Modern English Language MA

Bonny Dellow u0952293

The Language of the Leveson Inquiry

August 2013

Contents

Description Page Number

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 4

3. Methodology 10

4. Analysis 16

5. Conclusion 26

6. Bibliography 28

[Page Left Blank]

1. Introduction

“For the seventh time in less than 70 years, a report has been commissioned by the

Government which has dealt with concerns about the press. It was sparked by public

revulsion about a single action - the hacking of the mobile phone of a murdered

teenager.” (Leveson, 2012, p. 3). In November 2012 the Leveson report was

published. Following around 12 months worth of public hearings and a plethora of

evidence, Lord Justice Leveson presented his report on one of the most pressing

issues in the media and indeed society today. Fuelled initially by the revelations that

murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler was a victim of phone hacking by the now defunct

News of the World newspaper, the inquiry represents more than an inquest into the

state of the British press, also offering an inadvertent portrait of the struggle between

free speech and privacy and the ideologies of the major parties connected with the

inquisition.

With an abundance of readily available data and the knowledge that relatively little

work has focussed on the language of the Leveson Inquiry specifically, the data

lends itself ideally to a linguistic analysis. And when attention is given to the narrative

of the Leveson Inquiry (including the background to the story) it makes examining

potential ideologies even more intriguing. A critical approach and more specifically

the utilisation of critical stylistics will help to unlock ideologies via examination of the

texts themselves. This focus on the text itself and the investigation of ideologies

leads to two main research questions:

One of the best ways of approaching a new project is to develop a set of research questions that you intend to answer through your analyses. This might be a small set (about 3) of equally important questions, or it might be a single main question which is quite broad. (Jeffries and McIntyre, 2010, p. 296).

The formation of early research questions that I ‘intend to answer through my

analyses’ aided in keeping the study focussed. The potential ideologies of the data

were of upmost importance when forming the research questions:

‘What are the ideological foundations of the Leveson Inquiry?’ ‘How do the three main witness groups (journalists, politicians and victims)

convey separate ideologies?’

1

Lord Justice Leveson was appointed to chair ‘a public inquiry into the culture,

practices and ethics of the British press’ (levesoninquiry.org.uk) in July 2011

following a story published by the Guardian newspaper. However, phone-hacking

and the wider ethics of the press had for a long time been under a degree of

scrutiny. One could look back to as early as 2005 for the actual starting point of the

sequence that led to the inquiry. Following claims that the royal family had been

subject to phone hacking, the News of the World’s Clive Goodman and Glenn

Mulcaire were investigated and subsequently jailed. More hacking claims ensued, as

July 2009 and September 2010 were dominated by claims of phone-hacking to both

politicians and celebrities. Despite the genuine detestation to the potential acts, the

plot took an even more sinister turn in July 2011: ‘Missing Milly Dowler’s voicemail

was hacked by News of the World’ (2011) read the Guardian headline. “The News of

the World illegally targeted the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler and her family in

March 2002, interfering with police inquiries into her disappearance, an investigation

by the Guardian has established.” (Davies and Hill, 2011). Within a month of the

revelations, the News of the World - at the time Britain’s most popular Sunday

newspaper - had published the last edition of its 168-year history and Leveson had

been appointed to lead an investigation. Following almost a year of public hearings

with some of Britain’s most famous names giving evidence, the Leveson Report was

published.

Aside from the obviously important and inevitably compelling issue of phone-hacking

itself, lays the underpinning ideological opposition of free speech vs. privacy.

Freedom of speech is worth defending vigorously even when you hate what is being spoken. Commitment to free speech involves protecting the speech that you don’t want to hear as well as the speech that you do. The principle is at the heart of democracy, a basic human right, and its protection is a mark of a civilized and tolerant society. (Warburton, 2009, p. 1)

The debate on free speech vs. privacy is widely exhibited but rarely exhausted. This

is because of the sociological importance that the issue encompasses, with the very

nature of the debate sparking human rights discussion. Warburton (2009) above

illustrates the sheer importance freedom of speech holds as ‘a basic human right’

and ‘a mark of a civilized and tolerant society’. Some, including website

freespeechdebate.com, even go as far as undoubtedly placing free speech as more

important than privacy:

2

Attempts to enforce a right to privacy can easily interfere with free speech – and free speech is more important than privacy. It shouldn’t be a question of trying to ‘balance’ a ‘right to privacy’ against ‘the public interest.’ It is not in the public interest to compromise on free speech without an extraordinarily good reason – and preventing people being embarrassed is not an extraordinarily good reason for limiting free speech.  (freespeechdebate.com, 2013)

However, especially given the context of the Leveson Inquiry, one cannot rule out

the importance of privacy and to an extent censorship. A similarly philosophical

outlook on the issue brings about wider debates on what we as humans value.

James Rachels cites Thomas Scanlon, a professor of philosophy at Harvard

University; “According to Thomas Scanlon, the first element of a theory of privacy

should be “a characterization of the special interest we have in being able to be free

from certain kinds of intrusions.” (1984), and in the case of the Leveson Inquiry, this

intrusion comes in the maligned form of phone hacking.

Yet it must also be considered to what extent these ideologies are truly represented,

or more accurately to which extent these ideologies may be manipulated. The

questions arise, ‘are the individual witness groups truly presenting a personal tie to

an ideology or using a deep-rooted ideology for their personal gain?’ ‘Is the debate

itself for the greater good of society or is it merely a series of accounts with vested

interests?’ On the point of potential vested interests there are several angles that

must be considered. Irrespective of the journalists’ genuine beliefs, it is

unequivocally in their best interests for the regulation of press in this country to be

kept at a minimum. Thus, regardless of whether individual journalists hold that view

or not, their best interests must be kept in mind. Conversely, the victims, one would

expect, may wish to promote the ideologies of privacy and condemn the nature of a

free press due to what their role is within this inquiry. The politicians meanwhile may

have vested interests on each side of the debate. Whilst wanting to maintain privacy

for themselves along with not wanting to appear to condone the actions of the guilty

newspapers, they will surely also realise the crucial importance the press plays in

their success as a politician. Each of these potential scenarios must be considered,

though far from attempting to generalise and assume the mindset of individuals or

individual groups, this study will straightforwardly aim to identify ideologies that are

presented.

