“Rivers of blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 Monika Kopytowska University of Łódź Paul Chilton University of Warwick, Lancaster University “RIVERS OF BLOOD”: MIGRATION, FEAR AND THREAT CONSTRUCTION Abstract The article focuses on Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech and its recontextualisation 50 years later in view of the rising anti-immigration sentiment and Brexit campaign. Having discussed the dynamics of the threat construction process and its role in shaping public attitudes to migration and policies related to it across time and space, we proceed to analyse Powell’s speech in terms of lexical, grammatical, and discursive fear-inciting devices and strategies. While doing so we draw on the insights from neuroscientific research on the role of lexis in fear stimulation and functional-cognitive models of grammatical structure. The second part of our analysis is meant to demonstrate how the semiotic potential of cyberspace and social media, along with multimodal integration of various forms, intertextuality, and interdiscursivity they enable, endow fear-inciting discourse with new spatiotemporal and affective qualities. To this end we examine one of the most popular YouTube videos making “Rivers of Blood” speech part of its antiimmigration stance. Keywords immigration, discourse, threat, fear, amygdala, frames, recontextualisation, social media 1 Introduction The nationalist and anti-immigration sentiment in Europe has been rising over the recent years. An atmosphere of economic austerity, the so-called refugee crisis which erupted in 2015, and growing radicalization with its manifestations in terrorist attacks have provided arguments and evidence to legitimize the anti-immigration stance and exclusionary policies. Parties in Europe and their leaders, including Nigel Farage and UK Independence Party (UKIP), Marine Le Pen and the Front National in France, Geert Wilders and the PVV, Frauke Petry and the AfD in Germany, have played the nationalist card in election campaigns, vowing to fight against illegal immigration and protect their citizens from the looming threat. In the UK, the immigration issue became key in the Brexit campaign, with Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 134 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction the Leave campaign insisting that Britain must retain control over its borders. Already in 2015, Farage warned that the country “cannot cope” with more migrants. The UKIP leader spoke of British Muslims’ “fifth column living within our country, who hate us and want to kill us” and integration failure (Mason 2015), immigrant criminals likely to enter the country (Travis, 29 March 2016), and extremists among refugees (BBC 2015). The results of the Essex Continuous Monitoring Surveys (ECMS) concerning the vote for Brexit demonstrate that public concerns over the immigration issue were indeed a key factor for those who voted to leave the EU (Clarke et al. 2017). Similarly, one third (33%) of the Leave voters surveyed by Ashcroft (2016), said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders” and that EU “must be mad to take this risk with the cohesion of our societies”. Lastly, the analysis of survey data by Swales (2016) demonstrates that “[m]atters of identity were equally, if not more strongly, associated with the Leave vote – particularly feelings of national identity and sense of change over time” (p. 2). Several studies have focused on correlation between identity issues, perception of immigration-related threat and voting behavior (Abrams and Travaglino 2018), perceptions of migrants as a criminal threat and support for curtailing rights of EU migrants (Stansfield and Stone 2018), link between cognitive inflexibility, nationalism and support for Brexit along with opposition to immigration (Zmigrod et al. 2018). In March 2016, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, speaking on the Brexit vote, immigration and refugee crisis, said it is “outrageous” to call “racist” those who express concerns about refugees and migrants as: “Fear is a valid emotion at a time of such colossal crisis. This is one of the greatest movements of people in human history. Just enormous. And to be anxious about that is very reasonable” (cit. in Bond 2016). Rather than evaluating the legitimacy of fear itself, our intention in this paper is to look at the interface of fear and threat construction in public discourse. To this end we will examine Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech originally delivered at a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on 20 April 1968 for its threat construction strategies. Analysed by Chilton (2004) for its legitimization and coercion strategies and, recently, by Atkins (2018) as an example of “the epideictic rhetoric of blame and exclusion”, the speech reemerged in the (mediatized) public sphere again in the context of current immigration concerns after BBC broadcast it in full in April 2018 to mark the 50th anniversary of this controversial address. Recontextualised in various forms on social media platforms, Powell’s speech has reached mass audiences, fitting nicely into other threat discourses. For this reason, we will also examine one of such recontextualisations in the form of a YouTube video. Drawing on the neuroscientific research investigating the role of language as fear activator we will apply Fillmore’s frame semantics to identify and assess lexical, grammatical and discursive devices acting as potential fear triggers, as well as pragmatic perspective on implicit meaning. Before both texts are discussed, however, we will present a brief overview of threat construction mechanisms in migration-related discourses, with dominant themes and pragmalinguistic devices. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 135 2 Fearing migration: Dimensions of threat As observed by Delanty, “fear of others and anxieties about the future have emerged as potent social forces in contemporary society” (2008: 676). There are three aspects of fear as a social phenomenon that are of particular relevance here. Firstly, it is socially constructed and, as Altheide (2006: 26) adds, can be “manipulated by those who seek to benefit”. In this way, “[f]ear begins with things we fear, but over time with enough repetition and expanded use, it becomes a way of looking at life” (Altheide 2002: 3). Secondly, it is socially constitutive as it establishes “objects from which the subject, in fearing, can stand apart” as it “sticks to” something or someone – event, phenomenon, group – that is not necessarily the source of fear itself (Ahmed 2003: 389). Typically, the Other – source of fear – is either unknown or (considered) different, and thus deviant.1 According to Bauman and May (2001: 37), since the strangers defy boundaries and divisions inscribed in our social order, we “do not know exactly what to expect of them and ourselves” (ibid.); they bring about “loss of security”, “crisis of confidence”, and “fear of contamination from those who […] are not like us” (ibid. 38). Fear can thus be conducive to xenophobia (Delanty 2008: 677), the need to set, confirm and execute boundaries between “us” and “them”. The haunting image of “strangers at our door” (Bauman 2016) and the (imagined) threat in various forms – posed by them – has recently become an even more powerful instrument in migration-related discourses, both within the political sphere (Hogan and Haltinner 2015; Bocskor 2018; Cap 2018a, 2018b) and the media (Burroughs 2014; Baider and Kopytowska 2017; Kopytowska and Grabowski 2017; Kopytowska, Grabowski and Woźniak 2017; Kopytowska, Woźniak and Grabowski 2017; Sedláková 2017; Sedláková and Burešová 2016; Sedláková and Kopytowska, forthcoming). Hogan and Haltinner (2015) point to “the emergence of a transnational right-wing populist ‘playbook’” in immigration threat narratives, while others situate such narratives within “securitization discourse” (Maskaliūnaitė 2015).2 The latter is undoubtedly a response to “a culture of fear” that is “haunting Europe” and “finding its form and asserting its growing influence in myriad ways” (Demos 2017:14). This “fear of the unknown: a fear of the other, a fear of the future” (ibid.) has been seized and appropriated by various political groups and parties.3 Media have also played their part; Jacobs et al. (2017), for example, discuss the role of television in influencing anti-immigrant sentiments in the context of fear of crime. Others have examined media cultivation of the stereotypical association of immigrants with criminality by over-representing crimes attributed to immigrants (Mahtani 2008; Henry and Tator 2009; Wiggen 2012; Esses et al. 2013; Brouwer 2017; Balica and Marinescu 2018). 1 For discussion of deviancy see Baider, forthcoming and in this Special Issue. Maskaliūnaitė (2015) adopts Huysmans’ (2006) securitization approach in her analysis of the current migration crisis in Lithuania. She refers to the concept of “societal security”, developed by the Copenhagen school (Buzan et al. 1998). According to Buzan et al. (1998), whatever is perceived as a threat to collective identities and the survival of a community as a cohesive unit generates societal insecurities. 3 Wodak (2015) discusses the “politics of fear”, linking it to right wing populist discourses across Europe. 2 Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 136 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction The representation of migration has always been tinted with fear and substantial negativity. Arcimavičiene and Baglama (2018) attribute this negativity to three types of associations: (1) physical and metaphorical journey involving crossing boundaries and highlighting the aspects of difference and estrangement, (2) metaphorical system of market ideology with migrants being perceived as “labour force” or “labour migration“, and (3) the container approach in society and public policy of exclusion. Indeed, as argued by Kabachnik (2010) “the image of nomads threatening sedentary ways of life has been a common pejorative representation”, with the “place-invader” label being applied to those “seen as transgressing the naturalized boundaries of place, those who are seen as out of place (Cresswell 1996)”.4 A corpus linguistic Discourse Historical Approach study by Baker et al. (2008) focused on the representation of refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants and migrants (collectively referred to as RASIM) in the British press identified a number of topics/categories and topoi, most of which conveyed a negative stance. The most frequent migrant-related topoi in the UK press listed by Hart (2010) include: burden (the out-group needs to be supported by the in-group), character (the out-group has certain undesirable characteristics), crime (the out-group consists of criminals), culture (the out-group has different norms and values than the in-group and is unable to assimilate), danger (the out-group is dangerous), disadvantage (the out-group brings no advantages/is of no use to the in-group), disease (the out-group is dirty and carries infectious diseases), displacement (the out-group will eventually outnumber and/or dominate the in-group and will get privileged access to limited socio-economic resources, over and above the in-group), and exploitation (the outgroup exploits the welfare system of the in-group) (Hart 2010: 67). Hart (ibid.) also highlights the fact that migration-related words frequently used in the British press are connected with the concept of physical or mental threat, e.g. “damage”, “danger”, “threat”, and thus likely to evoke strongly negative emotional responses towards migrants, including fear. Needless to say, they reflect the three types of associations mentioned by Arcimavičiene and Baglama (2018) and rely heavily on metaphorical conceptualizations representing migrants as parasites Musolff (2012, 2014, 2017), invasion and flood (Mahtani and Mountz 2002; Kainz 2016), and with other metaphors (Arcimavičiene 2018, forthcoming; Baider and Kopytowska 2017; Baider et al. 2017; Petersson and Kainz 2017). Arcimavičiene and Baglama (2018) bring up an important aspect here, namely the fact that “complex but coherent combinations of metaphors” are used either to suppress emotions (Object and Commodity metaphors), or to heighten negative emotions (Natural Phenomena, Crime, and Terrorism for heightening), while Kopytowska, Grabowski and Woźniak (2017) point to two dominant emotions thus evoked in refugee-related online discourse, namely fear and disgust, and their potential role in legitimizing verbal and physical aggression directed at this group. 