swamp metaphor /MIGRATION IS FLOOD/ (after
Lakoff 1987):

(78) Проверката на (78`) The check of the

гранична и икономическа border and economic police
полиция е заради is because of the recent
емиграционната вълна от emigration wave of Roma
русенски роми към from Ruse to Norway (S/
Норвегия напоследък (S/ 14.07.01);
14.07.01);
(79`) Bulgarian citizens,
(79) Български граждани, mostly of Roma origin, have
предимно от ромски been flooding Scandinavian
произход, наводниха countries ever since 2001.
скандинавските страни от […] The first wave of
2001 г. насам. [...] Първата volunteers poured out in
вълна кандидати се изсипа Norway […] (S/ 12.10.05).
в Норвегия […] (S/
12.10.05).
(80) [...] Some communities complain of being ‘swamped’ by the
numbers: [...] (I/ 09.11.04); (81) Yet, since the weekend, this parish
has come under siege – its peace shattered, say residents, by the
sound of screeching engines, raucous laughter and car radios, and its
size swollen by an influx of 5,000 travellers (G/ 01.08.01).

Based on the analysed corpus the metaphors discussed so far

are the most frequently used by the Bulgarian and the British media.

68
As the analysis has shown both Bulgarians and British follow similar
cognitive patterns when discussing the ethnic Others. All metaphors
are quite provocative presenting the ethnic Other as a threat to the
majority, as people of lower status who, however, try to overcome
everything considered typically Bulgarian or British. The ideology is
clear: the ethnic Other is the bad member of the pair “us – them”, so
they have to leave.

5.7. SYMBOLS OF IDENTITY

Apart from the linguistic devices discussed so far, there is a

group of symbols of identity that are sometimes used in the national
media, but which are more often used by the ethnic media in order
to boost the ethnic consciousness and pride of the ethnic group they
serve. These symbols also function as ethnicity preservers.
Such a symbol of identity is the use of personal names. In
Bulgaria it is very difficult to tell Bulgarian from some Roma personal
names because Roma, especially those who are Christian, very often
use traditional Bulgarian names. Turkish names, however, are easy
to mark out. The same is true of Armenian and Jewish names some
of which have become exemplary for the communities due to their
multiple uses in various jokes, e. g. Kirkor and Garabed, Moshe. In
the UK personal Asian names are quite distinct from typical British
names and could also hint on one’s identity even if ethnic adherence
is not explicitly mentioned in the text.
Another reference to a group’s ethnic identity is achieved
through articles describing holidays, events, customs, or traditions
that are typical for that group. Such articles can also be viewed as a
kind of interethnic relativism as they help the majority understand
the specificities of the Other’s culture. Such articles feature the use
of lexis in the group’s mother tongue, the group’s flag (if they have
such), or religion.

 Self-test task:
A. What is metaphor?
B. Could you identify any metaphors or other symbols of
identity used in the article on the Russian billionaire
(Appendix I, p. 70)?

69
 VI. APPENDIX I

Russian billionaire leads a London bookshop revolution

Waterstones owner turns a page in its history and opens a UK

store devoted to his native language
Adam Sherwin
Saturday, 28 January 2012

It is a literary innovation that will delight London’s influx of Russians

– and intrigue the intelligence services. Waterstones will open a
Russian-language “bookshop” within its flagship Piccadilly store next
month.
Russian-speaking assistants will be recruited for the shop, which is the
personal passion of Alexander Mamut, the Russian billionaire whose A&NN
Group bought the high-street bookseller last year in a £53m deal.
Mr Mamut, who says he enjoys reading high-quality literature in Russian
and English, has named the new store “Slova”, Russian for “words”. It will
be housed on the ground floor mezzanine level of the Piccadilly branch and
contain almost 5,000 titles.
Slova is expected to become a meeting point for the more literary-minded
Russians in the capital. As well as stocking the classics of Russian
literature – Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov – it will showcase commercial
writers such as Boris Akunin and Polina Dashkova, Russia’s most
successful crime author, who has sold 40 million books. The move is the
next stage in Mr Mamut’s plan to revitalise Waterstones under James
Daunt, its new managing director, by serving local communities. Mr Daunt
told The Bookseller magazine: “For Russophiles and the large, vibrant
Russian community in London, we aim to make Slova an irresistible literary
and cultural destination. One won’t be surprised at the source of the idea,
given Waterstones’ ownership.”
Mr Mamut, an oligarch with close links to the Kremlin, holds a stake in the
Russian publisher Azbooka-Atticus, whose titles Waterstones will stock in
Slova. Slova will also work with Academia Rossica, the Russian culture and
arts foundation based in London, arranging author events, book launches
and other activities.
Despite the challenge from Amazon and digital reading devices such as the
Kindle, Mr Mamut sees the UK publishing industry, which generated £4bn
last year, as a long-term investment. He described Waterstones as “the last