3

Another slightly ambiguous point - but one that must be examined nonetheless - is

how each party may have treated the process. Whilst they are all essentially giving

evidence to aid in the investigation, there may also be the presence of extrinsic, yet

frankly understandable motives. The victims sub-group in particular may well be

using the hearings as a part of the healing process, be that an individual who has

been a victim of hacking or family members such as with Sally and Bob Dowler,

parents to the aforementioned Milly Dowler. Alison Bisset (2012) explains that “the

opportunity to recount experiences may be empowering or cathartic for some

victims” (p. 38), adding that punishment and possible prosecution of guilty individuals

can meet the victims desire for revenge (2012). To the contrary, the journalists giving

testimony (including those accused of wrongful acts) may be using the hearings as a

way of protecting their own interests. Those accused of hacking will inevitably be

defending or at least explaining their own actions, while the journalist section as a

whole may be protecting the interests of their profession. Arguing the need for

freedom of expression and the right and importance of a free press is of paramount

consequence to their careers. The politician sub-section of witnesses may see

themselves as mediators for the process, attempting to maintain the balancing act

between condemnation of unethical practices and support for an industry of upmost

importance to their overall goals. They could potentially be seen as treating the

process as a point-scoring exercise so to speak. However, given all of the prior

potential scenarios it too cannot be discounted that each party is acting for the good

of society, and indeed treating the process in a wholly unbiased, clinical fashion.

Potential mindsets, whilst being considered, must ultimately be disregarded in lieu of

textual evidence.

2. Literature Review

Whilst linguistics, and more particularly critical stylistics, is the academic subject area

of this study, due to the scope of the investigation and the issues it both

encompasses and raises, several other academic areas required diligent

consideration. This literature review will naturally discuss critical stylistics as the

theoretical basis for the study, while the distinct use of corpora means both corpus

stylistics and other corpus work requires much attention. Similarly, with critical

4

stylistics itself spanning and building from a lot of the critical discourse analysis

research, an underpinning level of CDA requires review. Unlike each of these subject

areas that branch from and hold close relation to linguistics, a degree of political

science literature will also be examined. This need to consider political science

academia as a foundation for what is essentially a linguistic work stems from the

overriding themes of this study. The ideologies both presupposed and immediately

noticeable from early analysis often outreach the field of linguistics and it is from

political science works that knowledge and understanding can best be acquired.

2.1 Critical Discourse Analysis

A logical place to begin the literature review is with the work of critical discourse

analysis. Although the tools of analysis were found qualitatively in critical stylistics

and quantitatively in corpus work, much of the underlying theoretical value can be

seen in critical discourse analysis. As this study focuses largely on the formation and

identification of ideologies, it is thus appropriate to introduce critical discourse

analysis first, as the interpretation and production of ideologies has long been one of

the primary focuses of this theoretical field.

Materialising in the 1980s, critical discourse analysis pays particular attention to the

wider context of a given piece of language, with focus on the social and political

issues at the time. Ideology remains a crucial focus in the study and implementation

of critical discourse analysis, and indeed, “ideology is seen by most discourse

analysts and linguists as an unavoidable fact of all discourse” (Jeffries, 2010, p. 8).

With a focus on context and issues outside of the text itself, the aim is often to

explore the relationships between the text and the contextual issues beyond it. One

of the founders and most important contributors to the field, Norman Fairclough, has

described critical discourse analysis as attempting to:

Systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power. (Fairclough, 1995, p. 132)

5

However, whilst this explanation from one of the field leaders summarises the

academic subject area well, it remains the case that “there is no single view of what

critical discourse analysis actually is” (Paltridge, 2006). Fairclough does, however,

along with Ruth Wodak argue several key principles of the discipline (1997). It was

discussed within the paper that through discourse both power and social relations

are realised, political and wider social issues are confirmed, and most importantly in

relation to this study, ideologies are both formed and reproduced (1997). Again in

relation to this investigation, a crucial aspect of critical stylistics is raised in

Fairclough’s Discourse and Social Change (1993). He outlines a framework for

critically analysing discourse, detailing three major basis for analysis - discourse-as-

social-practice (essentially the ideological features of the text), discourse-as-

discursive-practice (as something which is consumed and produced in society) and

crucially discourse-as-text (the linguistic features). And it is with this realisation and

appreciation of the linguistic features in the text that critical discourse analysis was

somewhat advanced from past approaches and separated from its predecessors.

The fact that ‘critical discourse analysis examines the use of discourse in relation to

social and cultural issues’ (2012) and ‘asks why the discourse is used in a particular

way and what the implications are of this kind of use’ (2012) shifts emphasis from an

entirely contextual based approach to a synthesis of textual and contextual

examination.

2.2 Critical Stylistics

This emergence in the consideration of what the text does itself in terms of creation

of ideology leads on to the theoretical staple of this study. Despite a greater focus on

the language itself, critical discourse analysis still remains predominantly contextual

in its analytical approach. Critical stylistics, however, shifts the focal point from the

context to the text itself - something which lends itself to my desire to investigate the

language in the data itself and extract ideologies from the actual discourse.

Focussed on the ‘stylistic choices, and the textual analysis which can illuminate the

choices that a text producer has made’ (2009), critical stylistics is also attentive to

wider contextual matters, though as an approach is strict in its concern with

language.

6

Largely focussed on a practical set of tools of analysis to extract ideologies from the

discourse, Lesley Jeffries uses Michael Halliday’s division of the functions of

language to offer context:

Halliday (1971) saw the main functions of language as being ‘ideational’ (how language represents the world), ‘interpersonal’ (how language mediates between people) and ‘textual’ (how linguistic items make the discourse as a whole function). The tools of analysis presented in this book may be seen primarily in the context of the first metafunction, as explaining how language represents the world. Thus, texts may ‘name’ things, ‘characterise them’, hypothesize about alternative realities amongst other things, and these notions of what texts do are fundamental to the approach. (Jeffries, 2010, p. 6)

In finding what texts ‘do’, the approach uses this to extract and explain presented

ideologies, something which can be applied to any form of discourse given the notion

that ‘all text producers have the potential to produced hidden ideologies’ (2010).

Jeffries acknowledges that ‘what the tools need to do’ in essence is ‘to answer the

question of what any text is ‘doing’’ (2012), and from this textually-focussed aim the

tools she proposes are:

Naming and Describing Representing Actions/Events/States Equating and Contrasting Exemplifying and Enumerating Prioritizing Assuming and Implying Negating Hypothesizing Presenting the Speech and Thoughts of other Participants Representing Time, Space and Society (Jeffries, 2010, p. 15)

Each one of these tools is aimed at giving the user the needed theory to analyse

text. As a highly functional model, the focus on critical stylistics as a discipline within

this study was crucial not only for the aforementioned tools but also for the analytical

standpoint it takes, and it is the shift further from critical discourse analysis that

makes critical stylistics the academic model in which to build analysis for this study.

2.3 Corpus Approaches

Given the nature of this study and its reliance on analytical corpus work, corpus

literature and the models available were undeniably vital research tools.