4 According to Bauman and May (2001: 35), the strangers transgress physical borders of our world, thus disrupting our social order, as they “come into our field of vision and social spaces – uninvited”. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 137 Both group threat theory5 and integrated threat theory6 may shed some light on the motivations behind and implications of threat based discourses on migration. Applying the perspective of intergroup threat theory and cultivation research, Atwell Seate and Mastro (2016) demonstrated that exposure to negative news stories had both directly and indirectly affected immigration attitudes by, among others, evoking feelings of intergroup anxiety, particularly for heavy news consumers. Baider and Kopytowska (2017), in turn, applied Stephan and colleagues’ theory (2008, 2009) distinguishing between realistic and symbolic threats, in their analysis of migration metaphors in Cyprus and in Poland and showed that both dimensions of threat surface in online discourses. Following Blumer’s (1958) work, Quillian (1995: 586) postulates that collective threat depends on two factors: (a) size of the subordinate group in comparison to the dominant group, and (b) economic circumstances.7 In line with this observation, we argue that arguments concerning the increasing number of migrants (and metaphors used to highlight it) as well as those linked to the economic welfare of the host population will act as effective threat construction devices. Indeed, being linked to competition over scarce resources, threat becomes the motivational basis of negative attitudes towards immigrants (Citrin at al. 1997). Lulle and Ungure (2015: 77) demonstrate that migrants, who are represented as lazy people looking for welfare benefits in a European country, and prone to have a large family, are perceived as competitors for the welfare resources. Lahav and Courtemanche (2014), using framing and attitudinal analysis, discuss the effects of framing immigration as a physical or cultural threat. A study conducted by Stansfield and Stone (2018) in Britain shows that perceptions of migrants as a criminal threat play a more important role when it comes to support for curtailing rights of EU migrants than those conceptualizing them as economic threat. Importantly, however, the authors observe that different narratives are associated with EU and non-EU migrants. Still, perceptions of immigrants as law-breakers appealing to a topos of a threat to law and social order provide an important argument to legitimize them as an outgroup (Fitzgerald at al. 2012). 5 Group threat theory is a sociological theory based on the work of Blumer and Blalock, Jr. in the 1950s and 1960s which proposes that the larger the size of an outgroup, the more likely it is to be perceived as a threat and thus perceived negatively by the ingroup. 6 Integrated threat theory is a theory in psychology and sociology which examines the components of perceived threat resulting in prejudice between social groups. 7 For application of this theory to assess attitudes towards immigration in the European context see García‐Faroldi (2017). Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 138 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction 3 “Rivers of Blood” (1968): The original text and some of its mechanisms The text that has become a sort of sacred source for far-right anti-migrant groups of various stripes, including the overtly racist ones is the 1968 speech of the British conservative politician, Enoch Powell (the name is unusual in the British culture, though not unknown and is noticeably biblical). Powell was not only a politician but also a classical scholar, linguist and poet. He served as a Conservative Member of Parliament (1950–74), MP of Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) (1974–87), and Minister of Health (1960–63). His speech addressed to the General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre delivered on 20 April 1968, which later became known as “ Rivers of Blood”, opposed the anti-discrimination legislation Race Relations Bill, presenting massive immigration into the UK as a serious threat and a possible cause of “interracial conflict” (Chilton 2004: 110). As the speech was considered by both media and politicians to be an overt manifestation of racism, Powell was expelled from the shadow cabinet by the Conservative Party leader Edward Heath. Yet, considerable part of British population supported Powell’s ideas which was reflected in both opinion polls and letters written to MPs, public figures as well as local and national media (Schwarz 2011: 36–48). In the words of Schwarz (ibid. 37): “The letters created a new affective nation, for whom Powell was a spokesman and for which the neighbourhood acted a principal axis. In so doing they devised a peculiarly homely racism”. The “Rivers of Blood” text has been reproduced, either whole or in part, since 1968, in various media formats, with a resurgence of popularity in certain socio-political settings fifty years later – in other words, it has been repeatedly recontextualised. In section 4 of the present paper we will examine one of such cases among many, in an attempt to explain why and how such resurgent recontextualisation has occurred. With regard to the original 1968 text, in this section we start from the preliminary observation that the speech contains many structural items referring to emotions, and to entities, processes and circumstances that could conceivably make hearers of the speech afraid or at least concerned. These are emotional effects and we will consider how a claim that the speech stimulates them might be substantiated. Adopting a pragmatic and cognitive discourse analytic perspective we will make an attempt here at exploring a scientifically demonstrable relationship between the word and structures of the text and some potential emotional response in the receivers. 