MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397002020 · doi:10.53103/cjlls.v4i3.165

Discursive Construction of Ingroup and Outgroup Identity in the Bilateral Speech by President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez

2024· article· en· W4397002020 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural and political discourse analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime ministerOutgroupIngroups and outgroupsIdentity (music)Prime (order theory)PsychologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSocial psychologySociologyPoliticsLawAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the speech by President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to determine the discursive strategies used to construct ingroup and outgroup identity, and the functions that these strategies perform. The bilateral speech delivered by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and President Joe Biden on June 28th, 2022 serve as the study's data. Extracts from the speech were purposively sampled and subjected to critical analysis using Ruth Wodak's (2009) Discourse Historical Approach. Findings reveal that nomination strategy is linguistically realised through reference, nominalization, material, mental and verbal processes. Nomination identifies the United States, Spain, Ukraine and Russia as the major social actors and categorizes the United States, Spain, and Ukraine as ingroup actors and Russia as outgroup actor. Through predication, the ingroup actors and their actions were metaphorically labelled positively using positive predicates and modifying adjectives. Conversely, the outgroup actor and its actions were framed negatively using negative predicates and modifying adjectives. The actions of the ingroup actors were legitimized using the topos of usefulness and advantage while those of the outgroup actor were delegitimized using the topoi of threat and danger. Perspectivisation, through the linguistic tools of reporting and describing, highlight the overt and conscious stance of ingroup actors as well as their involvement in the discourse while the factuality and validity of their propositions were registered through the intensification strategy linguistically realised through declarative sentences.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Language and Literature StudiesSame topicCultural and political discourse analysisFrench-language works237,207