7

Corpus stylistics is concerned with the application of corpus methods to the analysis of literary texts by relating linguistic description with literary appreciation. Thus it is an area that combines (at least) two disciplines - taking account of methods and theories from literary stylistics and corpus linguistics alike.” (Mahlberg, 2012, p. 5)

‘Increasingly popular in recent decades’ (Ho, 2012), linguists and stylisticians are

beginning to realise how useful a tool corpora can be in the analysis of a text.

Indeed, Geoffrey Leech and Mick Short even go on to mention a ‘corpus turn’ (2007)

and discuss the growing utilisation of a tool often criticised early on by established

and respected linguists. Noam Chomsky offered an early criticism on corpus

methods of analysis, stating that “the corpus could never be a useful tool for the

linguist, as the linguist must seek to model language competence rather than

performance” (McEnery and Wilson, 2001), however, opinion has since evolved and

the use of corpora to both aid and direct analysis continues to grow.

Since linguistics often aims to be calculated and almost scientific in its analysis,

corpora have proven a worthy aid in the search for this goal. “Unlike purely

qualitative approaches to research, corpus linguistics utilizes bodies of electronically

encoded text, implementing a more quantitative methodology, for example by using

frequency information about occurrences of particular linguistic phenomena.” (Baker,

2006, p2). The implementation of ‘a more quantitative methodology’ followed by a

rigorous qualitative assessment is what separates corpus methods from other

models within linguistics that are wholly qualitative.

If in the early days corpus linguistics caused contention and even marginalisation,

the recognition that it is merely a methodology has sparked what is in truth a

‘remarkable renaissance’ (2001). Tony Mcenery and Andrew Wilson explain that:

The availability of computer-based corpus material, the acceptance that a corpus could never be the sole explicandum of language and a growing awareness of the usefulness of quantitative data provided major impetuses to the re-adoption of the corpus-based language study as a methodology in linguistics. Most important of all, it was realised that the corpus and the linguist’s intuition were complementary, not antagonistic. (Mcenery and Wilson, 2001, p. 25)

It is this realisation that the corpus is not the answer to linguistic analysis but instead

a tool to aid analysis that makes corpus work not only important to this study but to

the field as a whole. The utilisation of a quantitative methodology alongside a

8

thorough qualitative analysis ensures that stylistic analysis can be as thorough and

objective as possible (2010).

2.4 Political Science

Though removed from the field of linguistics, political science literature required

thorough examination nonetheless. Important because of the themes present in this

study (free speech, privacy, prosecution) and the fact that the data is set essentially

within a politically charged situation, political science aided in terms of background

reading of the issues and contentions surrounding this research topic. “There is no

single definition of the subject matter of Political Science that is uniformly or

universally accepted.” (Kumar, 2005) and indeed much of the theory and models

from the field are of little relevance or use to this study. Rather, the genuine use in

reviewing political science literature comes in the form of concepts and

understandings of ideas crucial to the narrative of the topic undergoing analysis.

Due to the fact political science shares little with linguistics as a discipline, the review

and study of the methodologies and history involved within the field offer little to this

study of language. An ‘interdisciplinary endeavour’ (2011) by its very nature, focus

was placed on several key areas of political science that would aid in the

understanding of wider issues related to the research questions proposed and to the

investigation as a whole - issues such as ideology and more specifically free speech

and freedom of expression, and privacy. As the overriding themes of the study, it

was important to firmly grasp the argument and political science literature is the

reference point to give history to the debate.

“If there is anything about press freedom that can be said with absolute certainty it is

that its merits, values and domestic political effects have been a prominent, long-

standing aspect of both political and philosophical discourse throughout much of

Western history.” (Van Belle, 2000, p. 1). The concept of press freedom and its

importance to society has been discussed at great length in this field, and the

general consensus is that it is not only a debate-worthy issue but one with growing

importance. Defined as ‘an absence of state intervention in media activities’ (2009), it

is generally considered that press freedom is not only of paramount importance but

also ‘robust’ in its self-defence: “if the gradual growth of press freedom around the

world is any indicator, the defence and pursuit of press freedom might even be

9

considered to be slightly more robust overall than the effort to sensor.” (Van Belle,

2000, p. 1)

The issue of privacy meanwhile also receives regular notation in the field, “when

people talk about “private,” they can mean a variety of things: first, private in the

sense of lacking public office; second, activities that are usually carried out “in

private,” including most forms of physical, sexual, or emotional intimacy; third, places

or things to which access is limited; fourth, individual ownership of property; and fifth,

having limited impact rather than wide-scale or general effects.” (Boling, 1996, p.

85). And each of these ‘types’ of privacy can be attributed in one way or another to

the Leveson Inquiry, the witnesses called to question and the underlying themes in

general.

3. Methodology

Jane Sunderland (2010) argues that research questions are: “the key to any

research project. Without research questions, you will flounder; with them, you will

be guided in terms of data needed, data collection methods and data analysis.” (p. 9)

and with this I reiterate the research questions that were initially mentioned in

chapter one:

‘What are the ideological foundations of the Leveson Inquiry?’ ‘How do the three main witness groups (journalists, politicians and victims)

convey separate ideologies?’

As a starting point for the investigation, these two straightforward research questions

did indeed guide data selection, collection and analysis. In terms of the formation of

initial research questions, Sunderland (2010) goes on to discuss where and how

inspiration for questions should come about. She highlights three possible avenues

to which research questions may be developed. The first is arriving at research

questions following literature review, with a benefit of this being that research

questions will be pre-substantiated through academic works. With this in mind, and

in relation to the earlier literature review, the knowledge that “ideology is seen by

most discourse analysts and linguists as an unavoidable fact of all discourse”

(Jeffries, 2010, p.8) means that forming research questions based on the notion that

10

language will carry ideology is well-grounded in linguistic literature. The second

option, she explains, is to decide on a ‘pre-existing topic’ (2010) and base the

literature review on this. “You may have identified a recent and unpredictable

political, social or natural event” (2010, p. 11) and in the case of this study, the

political and social event is the Leveson Inquiry. This, as she recommends, did

indeed guide the literature review, with the need to include political science

academia alongside the linguistics review. Thirdly, she discusses the possibility of

forming questions based on your own findings or interest. With a keen interest in the

ubiquitous world of the media, this too qualifies as criteria to form the research

questions.

With the questions finalised and backed up academically by research methods

literature, next was the decisions on ‘data needed, data collection methods and data

analysis’ (2010). Initially, however, was the selection between the deductive and

inductive approaches to research. “Whatever type of research is conducted, it needs

to be a scientific investigation, which is appropriately rigorous. The researcher will

use one of two kinds of approach to scientific enquiry: either a hypothetico-deductive

approach or an inductive approach.” (Hayes, 2000, p. 789). With each approach

offering different possibilities for research, they both must be considered. The

deductive approach could be considered something of a ‘top-down’ approach,

working from pre-existing theories to eventually detailed analysis to prove or

disprove these theories. Conversely, an inductive approach to research could be

considered a ‘bottom-up’ approach where the investigator’s research is led by

observations in an attempt to theorise.

