Exploring Diversity in journalistic discourse: a diachronic corpus-based study

The basic assumption of this study is that the use of lexical patterns in specific contexts. Words - like Muslims, immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees (Baker et al., 2013), or Roma (Erjavec, 2001) – can be explored within co-textual and contextual frameworks to reflect either a positive or a negative evaluation of the associated socio-cultural groups. Besides, the reiteration of such associations or, on the other side, the ‘ageing’ and reduced use of some words or patterns in specific contexts, is also significant. The analysis is based on the analysis of the word DIVERSITY (Conversi, 2014; Kymlicka, 2016) in a corpus of UK newspaper articles collected during the Pandemic from March 2020 to the end of February 2021. The observations are compared to data collected in previous years, such as a corpus collected by the author during the Brexit debate (2018/19). Following the MdCADS methodology (Partington, 2010; 2013), a diachronic quantitative and qualitative investigation was conducted, aimed at ‘unveiling’ discourse features related to the idea of diversity and “the broader societal and political framework in which such discourse is embedded” (Schäffner 1996: 201) and exploring “the relationship between instance and system, between the typical and the exceptional, between signal and noise” (Partington 2004). In previous studies of UK newspapers, based both on the SiBol-Port Corpus and some ad hoc corpora (Zanca, 2015; 2017; 2018) the word Diversity appeared as virtually invariably associated with inclusive, empathic, and positive contexts. Following researchers such as Van Dijk (1991) this implied that discourses about Diversity were largely reproduced by the press as part of a shared set of positive values in the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dichotomy. There were, nonetheless, some relevant, exceptions, particularly when the discourse was related to ethnic or racial issues. The results of the research, based on the 2018/19 and 2020/21 corpora of British newspapers seem to indicate new emerging patterns. New contexts of use emerged and in some contexts, chiefly in the conservative Daily Telegraph, an increasing criticism and conflictual attitude towards some diversity contexts of use can be outlined. According to Hoey (2005), the repetition/frequency (one of the central factors of quantitative analysis) and consequent exposition to positive or negative linguistic patterns can become a (often subconscious) way in which we evaluate (a concept usually associated with qualitative processes) the associated socio-cultural elements. Some repeated lexical patterns become -subconsciously- part of our ‘fluency’ and of our priming leading us to recognize and legitimate them either in a positive or negative way. Other studies on fake news and on the construction of consensus (Unkelbach et al. 2019; Unkelbach & Greifeneder, 2018), equally stress the importance of repetition as a way to create ‘fluency’, this time as part of a conscious and intentional way to influence “perceived social consensus, that is, the perception that a belief is shared by many others” (Greifeneder et al. 2021: 78). Some instances and patterns surfacing in connection with the word diversity seem to imply exactly a manipulative intention of this kind and an attempt to influence our evaluation, changing the general positive aura of the word.