70
significant player in the UK” and claimed the bookseller’s continued
existence was “important for UK society”.
However, as a convenient West End venue for Russian diplomats, business
figures and students to congregate, Slova could become a useful listening
post for MI5. A casual encounter between browsers of Vladimir Nabokov’s
Lolita might well be a cover for exchanges of non-fictional information.
Waterstones promises that Slova will stock the best titles Russia can offer,
with books selected for export by Boris Kupriyanov, the owner of Moscow’s
Falanster and Tciolkovskiy bookshops.
The announcement by Waterstones prompted speculation that Vladimir
Putin may choose the shop as the venue for a cultural summit with David
Cameron when he next makes an official visit to London should he win the
Russian presidential election in March.
Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-
entertainment/books/news/russian-billionaire-leads-a-london-bookshop-
revolution-6295927.html?origin=internalSearch#

71
 VII. KEY TO THE SELF-TESTS

 Self-test tasks (p. 9):

A. What are some of the main definitions of the term
discourse?
This information is included in the first section of the module.
Discourse is viewed as verbal communication or conversation;
lecture; linguistic unit, i.e. conversation or story bigger than a
sentence.
B. What is the meaning of discourse in linguistics?
Discourse is understood as any sensible piece of
communication, i.e. any meaningful stretch of lexemes
composing a text and exceeding the size of a sentence. In this
sense discourse appears as synonymous to text.
C. What is the main focus of Discourse Analysis?
Discourse Analysis explores language in social contexts as well
as language in action paying attention to the extra-textual
influences which lead to changes in the structure of the created
texts.
D. Who are some of the main scholars in CDA and what is
their main contribution to that approach?
N. Fairclough’s field of research is defined as textually oriented
discourse analysis. He studies the link between ideology and
discourse and especially the linguistic ways for manipulation of
public opinion through the media. R. Fowler’s contribution to
the development of CDA, apart from his research on the stylistic
variety, is in the analysis of news texts. According to him the
information is always conveyed through the prism of someone
else’s point of view or ideology. That is why there is no
possibility for impartial portrayal of reality in the form of only
facts and events. Teun van Dijk explores the socio-cognitive
dependencies between the social structures and the discursive
ones, as well as the discursive exhibition of racism by the so-
called “symbolic elites” (politicians, scholars, journalists); the
ways the press present the news; the link between ideology and
context; etc. Ruth Wodak (2001) contributes to CDA with her
research on the exhibitions of prejudices and racism. In her
analyses Wodak, together with M. Reisigl use the historical
approach to Discourse Analysis.

72
  Self-test tasks (p. 12):
A. What are the main characteristics of the Bulgarian media
discourse?
Westernization, high implicitness, “spawning” of a variety of
new newspapers that flooded the local market; lack of
newspapers which can be defined as homogeneous serious
press; the most frequently used way for presentation in the
Bulgarian media is the sensation, infotainment. (For a detailed
review of all changes in all levels of language see the information
provided by Dobreva, which is quoted on p. 10.)
B. What are the main characteristics of the British media
discourse?
The changes mentioned by Fowler are: high frequency of
metaphors, overlexicalisation (the usage and repetition of
various different terms for one and the same event, occurrence,
or character), phonetic presentation of oral speech, the usage of
epithets, derogative, as well as words of endearment and
affection, pejoratives, slang, etc. Another characteristic is the
process of tabloidization and high implicitness. /For more
changes see the information provided on p. 11/

 Self-test tasks (p. 16):

A. In what way is active tolerance different from the passive
one?
Active tolerance means that the person who exhibits it
understands, values, and accepts difference and tries to see the
world from the point of view of the Other. Passive tolerance, on
the other hand, is similar to indifference, one just puts up with
difference but does not want to understand or even know
anything about it.
B. Why is tolerance considered restrictive?
Tolerance is considered restrictive because it cannot be
unlimited and unconditional. It should be exhibited within
specific limits because tolerance could also cause harm: it is
actually those in power who are entitled to exhibiting it, or as
D. Bischur puts it “only those who have power could tolerate”.