This study, in one sense, was carried out with a deductive approach. Even before

the analysis stage I as the researcher hypothesized and predicted - deliberately or

not - certain results. Due to my pre-existing knowledge of the Leveson Inquiry along

with the wider issues of the debate, I investigated with the presupposition that the

journalist sub-section would present certain ideologies and the victims would present

wholly different ideologies. On the one hand the journalists (I presumed) would

present ideologies about the need for free speech and freedom of expression, whilst

at the same time I believed the victims would present ideologies about the

importance of privacy. And it is this presupposing or ‘temporary assumption’ that

Gerard Steen argues is a disadvantage of the approach (2007). He also explains

11

that this approach to research may be ‘too selective’ (2007), though it could be

argued this selectiveness gives the study focus and a scientific quality.

The inductive approach was also used within this investigation. Having compiled a

large corpus of data (which will be discussed shortly) I was able to analyse without

the limitations of initially working to a set hypothesis. I was also thus able to

formulate and examine other possibilities aside from the initial assumptions about

the data. Martin Ball and Nicole Muller (2012) propose that qualitative research is

inductive by its very nature:

Qualitative research typically starts with a fairly general, open-minded research question and avoids research hypotheses that predefine the variables to be investigated and those to be controlled for. Data-gathering and analysis often proceed in multiple cycles, during which narrower foci of analysis emerge, and which often involve multiple data sources and types of data. Qualitative research is inductive: researchers examine patterns emerging from their data to come to an understanding of, and develop theories about, the objects of research. (Ball and Muller, 2012, p. 88/89)

By adopting an inductive approach, the focus for analysis could be narrowed down

following initial investigation, leading to data-driven analysis opposed to hyptothesis-

driven analysis (2012).

In truth the approach to this study could not be said to be wholly inductive or

deductive. Rather the approach has been a dynamic mix of the pair with the

principles of inductive approaches forming the basis of the study whilst deductive

hypothesising has taken place to an extent. And a mixture of the two approaches

should be seen as a positive rather than a negative aspect of the research:

Linguistic fieldwork is not and cannot be based solely on deductive reasoning, nor can it be based solely on inductive generalizations drawn from the observation of facts. Successful descriptive fieldwork involves a constant back-and-forth between data observation on the one hand, and theoretical, deductive modelling on the other - without ever losing track of the primacy of observable data. (Chelliah and Reuse, 2010, p. 358)

With the knowledge that little (if any) linguistic work has been based on the Leveson

Inquiry and the discovery of the sheer abundance of readily available data, was the

formation of the corpora. “Within corpus linguistics there is a distinction between two

schools of thought which we have dubbed ‘neo-Firthian’ or ‘corpus-as-theory’ and by

contrast, ‘corpus-as-method’” (McEnery and Hardie, 2011, p.167). Adopting the

12

‘corpus-as-method’ school of thought, three individual corpuses were assembled.

Paul Baker (2006) explains that a potential problem when using corpora is that we

deal with ‘decontextualized data’. Baker recommends reading or listening to files

before assembling to familiarise with the data, and fortunately for each individual

person used was a video link of the hearing, aiding in familiarisation and

contextualisation with the data. I decided to form an individual corpus for each of the

main witness groups - the journalists, the victims and the politicians. It should be

noted that these group names encompass those on the boundaries of the name

given, also. For example, the ‘journalists’ section consists of editors, former editors,

the journalism society and unions etc, as well as indeed working journalists.

Similarly, the ‘victims’ group also includes family members of victims whilst the

politicians category also entails people such as Tony Blair, a former politician.

The corpora ranged from 60,000 to 140,000 words, a suitably representational

amount given that “If too few texts are included, a single text can have an undue

influence on the results of an analysis. Enough texts must be included in each

category to encompass variation across speakers or authors.” (Biber et al. 1998, p.

249). Following this I set about analysing the key word lists of each, primarily

comparing the journalist corpus to the victim corpus and vice versa, and the

politicians’ to each of the other two. When picking out words to analyse further from

each key word list there were a number of things that needed to be considered.

Initially the log-likelihood score must ideally be greater than 6.63, or failing that 3.84.

A rating of 6.63 or above means that the probability of a keyword appearing simply

by chance is less than one percent, while 3.84 is the cut-off for 95% probability of

significance. Having selected a key word, ensuring it achieved a log-likelihood score

of 3.84 or over, the next step of analysis was to investigate the concordances of the

chosen key word. When looking into the concordances it became apparent that a

method for selecting which concordances would be analysed further was needed.

Although with some words there was a reasonably manageable amount of

concordances - meaning each individual concordance could receive analysis - some

words had hundreds of concordances. John Lyons describes linguistics as ‘the

scientific study of language’ (1981) and it is with emphasis on the word ‘scientific’

that developing a systematic method for analysis becomes crucial. Attempting to

theorise simply by choosing parts of data that meet ones’ needs, whilst developing a

13

readable argument, doesn’t hold empirical worth. It was decided that when analysing

words with a large number of concordances, every 10th concordance would be

subject to analysis. Part of the methodological appeal of a corpus is that it allows

“discourse-based researchers to counter accusations of bias” (Baker, 2010, 143) and

by setting a ‘procedure’ to determine what data to focus on (2010) it eliminates bias

further.

With this being an investigation into sub-sections’ present ideologies opposed to

those of the individual, grouping them all together meant finding who specifically said

what difficult, though it could be argued this aided in removing individual conjecture

and maintained focus on the group as opposed to the individual. Another crucial

aspect to this stage of analysis was the argument between statistical significance

and actual significance. Whilst some words may be considered statistically relevant

by the corpus software and log-likelihood score, it does not necessarily mean that

they are relevant to the argument. This is where the importance of thorough

qualitative examination comes in.

As mentioned earlier, the critical stylistic model and tools were implemented for the

qualitative analysis phase. With the need for a textually-focussed set of tools to

qualitatively analyse results guided from the corpus, applicable tools were decided

on the basis of individual analysis. It transpired that two tools recieved the most

analytical usage and indeed aided most in the evaluation of presented ideologies.