3.1 Emotions and representation of threat According to affective intelligence theory (Marcus et al. 2000), negative emotions such as anxiety and anger are associated with people’s surveillance system which prepares them to respond to threatening conditions. Isenberg and colleagues (1999) discussed the function of amygdala – known for its role in governing the emotion of fear and fear conditioning, or fear learning (LeDoux 2002), in the processing of danger elicited by language. In the Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 139 context of linguistic and discursive studies of threat processing, the amygdala is thus extremely important. Its role in language processing is of course late-evolved, but it plays a major role in all vertebrate in the processing of perceptions across the modalities of scent, hearing and vision. Amygdala activation in turn triggers the release of cortisol into the blood in preparation for physical action and in humans is linked extensively to several other emotional and cognitive systems of the brain (for a summary see Damasio 2010: 111–114). Facial expressions, acting as signals, are also triggered in this automatic process. In their overview of the neuroscientific research on prejudice, Kubota et al. discuss the correlation between the activation of the amygdala and implicit biases (Kubota et al. 2012 cit. in Lu 2016), which has been demonstrated by studies on black-white race attitudes and decision-making. Summarizing research on the interface of prejudice and emotions Lu (2016) concludes that the emotional component of prejudice plays a key role in shaping intergroup relations. While this is not an empirical evidence-based study on audience effects and we can only hypothesise about potential impact of threat construction mechanisms in the texts analysed by us, we believe that examining the interface of language, emotions and discursive representation may be revealing as regards the functioning of so-called “hate speech”. In the following paragraphs we will demonstrate the role of discursive strategies (both verbal and visual) in fear amplification and, more generally, negative emotional appeals. 3.2 Words Danger, fear and threat words have a demonstrable effect on the brain and this has been shown empirically by psycholinguistic experiments and neuroimaging. Isenberg and colleagues (1999) presented the subjects with 20 words categorized by threat valence or neutral valence on the basis of previous assessment by native speakers. The words were randomly coloured and the subjects were asked to name the colour as it was displayed on the computer screen (a variant of the famous Stroop test). In this way subjects were distracted from the word meaning. The brain of each subject was scanned (PET scan) during the task for each word. The statistical results clearly indicted activation of the amygdala as the individuals were exposed to threat words – which happened even though they were not consciously processing the words qua words. While it had already been known that the amygdala played a role in the recognition of threat from facial expression, the new finding was an important step in showing that the same systems play a role in the recognition of linguistic threat. The empirical evidence that speakers can affect the brains of their hearers is crucial for linguists, discourse analysts, and other communication scholars as it can be used to substantiate claims about strategies and mechanisms of persuasion, legitimization and social coercion. Table 1 presents the words used by Isenberg et al. (1999) in their experiment as well as those words that appear in “Rivers of Blood”. They used a simple random list, not a coherent text. In naturally occurring text (such as Powell’s speech) one would not expect all of the Isenberg words to occur, since texts select from the general vocabulary of a Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 140 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction language those words that are relevant to a particular goal and theme of the speaker. The subset that intersects Isenberg’s list and Powell’s text is, however, striking. Isenberg et al. do not say how this list was drawn up in the first place; maybe it was on the basis of native speaker intuition, a strategy that we follow in listing fear words in Powell’s speech that are not on the Isenberg list but belong to the same semantic category – i.e. words associated with danger, fear, threat, and harm to self (Table 2).8 Table 1: Experimental threat words: adopted from Isenberg et al. (1999). Isenberg et al. and Rivers of Blood Isenberg et al. persecute persecuted bloodstain of blood gun throwing match onto gunpowder pursue suspicion abhor beat bully spy failure suspect kidnap kill annihilate deceive poison damage suspicious distrust bullet attack attacked follow followed by (…) wide-grinning blindfold to blind, blind to realities prisoner, imprison go to prison whip whipcord whip hand over mislead misleading evil evils (4) danger danger, dangerous (5) abuse abused betrayal betrayal hostage overthrow wound torment hijack suffocate capture molest destroy torture bludgeon execute loathe rape hate disturb bruise contaminate death arrest threat investigation steal strangle mutilate opposition slaughter corruption knife whisper harass conspiracy blame assault injure assassinate suffer intrude condemn stab chase conspire trap accuse punish hit sinister attach stare 8 It is a reasonable way to formulate a hypothesis in language research that is not text-based. And one would not expect Isenberg et al. to list all English words liable to stimulate an alarm reaction in the brain. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 141 Table 2: Threat words in “Rivers of Blood” not included in Isenberg and colleagues’ list. Emotions Dominance/physical force afraid agitate alarm/alarmed fear/feared peril risk horror horrible thing ominous urgency (2) grave/ gravity trouble/s (3) tragic foreboding abused denied [right] deprivation slaves domination/dominate taken over condemned pillory one-way privilege overawe weapons penalties execration. intractable impact Mental and physical health delusion mad (3) insane canker funeral pyre Unity and cohesion broken fragmentation divisive (2) dispute reprisals inflame curses agent-provocateur alien/s (2) stranger/s (3) confusion noise fraudulent This is a conservative list, since we have not included words that may stimulate a fear response in some hearers but not others, e.g. the word “immigrant”, and certain negative phrases. Furthermore, the surrounding discourse, and even the text itself, might affect particular words in such a way that their meanings acquire the ability to stimulate a fear response – for example, words such as “alien”, “immigrant”, as well as “inflow” and “move in”. We are not denying out of hand the possibility that people can be scared when immigrant numbers are high – but note the ambiguity in that statement. They may be spontaneously scared by the phenomenon, but they can also be scared by some particular agent who stokes up their fear. It is also important to note that a threshold migrant percentage for a society to become automatically fearful has not been empirically determined. Anti-migrant discourse such as Powell’s 1968 speech, which quotes a lot of statistics, takes it without question that there is such a percentage threshold; Powell implicitly claims he knows what it is. The reason why determining a threshold of tolerance may well be in principle impossible is that it depends on variables (across societies and times) such as the socio-economic conditions of the receiving population, together with the values and ideologies of this population. The latter factor is carried by social discourse – complex networks and hierarchies of communication. There is no “natural” point at which a population becomes “naturally” afraid of people who look or act differently, unless of course they are invaders on the attack, or represented as such in the discourse of someone like Powell. This is precisely what we are interested in as discourse analysts: in which ways do human actors in receiving populations circulate messages that stimulate fear of migrants rather than reflect it? And indeed, in which ways can other kinds of actors circulate messages that moderate or transform spontaneous fear of migrants if there is such a thing? Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 142 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction Setting aside the specific case of 1960s migration for a moment, animals, humans included, as well as responding individually to threats in the environment, warn one another of dangers – and essentially this is what is going on in the case of Powell’s text and its dissemination. One individual claims to perceive a threat and seeks to make warning calls to conspecifics.9 Because of human technologies, the calls can be repeated over time and reproduced. The visual modality is especially important for humans in their now strongly visual culture, even more so fifty years on from Powell’s initial text. The important point here is that fifty years on, the warning cry consists of a mixture and alternation of auditory speech, visually processed written speech – and, crucially, visual non-linguistic signals. These are of two types: on the one hand, perceivers process images of the speaker, Powell himself, and on the other hand, they are shown images of the actual or inferred referents of the dangers Powell evokes linguistically). We say more about this later (see section 4, but it is worth noting at this point that the facial expression of Powell itself (reproduced in numerous texts discussing his speech)10 is not simply expressive but also a potential stimulus, and in all likelihood stimulates significant emotional reactions that contribute to the presentation of Powell by certain actors as a heroic or even quasi-religious figure. While the image of the facial expression in question appears to be a classic fear expression, this does not mean that Powell himself was in an immediate state of terror; actors are trained to perform such gestures, as are orators – in particular in the rhetoric manuals provided by the classical authors Powell was soaked in. 3.3 Grammatico-semantic frames as threat triggers Powell was a prodigious classical scholar, as is well known, and this shows in his oratorical style: apart from the classical allusions and quotations, the style is a textbook example of the rhetorical devices catalogued by classical rhetoricians such as Isocrates, Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian. The syntax overall is of Ciceronian complexity – making for an unusually formal, old-fashioned sounding (even back in 1968) surface form. This point is relevant to the conceptual content, since the layered syntactic embedding encapsulates conceptual structures that are also emotional triggers. Many of these structures also carry semantic presuppositions. That is, in order to construct meaning for the text, readers have to infer, unconsciously, propositions that are not stated verbatim. Part of this natural process 9 Note that the danger-caller has to be believed. In the animal kingdom response to the caller seems to be largely automatic, but even here observation indicates that individuals check the environment for the actuality of danger and may ignore a danger call. Human communication is also based on acceptance of the reliability of communications (cf. Tomasello 2016), which may explain the readiness of humans to process, and sometimes to automatically accept, incoming statements. But not entirely, since human communicators communicating certain kinds of message, particularly danger signals, have to demonstrate their credibility and credential, by rational or irrational means. 