 Self-test tasks (p. 18):

73
A. What is Political Correctness?
Political correctness is that range of rules that restrains the
transfer of freedom into anarchy and establishes the restriction
which is necessary for the application of tolerance, while on the
other hand, the norms of PC restrict the freedom of speech,
action, and thought.
B. What are the views of its supporters?
The advocates of PC are trying to change the pejorative or
slighting terms with politically acceptable terms through the
use of politically correct language. Put in a different way, the
supporters aim at the use of tolerant language which is suitable
to the people involved. An example of the latter is the use of
Roma instead of Tsigani when referring to the members of that
group.
C. What are the views of its adversaries?
The adversaries of PC are trying to prove the statement that PC
is just a set of euphemisms put into use, or that the application
of PC alters the way things really are.

 Self-test tasks (p. 19):

A. What is the essence of hate speech?
“Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race,
religion, gender, or sexual orientation” (Dictionary.Com), or
“speech disparaging a racial, sexual, or ethnic group or a
member of such a group” (Collins). It is the direct opposite of
politically correct language and is therefore a straightforward
expression of intolerance.

 Self-test tasks (p. 20):

A. What is zero tolerance?
The theory behind zero tolerance states that there should be no
tolerance exhibited in matters of drugs, weapons, drunkenness,
public disturbance, crimes, vandalism, drink and drive
incidents, sexual exploitation, etc., which should be sanctioned
immediately regardless of the position of the culprits in the
society.
B. When is zero tolerance necessary?
Zero tolerance is needed when the other threatens, torments,
bothers me or the others through the actions in his life.

74
  Self-test tasks (p. 24):
A. How do Instrumentalists define ethnicity?
According to Instrumentalists the ethnicity an individual
specifies as his/ her own is a matter of personal choice. One
of their main ideas is “the socially constructed essence of
ethnicity and the ability of the individuals to ‘separate from
and mix with’ the diversity of ethnic heritage and cultures and
to form their own individual and group identities.
B. What is different in the understanding of Primordialists?
Primordialists support the view that ethnicity is static. For them
ethnicity is something “given” assigned by the individuals to the
relationships of religion, blood, race, language, region and
customs but it is not an essential part of them.
C. Why is ethnicity considered as similar to minority?
People often consider ethnicity as meaning the same as
minority because when people talk about an ethnic group in
most cases the others think it is a matter of minority. It is like
that because the ethnicity of the dominant group is considered
the norm, while those who differ from it in some way or in some
features are qualified as ethnically different.

 Self-test tasks (p. 26):

A. What are the two approaches to the understanding of
racism?
Broad view: taking into consideration not only physical traits
but differentiating people on the basis of cultural differences as
well (else called ethnicism), and narrow view: focusing on the
distinction between different groups of people on the basis of
physical traits.
B. Why does Essed state that racism operates through the
discourse of tolerance?
Essed supports the opinion that racism operates through the
discourse of tolerance because the dominant group accepts its
own norms and values as better and not liable to change. Essed
also states that the dominant groups do not usually notice the
exhibitions of racism in their everyday lives because they do not
encounter problems of racial or ethnic character.

75
  Self-test tasks (p. 31):
A. What does the term ethnocentrism mean?
Ethnocentrism is broadly defined as “the belief in the inherent
superiority of one’s own ethnic group or culture.”
B. What is understood by whiteness?
Whiteness is a term that characterizes mainly the dominant
group in Europe and North America. It is the opposite of what is
understood by “black”. Whiteness marks the set of “privileges”
attributed to the dominant group simply because its members
were born with white skin.

 Self-test tasks (p. 34):

A. Why does Hall define identity as always in process?
Identity is defined as always in process because due to one’s
personal experience s/he can take up different identities based
on the situation a person is in.