The first of these two heavily-utilised tools was ‘naming and describing (2010). This

tool:

Explores the various ways in which English texts could be said to ‘name’ the world, which is different from asking the question of how the English Language names the world. Answering the latter question would lead us into areas of lexical semantics such as the way in which English labels certain semantic fields and raises an implicit comparison with the different ways in which other languages do so. The question we are considering, in contrast, is how individual texts (and implicitly their authors) may choose from the regular resources of the language in representing a view of the world. (Jeffries, 2010, p. 17)

And this ‘choice’ can come in the form of ‘choice of noun’, ‘noun modification’,

‘nominalisation (2010) etc, and each has an ideological effect. These tools were then

used to decipher ideologies presented within the texts following the choice of

keywords.

14

The second tool that was used most frequently and thoroughly was ‘representing

actions/events/states’, or more specifically the use of transitivity. Unlike the naming

tool, this part of the model considers “a descriptive analysis based on the notion that

the verbal element of a clause - also known as the Predicator - is where the actions

and processes that take place between these entities are typically represented”

(Jeffries, 2010, p. 37), or often the choice of lexical verb (2010). Again, these tools

were used to extract ideologies using concordances from key words highlighted

through the corpus.

However, whilst ‘naming’ and ‘transitivity’ recieved the most attention, no tool from

the model goes without recognition and acknowledgement to a degree. Where

relevant and more importantly useful, several other tools will be used to increase the

validity of an argument. It is merely the case that the two primary tools are used

more often, as opposed to a disposition to certain tools. ‘Hypothesizing’ and

‘negating’ for example also offer insights into the presentation of ideology as do

others and will be included as and where deemed of use.

A major difficulty of the study - most noticeable at this stage - is the difficulty in

linking the quantifiable data from the corpora to qualitative critical stylistic analysis.

This is a difficulty not just within this study but within the field in general, as Lesley

Jeffries and Brian Walker discuss with the difficulty in “attempting to use rigorous and

explicit methods for narrowing down from a statistical list of key words to a socio-

politically significant set of keywords.” (2012, p. 209), however, they go on to explain

that “corpus approaches and tools, essentially quantitative, can successfully be

combined with the more qualitative methods of critical textual analysis.” (2012,

p.213), especially when the quantitative corpus work is the initial stage of the study,

guiding further qualitative analysis - as is the case with this study.

15

4. Analysis

4.1 Naming

Whilst this section is titled ‘naming’ the reader should be aware that although the

focus for analysis is structured around the ‘naming and describing’ toolset outlined in

Critical Stylistics (2010), analysis within this section will not be limited solely to

naming and describing, but instead guided and centralised by it. Although similar to

Jeffries (2010) in that this section is “concerned with the part of the sentence that

typically ‘names’ an entity” (p.19), other similar tools and theoretical work may be

used to augment an argument.

One of the most powerful ways in which naming can form ideology within texts is

through a process called nominalization: “The way in which processes and actions

which are standardly described in English by verbs may be converted into nouns by

a process called nominalization with certain ideological consequences.” (Jeffries,

2010, p. 18).

A common phrase that regularly appears - perhaps more so than any other - within

the inquiry is the noun phrase ‘press regulation’.

[Journalist corpus extracts]

1.1 I believe that if new law can help this alternative resolution system succeed within a system of independent press regulation

1.2 this does not mean that we fully support this proposal as the best possible answer for press regulation

1.3 a new system of press regulation must provide robust and meaningful protection

1.4 Much of the focus was on whether Ofcom should be extended to cover press regulation

1.5 The PCC itself was an attempt to rebrand the old Press Council , a rebranding that actually saw the weakening of press regulation from a body seen as largely useless

Firstly it should be noted that the word ‘regulation’ appeared very high on the

journalist list of keywords when compared to the victim corpus, with a log-likelihood

score of 13.09. Secondly, of the 88 concordances, 13 were preceded by the word

16

‘press’. Whilst the phrase ‘press freedom’ initially triggers little by way of ideological

potential, upon the examination of it we can see it is in fact charged with ideology.

The initial nuance of the phrase perhaps comes from the fact we as media

consumers so regularly encounter the phrase. The nominalisation ‘press freedom’ is

ubiquitous in numerous forms of media and even academia. In fact, so regularly is

the verbal removed that to alter the noun phrase almost seems wrong, or at least

awkward. Within regular conventions it may be written as ‘the regulating of the

press’. Indeed, review the above examples and replace the nominalisation with the

standard form and it becomes clearer still that what initially seemed like a rather

mundane, almost coincidental decision appears to be in fact a definite, purposeful

choice. Consider that the above examples could have read:

1.6 I believe that if new law can help this alternative resolution system succeed within a system of independent regulating of the press

1.7 this does not mean that we fully support this proposal as the best possible answer for the regulation of the press

1.8 a new system of regulating the press must provide robust and meaningful protection

1.9 Much of the focus was on whether Ofcom should be extended to cover the regulating of the press

2.0 The PCC itself was an attempt to rebrand the old Press Council, a rebranding that actually weakened the regulation of the press from a body seen as largely useless

By removing the predicator, (i.e. ‘regulation’, ‘regulating’) and instead ‘packaging’ it

as a noun phrase it has several fundamental effects. In considering what the text

producer may have decided to use opposed to the decision to package the words

together it suggests that it was an intentional decision. Similar to the nominalised

‘press regulation’ was the noun phrase ‘press freedom’. Again, ‘freedom’ scored

highly in the log-likelihood with a score of 7.27. It was thus statistically significant for

the journalist corpus and upon further inspection it was found many of the

concordances contained the nominalisation ‘press freedom’:

2.1 specific measures that either protect press freedom or make independent regulation work better without harming press freedom

2.2 Lord Justice Leveson was kind enough to air the idea of providing a guarantee of press freedom

17

2.3  in favour of press freedom and full freedom of expression because, in principle, I believe it underpins our liberty.

Again the phrase has been ‘packaged’ together, considering 2.2 could just as easily

read ‘Lord Justice Leveson was kind enough to air the idea of providing a guarantee

of freedom for the press. Jeffries describes this ‘packaging up’ process and the

ideological effects it may have:

The main ideological importance of noun phrases is that they are able to ‘package up’ ideas or information which are not fundamentally about entities but which are really a description of a process, event or action. In other words, the distinction between entities and processes is made less clear, and a process can be presented as being more like an entity. (Jeffries, 2010, p. 19)

In essence it is the transformation of ‘regulating the press’ as a process or action and

turning it into an entity - ‘press regulation’. This creation of two ‘things’, i.e. ‘press

regulation’ and ‘press freedom’ on its own has the strong effect of turning processes

into inevitably more powerful ‘entities’. “When we turn a process into a nominal (i.e. a

verb into a noun [...] we are syntactically able to discard the Actor” (Jeffries, 2010, p.

