Introduction:
In 2014, the President of International Ice Hockey Federation (IHF), René Fasel decided to organize the Men’s World Ice Hockey Championship in Belarus, considering several reasons; one being the massive love and admiration of the country with the sport and the commendable performance of Belarusian national team in previous World Ice Hockey championships. Fasel believed in the dogma to not confuse sport for a political tool. However, other countries openly criticized the decision; associating it with promotion of authoritarian values. The President of Belarus, Lukashenko is considered a dictator with his regime often regarded as the ‘Europe’s last dictatorship’.
Constructing a Nation:
The Relationship between sports and National Identity:
Belarusian society is deeply divided into two distinct categories; the supporters and detractors of the current president, Lukshenko. Both members of society have polarizing views because of contrasting ideologies and stances. Lukashenko’s regime has been marked by questionable elections, violent repression of opposition politicians, and other worrying authoritarian trends .Hence, many countries regarded the decision of conducting the World Hockey championship in Belarus an approval to Lukashenko’s authoritarian values; using the championship as a marketing and PR tool.
Most studies focused on mega-events like Olympics and World Cup, even when other international sports events like World Championship are equally important and being used as a marketing tool for example, the national leagues that take place in the homeland are sponsored by hefty number of brands or sponsors that market the tournament as well as their brand. The viewers are. In Belarus, the Ice Hockey World Championship was used by the president, Lukashenko to present a legitimate and relatable picture of the Belarus to the tourists, disregarding the previous claims that present the country as a civil war zone and this is particularly interesting because the polarizing views of the Belarusian media on the 2014 Ice Hockey championship is representative of the contrasting national views. This article examines the extent to which the polarized division of Belarussian society is reflected in the newspapers.
Discourse Analysis:
Discourse analysis is a method to study and analyze text, in its written or verbal form. This approach is sometimes regarded as going beyond the sentence since it does not truly study a text in terms of its structure and syntax, but rather the meaning behind the sentences. Discourse analysis is a valuable tool not just in the study of linguistics, but also in other fields including social studies, psychology, and anthropology (Fairclough). Discourse analysis, as the name implies, is a way of analyzing any material that may elicit any type of discussion or reaction. As a result, the variety of themes and issues available to an analyst is expanded. Critical discourse analysis assists in viewing the texts qualitatively.
Discourse is the study of how language is organised above the level of a sentence or a clause, and hence of larger linguistic entities like conversational exchanges or written texts. As a result, the study of discourse encompasses a broader scope than other linguistic disciplines that are solely concerned with sentence analysis. Discourse analysis examines not just the structure of individual sentences, but also the structure of whole texts including several sentences. In other words, discourse takes up more space than phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. Discourse analysis is the study of discourse. The study of how sentences come together to make text is known as discourse analysis. It determines whether or whether a text is comprehensible. Text that makes sense should be consistent with the context in which it is placed.
According to the Fairclough model of Critical Discourse Analysis, critical discourse analysis of a text should go through three stages: description, interpretation of the text-interaction relationship, and explanation of the interaction-social context relationship. Norman Fairclough is regarded as a leading figure in the debates over language, discourse, and society (Fairclough & Norman). Language, according to Fairclough, is an element of society. In addition, he claims that language and society are connected not in an exterior sense, but rather intrinsically. To put it another way, language mirrors social phenomena and vice versa. Language is regarded as a social process according to Fairclough. Fairclough’s model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) includes text, discursive, and social practices. Texts are the primary objects of linguistic analysis, discursive practices include production, distribution, and consumption of texts, and social practices include power relations and ideologies. Discourse analysis allows researchers to observe an issue from a higher vantage point, allowing them to discover the reason behind a text (Fairclough & Norman). As it analyses the social and historical settings, it is beneficial for determining the underlying meaning of a spoken or written text. It aids in the comprehension of language’s purpose and how discourse may be utilized to promote positive social change.
Critical discourse analysis strives to generate interpretations and explanations of many aspects of social life that identify the causes of social wrongdoing as well as information that may help to correct or mitigate those (Fairclough). However, interpretations and explanations are unavoidable since analyzing and explaining social situations is a vital component of living and participating in them. As a result, critical researchers look for interpretations and explanations in conjunction with and as part of the sectors of social life that they study. Furthermore, these interpretations and explanations include not just individuals who live and work in certain situations, but also those who want to rule or regulate how they do so, such as legislators and managers (Fairclough)…….
Recent Comments