 Self-test tasks (p. 43):

A. Why is it important to analyse the ethnonyms used in the
media?
The appearance of an ethnonym marking an ethnic group in the
media speaks of existence and recognition of the said group, on
the one hand; while on the other, providing information on any
ethnic group introduces this group’s culture and character to
the members of the majority, thereby fostering intercultural
awareness and competence.
B. Bearing in mind the examples discussed in this chapter,
analyse the provided article (Appendix I, p. 65) in terms of
ethnonyms used and the information on the identity of
Russians in the UK that they convey: is it positive or
negative? How can you tell?
The ethnonym used in the article is only one, in the singular
and in the plural – Russian and Russians. The second
ethnonym is used to mark the whole group of people from
Russia who live in London, UK. The second ethnonym is used
to mark a member of that group, who is also defined as a
billionaire – the Russian Alexander Mamut. /Now try to find
other lexemes in the article which show the attitude to Russians
in London/.

76
  Self-test tasks (p. 46):
A. Going back to the article on the Russian billionaire
(Appendix I, p. 65), allocate the references used for the
development of Russian identity. Are the references
positive or negative? Why?
Some of the references used to describe Russians are:
billionaire, literary-minded Russians, … /now try to allocate
other references to the image of the Russians discussed/ So far
the references used are positive both to the billionaire and to
Russians in London as a whole.
B. Why does the national press need negative ethnic
identities? (You can also use the theoretical findings in
Chapter IV.)
In order to create a positive image of Us, the press needs a
negative image of Them.

 Self-test tasks (p. 50):

A. What is the significance of pejoratives when we talk of
ethnic identities?
Pejoratives are used to show hatred and disrespect to a specific
group. It is interesting to note that both in Bulgaria and the UK
the group that features highest variety of pejoratives are the
Roma in Bulgaria and Travellers and Gypsies in the UK.

 Self-test tasks (p. 58):

A. What is a stereotype?
The stereotype is a kind of “image”, an idea which we use to
explain the world around us or as W. Lippmann states,
stereotypes are “pictures in our heads”. The current definition
of the word reads a “previously created and simplified belief
about the characteristics of a person or a group”.
B. What is the difference between the individualistic and the
cultural approach to the creation of stereotypes?
The Individualistic approach views stereotypes as a part of “the
mind of the individual person” while the cultural approach as
“part of the social fabric of a society shared by the people within
that culture”.

77
 The individualistic approach defines the relationship of an
individual to another individual from a different group based on
the developed notions about the characteristic features of the
social groups that are important in his/ her environment.
Stereotypes do not only influence the information that is
remembered and used later on, but have an impact on the
social behavior of the person as well.
The cultural approach is broader. It states that stereotypes are
entangled in the culture of society as a kind of common
knowledge, i.e. they are transferred from one generation to the
next or are acquired through everyday communication with the
other representatives of the group we form or via the media.
C. How are stereotypes expressed according to Uta
Quasthoff?
On the basis of semantic and logical criteria Uta Quasthoff
(1973, 1987) distinguishes between four different types of
stereotypical expressions according to the different degrees of
directness: a) Analytical expressions that claim to tell the truth
are the main form of stereotypes, e. g. “Germans are studious
and hard-working”; b) Modified (restricted) statements are
restricted in the strength or the ability to confirm the view point
of the writer or speaker through signals such as subordinate or
interrogative mood or impersonal constructions with verbs
expressing speaking or feelings in the surface structure of the
expressions, e. g. “It is said that the Gypsies have the
reputation of thieves”, “It is accepted that the Turks do not care
about decent living conditions”; c) Direct stereotypes are
expressions in which the speaker addresses him/herself
directly using personal constructions which are comprised of
the deictic expression ‘I’ and a verb expressing belief or a
cognitive process (e. g. “I don’t think that the Americans could
equal us in intellect”); g) Implicit expressions of stereotypes, e. g.
“He is Jewish but he is very kind”. The prejudice which got
activated at that expression could be presented as “Jews
usually are not kind”. According to Quasthoff because of the
norms of tolerance we encounter the second and the fourth type
most frequently.