26) and this removal of an actor again reinforces the idea of an unarguable entity

and not a process. However, when you contrast the two as opposites it makes the

effect stronger still. There is almost the creation of one vs. the other. It removes

scales of each of the two in the sense that no longer is there a degree of regulation

that the press may be under, or a particular amount of freedom the press may have,

now they are both finite entities that you may or may not have. Furthermore it sets

the two up as contrasting, implying that one cannot be achieved if the other is

present. This may be linked to another tool of critical stylistics ‘equating and

contrasting’. Jeffries states that the trigger for this opposition can come in a

pragmatic form, and that the “result is an equivalence or contrast of meaning which

is temporarily attached to the words or phrases (or even clauses or paragraphs) that

are being related in this way. Importantly there is also a link to more deep-seated

conceptual meanings.” (Jeffries, 2010, p. 58). And it is noticeable on the clausal and

paragraph levels a type of opposition titled ‘negated opposition. ‘X not Y’, ‘plenty of

X, a lack of Y’ (2010) is a recurring theme in the context of much of the journalist

18

discussion, replacing X or Y with ‘press regulation’ or ‘press freedom’ carries the

principle of what is being said.

Looking at the contexts of the sentences containing each word reaffirm the

presented ideologies of the journalists; ‘protect press freedom’, ‘guarantee press

freedom’ and imploring that it ‘underpins liberty’. Through nominalisation of verbals

and turning processes into entities, the journalist section has created the ideology

that press freedom is something to be desired and protected, also presenting the

view that ‘press regulation’, as essentially a negative entity, threatens this press

freedom which they hold so dearly and is of such importance.

Similarly the victim corpora returned a phrase that was highly statistically significant,

and indeed features regularly in society today:

[Victims corpus extracts]

2.4 I have also been the subject of a lot of unwanted media attention over the years by the tabloid press

2.5  coverage in the tabloid press is likely to see-saw, sometimes they’d receive weeks of good press, sometimes weeks of bad

2.6 the gross irresponsibility that has engulfed this country’s tabloid press 

Here it is the decision to refer in these instances to the ‘tabloid press’ as opposed to

the possible other variants that is of note. “Another kind of choice in naming has

more obvious ideological potential. That is the choice of a word with pejorative or

ameliorative connotations.” (Jeffries, 2010, p. 20). It is of interest that the term

‘tabloid press’ was so readily used by the victims. The contextual ‘pejorative’

connotations that are implied with the use of ‘tabloid press’ are in obvious opposition

to what the victims perceive as a fair and respectful media industry. They are

presenting the ideology through the ‘tabloid press’ package - again creating an

entity- of a media section with little regard for privacy or even wellbeing. And whilst it

is not the victims who have coined this often used phrase, their over-use of the

phrase compared to the journalist corpus shows their level of contempt for it.

19

Analysing these two ideologies next to one another it is clear that the journalist’s

ideology revolves around free speech and the right to a free press, in contrast to the

victims who display ideologies about the value of privacy and safety. However,

another look into the concordances for the word ‘freedom’, as we saw earlier a

statistically significant word for the journalist corpus, other ideologies are apparent:

[Journalist corpus extract]

2.7  It would work against the grain of open journalism and freedom of information

2.8 We value the traditional British freedom to inquire, to report and to publish

2.9 News Corporation has tried at all times to pursue the goals of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of markets

Besides the obvious ideologies that can be extracted through the words ‘information’,

‘inquire’, ‘thought’, and slightly differently ‘markets’, is another more abstract point

about nominalisation.

The other aspect of nominalization is the lack of dynamism. Instead of a process or action, we have a ‘thing’, which on the one hand is made more tangible (and measurable) by being given a ‘name’ and thereby being presupposed to exist and on the other hand is somehow more vague and difficult to pin down, because the detail is missing. (Jeffries, 2010, p. 28)

This effect of being made ‘more tangible’ and yet ‘more vague and difficult to pin

down’ applies to each of these ‘freedom of....’s, none more so than the ‘freedom of

markets’. Despite this being an entity which we readily understand as readers as the

value of economy and free trade, it somehow maintains a vague and almost aloof

quality. Again the ideologies of the journalists are presented through this conscious

decision to turn a process into an entity. It is almost an attempt by the journalists to

rebuff any potential debate over the extent to which these things a) exist or b) are

black and white in nature. As trained writers/broadcasters/publishers, the journalist’s

naming methods while similar to those of the victims appears slightly more complex,

however, each group present their ideologies equally overtly and indeed regularly

through their use of naming.

20

4.2 Transitivity

Again, much like 4.1, though this section is titled ‘Transitivity’, it is not limited to or by

other tools of analysis. Focussed on the ‘representing actions/events/states’ toolset

outlined in critical stylistics (2010), here we consider “a descriptive analysis based on

the notion that the verbal element of a clause - also known as the Predicator - is

where the actions and processes that take place between these entities are typically

represented.” (Jeffries, 2010, p. 37). Much of the analysis within this section will

centre on a transitivity model outlined within Jeffries Critical Stylistics and initially set

out in Paul Simpson’s Language, Ideology and Point of View (1993). “The transitivity

model, then, assigns lexical verbs to a number of different categories according to

the kind of process or state they appear to be describing.” (Jeffries, 2010, p.40) and

there are three main categories that will receive particular focus within this section,

with each one falling under the category of a ‘material action’. “Material actions are

the most prototypical verb, referring to something that is done or happens, often in a

physical way, but also in more abstract ways. (Jeffries, 2010, p. 40). The three

subsets of material actions are ‘Material Action Intentional’, ‘Material Action

Supervention’ and ‘Material Action Events’, although more will be explained on each

as they are mentioned in analysis.

Each of the three subsections of witnesses display highly interesting transitivity

choices, presenting ideologies surprisingly overtly when given time for analysis.

Perhaps most striking were a lot of the transitivity choices that the victims made

when referring to the journalists and/or media:

[Victims corpus extracts]

3.0  On 30 March 2008 the News of the World published a sensational article under the heading "FI BOSS HAS SICK NAZI ORGY WITH FIVE HOOKERS"

3.1 They intended to crush me and make an example of me to others who might contemplate suing or criticising them

3.2 Indeed the NotW had formally syndicated the images and video to Axel Springer AG publishers of Germany’s biggest selling newspaper

3.3 They had invaded my privacy, breached my confidence and harassed me through constant surveillance

21

3.4  He did indeed send both women the pictures he was threatening to publish so that they would be under no illusion about his intentions

Each of the transitivity choices italicised above falls under the category of Material

Action Intentional. Characteristics of this subset are that they are ‘intentional and

performed by a conscious being’ (2010). What is interesting about these choices,

and the numerous other examples that are not shown, is that they all display the

journalists as active. It can be speculated that it would have been just as appropriate

to utter/write “my privacy was invaded, my confidence breached and I was

harassed...” in place of example 3.4, in essence replacing Material Action Intentional

with Material Action Events and thus removing the role of the actor. By making the

transitivity choice to illustrate the journalists as active and in control of their actions it

portrays a picture of the subgroup. Notice also the nature of some of these verbs.

