Power over Discourse: Linguistic Choices in Aboriginal Media Representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract / Resume In recent years, it has become obvious that First Nations in Canada are growing stronger in their assertiveness as 'nations within,' as distinct peoples with a right to self-determination, land and resources, and treaty concessions. This evolving status of First Nations is mediated through a powerful discourse that challenges the existing paradigm. The Native discourse can be analyzed on the media level (newspaper) using various linguistic concepts and models. This article examines how First Nations in Canada represent themselves and their issues in their own media and how they counteract and resist the dominant discourse of Euro-Canada by (re-)constructing and affirming positive Native identities. Au cours des dernieres annees, il est devenu evident que les Premieres nations du Canada s'affirment de plus en plus comme des « nations interieures », soit des peuples distinctifs qui beneficient d'un droit a l'autodetermination, de terres et de ressources, et de concessions accordees en vertu de traites. Le statut en evolution des Premieres nations est mediatise par un discours bien argumente qui s'attaque au paradigme existant. Le discours des Autochtones peut etre analyse sur le plan des medias (journaux) en ayant recours a divers concepts et modeles linguistiques. Le present article examine comment les Premieres nations du Canada se representent elles-memes et presentent leurs questions dans leurs propres medias et comment elles contrebalancent le discours dominant des Canadiens europeens et y resistent en (reconstruisant et en affirmant des identites autochtones positives. Introduction First Nations1 people across Canada now control a substantial number of media outlets. To have access to, and control over, for example, newspapers and printing presses means to have power over discourse. Television, novels, plays or newspapers, the radio or internet are used extensively by Aboriginal people to provide a forum to inspire and empower themselves, to re-affirm positive Native identities by building a national pride and creating solidarity. In the mass media of the dominant Euro-Canadian discourse Native people and their issues are either omitted altogether, or presented mostly in a negative light in stereotypical roles. When covering Aboriginal issues, non-Native newspapers often reduce the complexity of Aboriginal histories to 'problems': the 'Indian land problem,' the 'unemployed Indian problem' or the 'Indian self-government problem' (e.g. Valentine 1996, Lawrence and Simon 1996, McGormick 2000). These presentations have little or no reference at all to the Aboriginal perspective on the issue. In controlling their own media, Native people combat stereotypes and ensure that their histories and contemporary issues are told from their own perspective. In their media images, for example, many Native writers convey both modernity and tradition. Their messages are often clearly political and target the Canadian Government for ignoring First Nations rights and not respecting agreements, such as land treaties. Taking control of the media means taking control of a very important institution in today's society. Jager and Link (1993) call the media Die Vierte Gewalt (The Fourth Power) because they have an immense influence upon (predominant) discourses and therefore shape the attitudes and actions of people. Taking control then means Native people act as subjects. Acting as subjects rather than being acted upon also means empowerment and confidence that they can effect change. Discourse not only reflects, but constructs and transforms culture. This insight has been affirmed in many disciplines, such as Critical Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis (e.g. Fowler et al. 1979, Fowler 1991 ; Fairclough 1992,1995a and b, van Dijk 1991, Jager 1993,1996; Wodak and Ludwig 1999), and discourse-oriented approaches in, for example, social theory, political science, literary criticism or critical social psychology (e. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".