78
D. Go back to the article on the Russian billionaire (Appendix
I, p. 65). Are there any stereotypes used in the
development of the Russian identity?
Looking at the article on the Russian billionaire Alexander
Mamut one can see the use of the stereotype of the rich
Russians who are usually (or in most cases) connected with the
Kremlin. This stereotype is confirmed by the repetition of the
lexeme billionaire several times, upgraded to oligarch which
attributes not only social status but power to the person it
describes, e. g. “Mr Mamut, an oligarch with close links to the
Kremlin, holds a stake in the Russian publisher Azbooka-
Atticus” (I/ 28.01.12).
In addition, there is a reference to another very popular
stereotype of Russians in the UK – that of the Russian
undercover agent, or Russian spy. This second stereotype is
suggested by the references to MI5 “that will delight London’s
influx of Russians – and intrigue the intelligence services” as
well as “Slova could become a useful listening post for MI5. A
casual encounter between browsers of Vladimir Nabokov’s
Lolita might well be a cover for exchanges of non-fictional
information” (I/ 28.01.12).

 Self-test tasks (p. 64):

A. What is a metaphor?
Metaphors, as figures of speech that connect two seemingly
unrelated fields, are highly expressive and very provocative.
Metaphors achieve their influential character through the
transfer of features from one more specific domain to another
which is more abstract.
B. Could you identify any metaphors or other symbols of
identity used in the article on the Russian billionaire
(Appendix I, p. 65)?
Looking at the article on the Russian billionaire one could easily
see the use of the swamp metaphor used at the beginning of the
article: “London’s influx of Russians” (I/ 28.01.12). The
metaphor hints on the big number of Russian immigrants in
London and at the same time adds some negativism. Despite
the fact that the article talks about a rich person and about a
cultural event Russians are still perceived as intruders, an

79
influx, something which is not wanted but which cannot be
stopped.
The article abounds in Russian names – mostly of authors,
which introduce the average British readers to Russian
literature, thereby Russian culture. The name of the bookstore
itself is in Russian which provides a glimpse at that language.
/Try to find more symbols of identity and based on everything
analysed so far draw a conclusion on the image of Russians
developed in that particular article/.

80
 VIII. REFERENCES:

Alexieva 1993. Alexieva B. “A Cognitive Approach to Translation

Equivalence”. In Zlateva P. (ed). Translation as Social Action. Russian
and Bulgarian Perspectives. London, New York: Routledge. 101-109.
Axelrod, Hammond 2003. Axelrod R., R. Hammond. “Evolution of
Ethnocentric Behavior”. Paper prepared for delivery at Midwest
Science Convention, April 3-6, Chicago, IL, USA. < http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf>.
Baraldi 2006. Baraldi C. “New Forms of Intercultural Communication
in a Globalized World”. International Communication Gazette. London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publ. vol. 68(1), 53-69.
Barth 1996. Barth F. “Ethnic Groups and Boundaries”. In Hutchinson
J., A. D. Smith (eds.). Ethnicity. Oxford, New York: OUP. 75-82.
Bischur 2003. Bischur D. Toleranz. Im Wechselspiel von Identität und
Integration. Wien: Passagen Verlag.
Blommaert, Verschueren 1998. Blommaert J., J. Verschueren.
Debating Diversity: Analysing the Discourse of Tolerance. London:
Routledge.
Bonilla-Silva 1994. Bonilla-Silva E. Rethinking Racism: Towards a
Structural Interpretation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Campbell 1995. Campbell Ch. P. Race, Myth and the News. California,
USA: SAGE.
Coggins 2004. Coggins, Ch. “NIMBY to YIMBY? That is the
Challenge”. <
http://www.suewaste.soton.ac.uk/publication/NIMBYorYIMBY.p
df>
Connel 1998. Connel I. “Mistaken Identities: Tabloid and Broadsheet
News Discourse.” In The Public. vol. 5 (3). 11-31.
Cottle 2000. Cottle S. (ed.). Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing
Cultural Boundaries. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University
Press.
Creppell 2003. Creppell, I. Toleration and Identity. Foundations in Early
Modern Thought. New York, London: Routledge.
Dobrev, Dobreva 1992. Добрев Д., Е. Добрева. Справочник на
семиотичните термини. Шумен: Глаукс.
Dobreva, Savova 2010. Добрева Е., И. Савова. Текстолингвистика:
Уводен курс. Шумен, УИ „Еп. К. Преславски”.