‘Invaded and ‘breached’ especially conjure images of battle and war, contributing to

the overall portrayal of the journlists by the victims. The ideology that attacking

others is bad, and placing the journalists as the attackers - almost as if they are

‘invading’ foreign shores in a war siege - is not only common throughout much of the

victims corpus but is also unmistakable.

This representation of the journalists as active, threatening and even as attackers is

in stark contrast to the way that they use transitivity choices to represent themselves:

3.5 I was subject to constant and intrusive speculation in the media about my private life

3.6  I experienced unusual phone activity, including hang up. Calls and clicking on the line

3.7 I became deeply suspicious that people close to me were leaking information to the press 

3.8 I suffered a campaign of harassment and threats to my person, which likely included my phone being hacked

3.9 I was forced into being so suspicious of people that I love and care for, and that I had to suffer such feelings of betrayal, especially by those who had done nothing wrong

22

Above are examples of the victims referring to themselves. Notice the switch to

Material Action Supervention and possibly in the case of 3.6 the use of Material

Action Events, though ‘many verbs are able to be used in both MAI or MAS and MAE

contexts’ (2010). In each of these cases the process being presented is invariably

out of the presenter’s control. Material Action Supervention verbs are described as

“unintentional actions by conscious beings”. By comparing the transitivity choices the

victims make for themselves to the choices they made when referring to the

journalists, it is clear how differently they donate themselves. Whilst the journalists

were presented as wholly active and in control, the victims here present themselves

as passive and almost acted upon. ‘Forced’ inexplicably links the journalists as the

‘enforcers’ of the negative actions that go on to be mentioned within 3.9, whereas

3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 shows more the situation they themselves were put in. By

removing the ‘activeness’ that intrinsically comes with Material Action Intentional

predicators, and instead deciding to use Material Action Supervention they are

indicating their helpless nature in proceedings. These transitivity choices arguably

present the ideology that being out of control is undesirable, while also displaying

themselves as the defenceless individual representing the good values of society

whilst the journalists/media represent the evil corporation harming the innocent

individual.

Interestingly on the odd occasion that the victims do make the choice to use Material

Action Intentional when referring to themselves, the choice of word still indicates a

difference from how they use it in relation to the journalist subsection:

4.0  I was so concerned that I changed my mobile number three times in three months

4.1 The harassment became so persistent that I sent my girlfriend to go stay with a friend, and called in the police

4.2  I instructed lawyers in France to bring similar proceedings

Seeing this use of Material Action Intentional when used in reference to their own

actions is noticeably different from the manner in which they used it regarding the

journalists. Here each action appears to be in self-defence of an action, if not

23

immediately noticeable from the predicate itself, then certainly from the immediate

context of the surrounding sentences. Continuing with the possible presented

ideologies, this could be argued as the victims presenting the ideology that it is

valiant to defend one’s self.

The politician subsection also presented several interesting ideologies through

transitivity choices.

[Politicians corpus extracts]

4.3  Rupert Murdoch interfered in the editorial policy of some of his papers

4.4 The official spokesman would be condemned to be portrayed by broadcasters as snivelling and defensive

4.5 Murdoch’s acquisition of Times Newspapers in 1981, and his ability to manipulate the newspapers after 1982, despite all the guarantees to the contrary to Parliament, were crucial elements in building his empire

4.6 Throughout my ministerial career I was often attacked by newspapers for pursuing policies which they did not like

Much like the victims representation of the journalists, the politicians more often than

not favour Material Action Intentional when it comes to transitivity choice. Again this

presents the journalists in an active capacity, however, it does appear when looked

at more closely that the transitivity choices represent the journalists differently, if still

in a generally negative form. Other than 4.6 and the verbal ‘attacked’, the other three

examples (interfered, portrayed and acquisition) present a slightly different image

than the one by the victims of assault and invasion. Instead, the politicians present

the journalists as calculated, disingenuous and even sly. Interestingly the politicians

spoke at much greater length about the journalists than they did the victims.

However, when there were transitivity choices to make, the politicians invariably

favoured less active predicators:

4.7 By then Mary Ellen Field had been sacked, accused of leaking stories about her employer. She lost both her job and her reputation

24

The above transitivity choice - Material Action Supervention - is used to very similar

effect of the victims when mentioning themselves. Again, the journalists have been

shown to be active and generally negative in their actions - even if slightly differently

- whilst the victims are indeed shown as ‘victims’ by being portrayed as helpless.

Ideology can also be extracted by how much of each other group the politicians talk

about. The concentration on the media as opposed to the victims of phone-hacking

has several ideological angles. On the one hand it could be seen as an ideology that

those who have done wrong need to be punished. However, it could also be seen

that very little regard is given for the victims and indeed the politicians’ value

statutory reform higher than the welfare of individual citizens.

The importance of transitivity choice is highlighted further by the ideologies

presented by the journalists. They too use transitivity choices to present actors in a

certain way:

[Journalist corpus extracts]

4.8 Such professionals were useful tools for journalists in securing corroborating evidence for, or fact-checking, articles and stories that journalists had uncovered

4.9 The Times, through its lawyers and its journalists sets out to admit, acknowledge or address any criticisms

5.0  Journalists frequently talk of themselves in the terms of Graham Greenes Fowler: they can be self-deprecating

5.1  Journalists routinely negotiate with sources

Whilst presenting themselves using Material Action Intentional transitivity choices,

(uncovered, negotiate, sets out) the general ‘feel’ is far removed from their

representation by the victims and politicians. With example 5.0 we also see a

‘verbalisation process’. “Verbalisation processes describe any action which uses

language, and because this means that they have a human actor, they often seem to

25

be quite close to material actions.” (Jeffries, 2010, p. 24). However, though

representing themselves as wholly active, the negative connotations that came about

from the victims and politicians transitivity choices are not displayed in this instance.

Rather, it could be argued they are wishing to present themselves as active, decisive

and truth-seeking. The transitivity choices ‘uncovered’ and ‘negotiate’ especially

display some of the ideologies that the journalists present, with a clear value placed

on exposing the truth and an ideology that the truth and perhaps free speech is of

upmost importance.

