Journal of the stylistic of Persian poem and prose
volume Number 18، number In Volume 3، June 2025 ، issue Number 109

Representation of the Resistance Economy Discourse in Domestic Press Based on Van Leeuwen's Sociological-Semantic Approach

Susan Taghipour , Forough Kazemi (Author in Charge), Maryam Iraji

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Van Leeuwen"s socio-semantic approach is rich with diverse ideological components and uses two primary mechanisms explicitness and implicitness for representing social actors. The primary goal of the study is to reveal how the discourse of "Resistance Economy" is represented from the perspective of domestic press and how these press have presented it to their readers.

METHODOLOGY: The research data were purposefully selected from the press Donya-e-Eqtesad, Tafahom, Forsat-e-Emrooz 1, and Forsat-e-Emrooz 2, focusing on texts related to the discourse of the "Resistance Economy." Data collection was conducted through library research, and the research method is descriptive-analytic.

FINDINGS: The analysis of the data indicated that the representation of the "Resistance Economy" discourse in domestic press is achieved through the use of various ideological components. Some of these components are explicit, while others are implicit, allowing for the determination of the degree of explicitness or implicitness in the examined press.

CONCLUSION: Based on the analyzed samples in the data analysis section, the findings indicated that Forsat-e-Emrooz 1 exhibited the lowest level of implicitness, while Donya-e-Eqtesad demonstrated the highest. Meanwhile, Forsat-e-Emrooz 2 and Tafahom fell within an intermediate range and performed similarly. In other words, the degree of explicitness in the examined texts was observed in descending order as follows: Forsat-e-Emrooz 1, Forsat-e-Emrooz 2, Tafahom, and Donya-e-Eqtesad.

Keyword
Critical Discourse Analysis , Ideology , Explicitness , Van Leeuwen᾿s Approach , Resistance Economy

• Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the commodification of public discourse. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133-68.
• Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
• __________ (1992). Discourse and Social Change. London: Polity press.
• __________ (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
• __________ (2000). New labor, New Language. London: Routledge.
• __________ (2001). Language and Power, 2nd ed. London: Longman.
• __________ (2003). Global capitalism and critical awareness in language. http://www. Google. com
• Kress, G.R. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
• Kress, G. & Hodge, R. (1979). Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
• Martinez Lirola, M. (2014). Visibility and invisibility: Exploring the representation of women and men in Irish politics. The example of the 2011 broadcasts. Communication Papers- Media Literacy and Gender Studies, 3 (5), 11-23.
• Osisanwo, A. (2014). Role allocation in the media representation of participants in selected electoral discourses in Nigeria. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications, 2 (3), 183-204.
• Rashidi, N., & Ghaedsharafi, S. (2015). An investigation into the culture and social actors’ representation in Summit Series ELT textbooks within Van Leeuwen’s 1996 Framework. Sage Open, 1-10.
• Van Leeuwen, T. A. (1996). The representation of social actors, in Coldas- Coulthard, C. R. & Coulthard, M. (eds.), Text and practices, Reading in CDA. London: Routledge.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. London: Sage.
• __________ (2000). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. http://www.hum. uva. nl/teun.
• __________ (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for Diversity, In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage Publication.
• __________ (2002). Principles of critical discourse analysis, in method of CDA, (ed.) by R. Wodak & M. Meyer. London: Sage Publication, 95-120.
• Winkler, I.)2011). The representation of social actors in corporate codes of ethics. How code language positions internal actors. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 653–665.