81
Dobreva 2009а. Добрева Е. „Говорене за расизъм по страниците на
българските вестници”. В Проблемы когнитивного и
функционального описания русского и болгарского языков.
Шумен: УИ „Епископ К. Преславски. 67-80.
Dobreva 2009. Добрева Е. Толерантност, нетолерантност и
нулева толерантност в съвременния български печат
(критически лингвосемиотичен анализ). В. Търново: Фабер.
Dyer 1997. Dyer R. White. London, New York: Routledge.
Eriksen 1991. Eriksen T. H. „Ethnicity versus nationalism”. Journal of
Peace Research. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE. vol. 28
(3), 263-278.
Eriksen 1993. Eriksen, T. H. Ethnicity and Nationalism. Anthropological
Perspectives. London: Pluto Press.
Essed 1991. Essed Ph. (1955) Understanding Everyday Racism: An
Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: SAGE.
Fairclough 1994. Fairclough N. Discourse and Social Change.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough 1995. Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical
Study of Language. London, New York: Longman.
Fairclough 2003. Fairclough N. “‘Political Correctness’: the Politics of
Culture and Language”. Discourse & Society. London, Thousand
Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE. vol. 14. 17-28.
Fitzgerald 1991. Fitzgerald Th. “Media and Changing Metaphors of
Ethnicity and Identity”. Media, Culture and Society. London, Newbury
Park, New Delhi: SAGE. vol. 13. 193-214.
Fowler 1991. Fowler R. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology
in the Press. London, New York: Routledge.
Fowler 1996. Fowler R. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford, New York: OUP.
Frazer 2007. Frazer M. “John Rawls: Between Two Enlightenments”.
Political Theory. London, Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE. vol. 35 (6).
756-780.
Gossieux 2004. Госийо Ж. Ф. (2002). Власт и етнос на Балканите.
Превод К. Дичев. София: ЛиК.
Grekova 2001. Грекова М. Малцинство: Социално конструиране и
преживяване. София: Критика и хуманизъм.
Glazer, Moynihan 1975. Glazer N., D. P. Moynihan. “Introduction”. In
Glazer N., D. P. Moynihan (eds.). Ethnicity: Theory and Experience.
Cambridge, Mass., London: Harvard University Press. 1-25.

82
Goodwin-Gill 2002. Goodwin-Gill G. Toleranz in einem Zeitalter der
Ungewissheit. Wien: Passagen Verlag.
Guzina 2000. Guzina D. “Nation-Building vs. Minority-Destroying:
Majority-Minority Relations in the Post-Socialist Serbia”. In
Southeast European Politics. vol. 1 (1), 25-40.
Hall 1996. Hall S. “Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’?” In Hall S., P.
Du Gay (eds.). Questions of Cultural Identity. London: SAGE. 1-18.
Hall 1998. Hall S. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora”. In Rutherford J.
(ed.). Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence &
Wishart. 222-237.
Hart 2008. Hart Ch. “Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: toward
a theoretical framework”. Critical Discourse Studies, 5:2, 91-106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990058.
Hersh 2002. Херш Ж. „Толерантността между истината и
свободата”. Превод от френски А. Лозев. В Денкова Л., Григоров
E., А. Лозев. Философия на толерантността. Антология от
Античността до края на XX век. София: НБУ. 140-147.
Hubbard 2005. Hubbard Ph. “Accommodating Otherness: Anti-asylum
Centre Protest and the Maintenance of White Privilege”. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers. Oxford UK, Cambridge MA:
Blackwell. 30 (1). 52-65.
Huckin 1997. Huckin Th. N. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In Miller T.
(ed.) Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications.
Washington: English Language Programs. 78-92.
Hurst 2007. Hurst Ch. E. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and
Consequences. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Husband 1975. Husband Ch. White Media & Black Britain: A Critical
Look at the Role of the Media in Race Relations Today. London: Arrow
Books.
Husband 1994. Husband Ch. A Richer Vision: The Development of
Ethnic Minority Media in Western Democracies. UNESCO.
Hutchinson, Smith 1996. Hutchinson J., A. D. Smith (eds.). Ethnicity.
Oxford, New York: OUP. 374-377.
Jacobson 2002. Jacobson M. F. Whiteness of a Different Colour:
European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. London, England:
Harvard University Press.
Johnson, Suhr 2003. Johnson S., S. Suhr. “From ‘Political
Correctness’ to ‘Politische Korrektheit’: Discourses of ‘PC’ in the