The word ‘victims’ or indeed anything similar fails to show up at all on the journalists

key-word list. There are several possible explanations to this. One explanation is that

the journalists did not want to refer to the victims as they feel this debate is about the

media itself, rather than the victims of phone-hacking. Secondly, it may be that the

journalists did not want to make the transitivity choices in relation to the victims. For

example, referring to the victims with an abundance of Material Action Intentional

may appear as though they are trying to justify their actions, or even go as far as

shifting the blame. At the same time, the journalists may have been reluctant to use

Material Action Supervention due to the fact that this may add to the portrayal of the

victims as helpless, which in turn would strengthen the victim’s position in the inquiry

and weaken the journalists. However, this in itself displays ideology on the part of the

journalists as it appears apparent that greater importance is placed on the protection

of free speech than the wellbeing of those targeted by sections of the media.

5. Conclusion

“Language is inextricably bound up with ideology and cannot be analyzed or

understood apart from it.” (Gee, 2011, p. 4) and through the quantitative and

subsequent qualitative analysis much of this ‘bound up ideology’ within the Leveson

Inquiry was uncovered. Though far from uncovering and analysing all of the

ideologies hidden within the thousands of sentences from hundreds of witnesses, the

ideologies that were discovered to be present raises the possibility for further inquiry.

The initial research questions, ‘what are the ideological foundations of the Leveson

Inquiry?’ and ‘how do the three main witness groups (journalists, politicians and

26

victims) convey separate ideologies?’ guided my analysis and the analysis proved to

set about answering those questions. It was found that the ideological foundations of

the Leveson inquiry were both the right to free speech and the right to privacy, and

the struggle that exists between the two. Along with these ideologies were

unexpected results, such as the journalists’ apparent disregard for the victims’ role in

the inquiry itself. In terms of answering the second question, the utilisation of the

naming and transitivity tools cannot be downplayed as devices each party used were

observed an analysed. Again, it was not only through the tools of analysis that the

discovery of what ideologies were present was found, but also the idea of how each

subsection utilised the aforementioned tools. The journalists can be seen to use the

tools intelligently, almost creatively to gain what could be called an advantage.

Through both the subtle use of nominalisation and the astute lack of mention for the

victims, the journalists arguably produced a more compelling argument, thus

presenting their ideologies more purposefully.

When the Leveson Report was published in November 2012, many commented that

the media had escaped due punishment. The Press Complaints Comission -

regulated by the press itself - remained in control of content and ethics (2012). How

strong the link is between the journalists’ manipulation of many of the tools of critical

stylistics and the end report itself is unknown and any comment would be purely

speculative.

 “The Inquiry examined the culture, practices and ethics of the press and, in

particular, the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians. Lord

Justice Leveson was assisted by a panel of six independent assessors with

expertise in the key issues that were considered.” (Levesoninquiry.org.uk) .This

study was an examination into the ideologies presented throughout the Leveson

Inquiry and, in particular, the relationship between language use and ideology. Whilst

Leveson was assisted in his inquiry by a panel of six independent assessors, I

utilised the methodologies of both corpus linguistics and critical stylistics. Future

investigation at greater length would serve in uncovering more ideologies still, and

whilst this study has only scratched the surface of an intriguing linguistic hotbed for

ideology, it has attempted to unlock some of the key themes in one of the most

pressing issues in the media, and indeed society today.

27

6. Bibliography

Baker, Paul (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.

Baker, Paul (2010). Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University

Press.

Ball, Martin J. and Muller, Nicole (2012). Research Methods in Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics: A Practical Guide. Wiley-Blackwell.

Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use (Cambridge Approaches to Lingusitics). Cambridge University Press.

Bisset, Alison (2012). Truth Commissions and Criminal Courts. Cambridge University

Press.

Boling, Patricia (1996). Privacy and the Politics of Intimate Life. Cornell University Press.

Chelliah, Shobhana L. and Reuse, Willem J. (2010). Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. Springer.

Czepek, Andrea (2009). Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: Concepts and Conditions. Intellect.

Davies, Nick and Hill, Amelia (2011). ‘Missing Milly Dowler’s voicemail was hacked by News of the World’. The Guardian. July 5th 2011. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world

Fairclough, Norman (1993). Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press; New Ed Edition.

Fairclough, Norman (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Longman.

Fairclough, Norman and Wodak, Ruth (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume 2, p. 258-84.

28

Freespeechdebate.com (2013). ‘A right to privacy? Not at the expense of free

speech!’ May 21, 2013. Available at: http://freespeechdebate.com/en/2013/05/a-

right-to-privacy-not-at-the-expense-of-free-speech/

Gee, James Paul (2011). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Routledge.

Gerard, Steen J. (2007). Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage: A Methodological Analysis of Theory and Research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Goodin, Robert E. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. OUP Oxford.

Hayes, Nicky (2000). Foundations of Psychology. Cengage Learning EMEA; 3rd Revised edition.

Ho, Yufang (2012). Corpus Stylistics in Principles and Practice: A Stylistic Exploration of John Fowles’ The Magus (Advances in Stylistics). Bloomsbury Academic.

Jeffries, Lesley (2010). Critical Stylistics: The Power of English (Perspectives on the English Language). Palgrave Macmillan.

Jeffries, Lesley and McIntyre, Daniel (2010). Stylistics. Cambridge University Press.

Jeffries, Lesley and Walker, Brian. (2012) ‘Key words in the press: A critical corpus-

driven analysis of ideology in the Blair years (1998- 2007). English Text Construction

5(2): 208 – 229.

Kumar, Raj Pruthi (2005). Nature and Scope of Political Science. Discovery

Publishing.

Leech, Geoffrey and Short, Mick (2007). Style in Fiction. Longman.

Leveson, Brian Henry (2012). An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press: Executive Summary and Recommendations [Leveson Report] (House of Commons Papers). TSO.Levesoninquiry.org.uk

Litosseliti, Lia (2010). Research Methods in Linguistics. Continuum.

Lyons, John (1981). Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Mahlberg, Michaela, (2012). Corpus Stylistics and Dickens's Fiction. Routledge.

29

McEnery, Tony and Hardie, Andrew (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press.

McEnery, Tony and Wilson, Andrew (2001). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press.

Paltridge, Brian (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Continuum, New title

edition

Paltridge, Brian (2012). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Continuum, 2nd edition.

Rayson, P. (2003). Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic

analysis through corpus comparison. Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University.

Schoeman, Ferdinand David (1984). Philosophical Dimension of Privacy: An

Anthology. Cambridge University Press.

Simpson, Paul (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View. Routledge.

Sunderland, Jane (2010). ‘Research Questions in Linguistics’. In: Litosseliti, Lia (eds.) Research Methods in Linguistics. Continuum. Van Belle, Douglas A. (2000). Press Freedom and Global Politics. Greenwood

Press.

Warburton, Nigel. (2009). Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.

30