10 The photo with this facial expression can be found at http://www.thejournal.ie/enoch-powell-bbc-rivers-of-blood3956266-Apr2018/ Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 143 also involves making assumptions, as one processes incoming language, about presupposed values – this is necessary to “make sense of” of what one is hearing.11 In this section we examine the syntactically encoded danger signals that have the potential to stimulate emotional response and subsequent actions. There are, as far as we know, no experiments investigating complex meanings at this level in the way that Isenberg et al. examined the response of the amygdala to isolated context-less words. What we offer here is simply a model for future descriptive and empirical psycholinguistic research. While it is a complex matter to design scan experiments capable of investigating threat meanings at this level, it is not in principle impossible. Here we illustrate some of the analytic techniques that can be used to bring out the underlying grammatical-semantic structures that native speakers are not immediately conscious of. Our methodology is as follows. We analysed all sentences in the text, with a focus on all clauses (any chunk that includes a verb in any form), however deeply embedded syntactically, with attention to emergent conceptual structures that included potential feartriggers, i.e. threat signals structured as kinds of event or action or predicate structures. This was done with concomitant attention to textual context, including cohesion devices, since some words and structures that are not fear triggers when out of context can be affectively modified as the text unfolds –from another perspective, that means that the hearers/readers become primed for affective meanings (in this case, potential dangers). This approach is based essentially on functional-cognitive models of grammatical structure (e.g. Fillmore 1982; Allan 2001; http://www.constructiongrammar.org). Clauses in human languages can be seen in this perspective as encoding conceptual structures as who is doing what to whom/what, when, where, and how (John hit Joe last week), as well as what X is doing (John is dreaming), what is happening to X (John is drowning), and what X is like now or over time (John is being silly, late, tall, conscientious). There are also affinities to standard predicate logic, where propositions consist of predicate (argumetnt1, argument2, argumen3). Frame in this approach can be defined as: “characteristic features, attributes, and functions of a denotatum, and its characteristic interactions with things necessarily or typically associated with it” (Allan 2001: 251).12 In particular, we isolated all the structures (rather than individual lexemes) likely to be perceived by the brain and its warning systems danger signals—that is, “threat expressions” likely to trigger the amygdala and potentially the other brain and body systems to which they are linked. Essentially, we are attempting to identify mechanisms of what is sometimes called the “vigilance” module by cognitive scientists (Sperber 1994, 2001, 2005; Sperber and Wilson 1995; Sperber et al. 2010) and some cognitive discourse analysts (Hart 2011). In a number of cases, the Isenberg lexical triggers are involved but we are primarily concerned in this section with the contribution of grammatical structure to what can plausibly be hypothesised as danger signals triggering amygdala activity. 11 12 Chilton (2004) calls the presupposition of values “presumptions. See also Charteris-Black (2017) for the role of metaphorical frames in creating awe and imposing authority. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 144 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction We also investigated the rhetorical structure of the text as a cohesive whole, identifying rhetorical and thematic sections and subsections along with lexical cohesion devices (but, indeed, at all events, I turn to…). This enables us to give a relevant sample of the threat structures that we identified; we do not aim here to give an exhaustive list. In the first sentence Powell uses a threat word in a grammatical substructure that serves several purposes: (1) The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. It is a typical oratorical maxim-like proposition with ethical load that thus simultaneously legitimizes itself and, by way of presupposition, makes a claim of the existence of danger. The core of this is: (1a) Agent statesmanship Action provide against Target preventable evils This presupposes existence of “evils”, which are specified further on in the speech and asserts that “statesmanship” stands in a certain relationship to “evils”. Since this core idea is grammatically embedded in a predication that asserts, or rather claims, that “statesmanship” has a role that is “a supreme function”, there is also a tacit implication that Powell is a “statesman”—which comes with its own cultural cognitive frame for speakers and hearers. The idea is also semantically-grammatically structured into the rest of this introductory section – a section that is, incidentally, a classic rhetorical exordium, establishing the authority and status of the speaker. Following the classical pattern, in the next section Powell gives us a narratio – a list of claimed facts the speaker wants us to attend to, often as here in the form of a narration of events, which imposes a point of view and evaluation on the claimed facts. Here Powell narrates an alleged encounter with a constituent, in which a dialogue ensues and the man is reported as uttering the now infamous words:13 (2) Location + temporal adjunct In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time Agent Process the black man will have the whip hand over Target the white man At this point Powell seeks to forestall potential objections: “I can already hear the chorus of execration…”, using a question and answer format, framed in indirect speech: “How dare I say such a horrible thing?” – again a classic oratorical ploy. The rhetorical answer contains a predicative clause that is a fear trigger: 13 This fragment becomes a starting point in the YouTube video we analyse later. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 (3) Theme his country 145 Predicate will not be worth living in for his children The precise reasons why increase in immigration is to be deplored is not spelled out. The assertion, or rather implication, that it is to be thus deplored depends on creating a feareffect linked to “immigrants” in the structures concerning immigrants in the rest of the text. This trick works hand-in-hand with the continuation of the narration, which states numbers of immigrant entries to the UK in the 1960s. Numbers are per se neutral: the association of a fear-response with them requires rhetorical effort, which means semantic-grammatical arrangements that will trigger amygdala responses and potentially other physiological changes. In addition to emotionalising numbers, the highly sensitive and conceptual image schema of the CONTAINER is emotionalized via verbs and nouns that depend on it: (4) Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The danger signal is a syntactic sub-structure deeply embedded in the sentence that surrounds it and gives it its negative valorization: (4a) Target an alien element Process introduced into Location a country or population This is a non-finite passive phrase with a focal verb that has to do with causing motion of some entity in a containing space, container images being how countries are typically conceptualised. There is no “by” phrase explicitly denoting an agent who causes the motion of the “alien element” into the space. It may be that penetration of a space is inherently perceived as dangerous to the human mind-body. In addition, the matrix sentence includes the claim that it is relatively high numbers that are “significant”. However, (4a) triggers fear even without the claim about numbers, casting doubt on whether Powell really thinks it is a certain numerical threshold that is the problem, or the presence of “an alien element” in itself, whatever its numerical size. The listing of supposed facts, the narratives, and the “voices” from letters – these constitute the remaining substance of the speech – cannot be discussed exhaustively here. We conclude with another illustration of how the same conceptual schema —immigrants victimising local people – is encoded in various semantic-grammatical structures: (5) She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken [by immigrants]. She finds excreta which excreta is] pushed [by immigrants] through her letter box. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 146 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They [children…piccaninnies] cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she [this woman] will go to prison. Line breaks are introduced to indicate the potential danger signals. In square brackets we have inserted the linguistic elements that are omitted through normal syntactic processes and recoverable by hearers from the context, given ordinary assumptions of discourse cohesion. We have also indicated referents of pronouns, provided in the text. What this brings out is the repeated conceptual scheme of aggressor-hostile-to-victim. In some cases two such structures overlap: she finds excreta, immigrants push excreta through her letterbox. The lexical trigger excreta activates the powerful human emotion of disgust, activated through the insular cortex – an anterior part of the cortex that probably evolved at an early stage as a survival mechanism prompting the avoidance of noxious foods. The association with immigrants is not, interestingly, stated explicitly: rather it is left to the inferential processes of linguistic comprehension to recover a causal connection unconsciously. No one knows if these events actually took place; if they did they were morally reprehensible but there are no grounds to attribute them specifically to a whole section of the population. The point here is that particular images are being stimulated repeatedly in the dense language of the text. Moreover, since texts are reproducible and indefinitely transmissible, these stimuli can be disseminated through social space and time – that is, decontextualised (see section 4). The concluding sentences of the speech – the peroratio – constitute a similarly compressed appeal to the emotions, as recommended by the classical rhetors. Hereto the emotion stimulated is fear, as previously, by means of overlapping semantic-grammatical units, repeated and delivered in quick succession. It is an attack on the presence of black Africans in North American society, on the Race Relations bill then passing through the UK parliament, and on the Sikh community in the UK. It is also, naturally enough, in the peroratio that the much noted quotation, the warning from the Cumaean Sybil in The Aeneid, is placed. This was not merely ornamental; it was part of numerous strategies in the speech building up a quasi-prophetic role for the speaker, a feature of the text that requires separate treatment. Quoting the Labour politician John Stonehouse writing in the local press, Powell says: (6) Agent (metaphorical) “…To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) Theme This communalism Process leads to Location a dangerous fragmentation within society. Predicate is a canker; Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 147 […] Adjunct (beneficiary) For these dangerous and divisive elements Theme The legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill Predicate is the very pabulum Agents they [dangerous and divisive elements] Predicate/Process need to flourish Target [the pabulum] Here is the means of showing that Agents Process Target the immigrant communities [the immigrant communities] members, [the immigrant communities] [the immigrant communities] [the immigrant communities] can organise to consolidate to agitate and campaign against to overawe and dominate their their fellow citizens, and the rest Adjunct (instrument) with the legal weapons which Actors the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided [legal weapons]. Adjunct clause (temporal) As I look ahead, Target I Actor am filled [by?] with forboding; Adjunct (comparison) like the Roman, Actor I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 148 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction Again the analysis is done by separating out grammatical units that cluster round a verb in nouns and noun phrases. The original text is laid out in continuous format, but we have introduced analytic line breaks and spaces to make columns under the functional semanticgrammatical labels for parts of the syntactic units that we have isolated. In square brackets are “understood” participants (agents, targets) and the referents of anaphoric pronouns in the conceptual schemas that the grammar encodes (in square brackets we also indicate