83
 German Newspaper, die Welt”. Discourse & Society. London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE. vol 14(1), 49-68.
Johnstone 2002. Johnstone B. Discourse Analysis. Oxford UK,
Cambridge MA: Blackwell.
Kellas 1991. Kellas J. G. The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity.
London: Macmillan.
Kim 1999. Kim Y.Y. “On Becoming Intercultural”. In Lustig M.W., J.
Koester. Among Us: Essays on Identity, Belonging, and Intercultural
Competence. New York: Longman. 59-67.
King 1976. King P. Toleration. Ipswich, Suffolk: Acolortone Ltd.
Kovecses 2005. Kovecses Z. Metaphor in Culture. Universality and
Variation. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: CUP.
Krasteva 1998. Кръстева А. (ред.). Общности и идентичности в
България. София: Птекстън.
Law 2002. Law I. Race in the News. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave.
Lakoff 1987. Lakoff G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What
Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lakoff 1993. Lakoff G. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”. In
Ortony A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 202-251.
Lippmann 1922. Lippmann W. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Liptak 2008. Liptak A. “Hate speech or free speech? What much of
West bans is protected in U.S.” New York Times, 11 June 2008.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/world/americas/11iht-
hate.4.13645369.html>
Lustig, Koester 1999. Lustig M.W., J. Koester. “Cultural Biases and
Intercultural Communication”. In Lustig M.W., J. Koester. Among Us:
Essays on Identity, Belonging, and Intercultural Competence. New
York: Longman. 119-133.
Malovic, Vilovic 2004. Malovic S., G. Vilovic. “Tabloidization Conquers
Quality Press”. In Quality Press in Southeast Europe. Sofia: SOEMZ,
European University “Viadrina” (Frankfurt – Oder) and Sofia
University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 2003. <http://soemz.euv-
frankfurt-o.de/media-see/qpress/ >. 1-11.
Martin 1998. Martin P. E. Black Press, Britons and Immigrants. Vintage
Community, Kingston, Jamaica: Alternative Press and Society.
Mason 2003. Mason D. (ed.). Explaining Ethnic Differences: Changing
Patterns of Disadvantage in Britain. Great Britain: The Policy Press.

84
McNair 2003. McNair B. News and Journalism in the UK. London, New
York: Routlege.
Mill 2002. Мил Дж. „За свободата”. Превод от англ. Ю. Стефанова.
В: Денкова Л., Григоров Е., А. Лозев. Философия на
толерантността. Антология от Античността до края на XX
век. София: НБУ. 99-108.
NewWorldEncyclopedia. New World Encyclopedia. Organizing
knowledge for happiness, prosperity, and world peace. Paragon
House Publishers.
<http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org>.
Pavlik 2001. Pavlik J. V. Journalism and New Media. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Proykova-Ali 2007. Пройкова-Али М. „Медийният образ на Другия –
лингвистични аспекти”. Дисертация за присъждане на
образователната степен доктор по общо езикознание. Шумен: ШУ
„Епископ К. Преславски”.
Quasthoff 1989. Quasthoff U. M. “Ethnozentrische Verarbeitung von
Informationen: Zur Ambivalenz der Funktion von Stereotypen in der
interkulturellen Kommunikation”. In Matusche P. (ed.): Wie
verstehen wir Fremdes? Aspekte zur Klärung von
Verstehensprozessen. München: Goethe-Institut. 37-62.
Reisgl, Wodak 2001. Reisgl M., R. Wodak. Discourse and
Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. New York,
London: Routledge.
Robinson 1999. Robinson B. A. “Past Instances of Religious Tolerance
and Intolerance”. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1999-
2006.
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol1.htm>
Raunig 2006. Raunig G. “Gefährliche Kreuzungen. Grammatik der
Toleranz”. München, Translation: Silvia Bauer and Jon Smale.
http://eipcp.net/e/gerald/toleranz/tolerance
Ratcliffe 2004. Ratcliffe P. ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Difference: Imagining
the Inclusive Society. New York: OUP.
Rot, Popova 2005. Рот Ю., Ю. Попова. Ръководство по
интеркултурна комуникация. Русе: ПБ при РУ „Ангел Кънчев”.
Salkie 1995. Salkie R. Text and Discourse Analysis. London, New York:
Routledge.
Smith 1991. Smith A. D. National Identity. New York: Penguin.

85
Spassov 2003. Spassov O. “The ‘Serious’ Press, the Tabloid Context,
and Qualities of the Public Sphere”. In Quality Press in Southeast
Europe. Sofia: SOEMZ, European University “Viadrina” (Frankfurt –
Oder) and Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”. 1-18.
<http://soemz.euv-frankfurt-o.de/media-see/qpress/articles.html.
2004>.
Sparks 1992. Sparks C. “Popular Journalism: Theories and Practice.”
In Dahlgren P., C. Sparks (eds.) Journalism and Popular Culture.
London: SAGE. 24-44.
Stråth 2000. Stråth B. “Multiple Europes: Integration, Identity and
Demarcation to the Other”. In Stråth B. (ed.) Europe and the Other
and Europe as the Other. Brussels: P.I.E. – Peter Lang S.A. 385-420.
Stangor, Schaller 1996. Stangor Ch., M. Schaller. “Stereotypes as
Individual and Collective Representations”. In Macrae C. N., Stangor
Ch., M. Hewstone. Stereotypes and Stereotyping. New York, London:
The Guilford Press. 3-40.
Taylor 2002. Тейлър Ч. „Политиката на признаване”. Превод от
англ. М. Грекова. В Денкова Л., Григоров E., А. Лозев. Философия
на толерантността. Антология от Античността до края на XX
век. София: НБУ. 218-222.
Todorova 1996. Тодорова Р. „Имплицитност и експлицитност в
рекламни текстове от английски вестници”. Дисертационен труд
за присъждане на образователна и научна степен „доктор”.
Шумен.
Todorova 2000. Todorova R. Theory and Practice in Text Linguistics.
Shumen: Konstantin Preslavski University Press.
Todorova 2012. Todorova R. Insights in Text Linguistics. From Theory to
Practice. Shumen: Konstantin Preslavski University Press.
Torronen 2004. Torronen J (2004). “Zero-tolerance policing, the media
and a local community”. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in
Criminology and Crime Prevention 5 (1): 27-47
Todoroff 2002. Тодоров Ц. „За толерантността и недопустимото”.
Превод от френски С. Атанасов. В Денкова Л., Григоров Е., А.
Лозев. Философия на толерантността. Антология от
Античността до края на XX век. София: НБУ. 196-217.
van den Berghe 1996. van den Berghe P. “Does Race Matter?” In
Hutchinson J., A. D. Smith (eds.). Ethnicity. Oxford, New York: OUP.
58-63.

86
van Dijk 1985. van Dijk T. A. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. vol. 3.
London: Academic Press.
van Dijk 1987. van Dijk T. A. Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice
in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park, London: SAGE.
van Dijk 1991. van Dijk T. A. Racism and the press.
London: Routledge.
van Dijk 1993a. van Dijk T. A. “Denying Racism: Elite discourse and
Racism.” In: Solomos J., J. Wrench (eds.). Racism and Migration in
Western Europe. Oxford: Berg. 179-193.
van Dijk 1993b. van Dijk T. A. Elite discourse and racism. Newbury
Park, CA, London: SAGE.
van Dijk 1995a. van Dijk T. A. “Elite Discourse and the Reproduction
of Racism.” In Slayden R. K., D. Slayden (eds.) Hate Speech. Newbury
Park: SAGE. 1-27.
van Dijk 1995b. van Dijk T. A. “Power and the News Media.” In Paletz
D. (ed.), Political Communication and Action. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press. 9-36.
van Dijk 1997. van Dijk T. A. “Discourse as Interaction in Society.” In
van Dijk T. A. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction: A Multidisciplinary
Introduction. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE. 1-37.
van Leeuwen 1993. van Leeuwen T. “Genre and Field in Critical
Discourse Analysis: A Synopsis” in Discourse and Society. London,
Newbury Park, New Delhi: SAGE. vol. 4 (2). 193-223.
Zagorov 2006. Загоров, О. „Глобализация на идентичността”. В-к
„Понеделник”. София. IX (1-2), 14-29.
<http://www.bsp.bg/fce/001/0313/files/PON06_01-02_web.pdf>.
Dictionary.com 2008. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random
House, Inc. 11 Jan. 2008. <Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic>.
NSI 1999. <http://www.nsi.bg>. София: NSI 1999-2007.
Wiki. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>
WiseGeek. WiseGeek Clear Answers for Common Questions. Conjecture
Corporation, 2003-2013. <http://www.wisegeek.org>.

87