text omitted for reasons of space).14 Reading the lines from left to right breaks up the text into grammatically functional components of the units that correspond to lexico-grammatical danger-signals. Setting aside the childish pun (maybe Powell the classicist would have called it paonomasia), it can be noted that Stonehouse’s words are recontextualised by Powell because they contain lexico-grammatical chunks that constitute potential danger signals. Another notable feature revealed by the analysis is – once again – the dense nature of references to immigrant communities and the associations with predicates, processes and adjuncts containing fear meanings arising from words related to aggression (“campaign against, overawe, dominate…”). It is a cleverly and effortfully crafted speech with tightly interwoven stimuli. However, though we have suggested that the danger stimuli, including linguistic stimuli, activate the emotional brain centres automatically, the whole human emotional response chain must not be over-simplified. One crucial element is stimulus appraisal, and another is cognitive changes (Damasio 2010: 116). The presence of these elements implies that humans do not automatically respond to, or even continue to attend to, the sort of stimuli Powell constructed. The cognitive reactions accompanying the fear responses in humans, furthermore, may develop into critical meta-perception and communication – precisely what we are engaged in here. But much depends on the social context including the way the receiving brains have been acculturated. Accordingly we turn now to context and recontextualisation. 4 Fifty years on: Recontextualisation of threat triggers The multimodal text we have chosen as an example of recontextualisation of threat triggers is a video posted on YouTube by the Iconoclast 50 years after the original speech was delivered, on 20th April 2018, entitled “Enoch Powell vs The Establishment. 50th Anniversary of “Rivers Of Blood” Speech. Demographics”.15 With 47741 views, 4,4 thousand “likes” and 1206 comments, it is one of the top three most popular videos on Enoch Powell. The author – the Iconoclast – introduces himself as “British Nationalist, Anti-EU, Pro-Nation State, Anti-Mass Immigration, Pro-Personal Responsibility, and 14 From a strictly syntactic point of view we have used a few shortcuts. We have not analysed out all the details of embedded grammatical subjects, for example. 15 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XET3SXjUgWw&t=867s Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 149 bloody handsome to boot.”16 Such contextualization is important and, judging by the number of likes, attracts viewer-commenters with a similar worldview. The instantaneous nature of the medium removing the boundaries of time and space, the discursive integration of multimodal forms and the hyperlink architecture enable various forms of online intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Interactivity patterns and the new role of prosumers17 that the audience is granted make cyberspace an ultra-attractive site for political or quasipolitical debate and endow it with community building potential (Kopytowska 2013: 380, 2017: 2, 6; see also KhosraviNik 2014, 2017a; also KhosraviNik and Esposito, this Special Issue). Such potential has been successfully exploited by various right-wing, populist, and radical groups (Baider and Constantinou 2014, 2017; Jakubowicz 2017; Jakubowicz et al. 2017; KhosraviNik 2017b; Klein 2017; Matamoros-Fernández 2017). KhosraviNik (2017b) and others speak of echo chambers, which may act to reinforce people’s existing views and confirm their biases, Matamoros-Fernández (2017) introduces the concept of platformed racism enabled by the broadly understood culture of social media platforms, and Jakubowicz (2017) discusses cyberracism. It is not our intention in this article to discuss the role of social media in the spread of hostile, populist and radical content. Rather, we want to focus here on the conditions it creates for recontextualising certain ideologically-loaded texts and enhancing their emotional potential: in the present case, fear appeals. The hyperlink below the video analysed directs us to the website (The Iconoclast Magazine) where the ideological orientation and mission statement of the author are presented:18 (7) …we must destroy the atmosphere of fear that discourages normal people from speaking out against subjects that are often deemed politically incorrect or “culturally sensitive”. Once we encourage new ideas to emerge, we can stimulate open and free dialogue that can evolve into real world action. (The Iconoclast, our emphasis) Interestingly, the fragment carries the existential presupposition that there actually exists an “atmosphere of fear”. There is also a presumed understanding of what “normal people” are. The nature and extent – and acceptability – of what is commonly called “political correctness” is certainly in need of serious neutral examination by discourse analysts. But whether “atmosphere of fear” can reasonably describe all cases where “political correctness” prevails is questionable, even without detailed examination. The YouTube video itself consists of several parts and includes a short fragment of Powell’s speech, followed by a fragment of an interview with him conducted 9 years later, 16 Available at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJ8Z0YvEm-ClFj3fdQgQkw/about. The phenomenon of blurring the boundaries between producers and consumers of online texts has been referred to as “prosumption”, which Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010) consider a salient characteristic of Web 2.0. with its user generated context. 18 Available at https://www.iconoclast-media.com 17 Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 150 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction a video from the Freedom of Speech Conference “Dangerous words 250”19 held in Stockholm in October 2016 with Douglas Murray,20 followed by Enoch Powell speaking again, the Iconoclast’s opening sequence, archival footage contextualizing Powell’s speech, and comment on the reactions of the UK media after the speech was broadcast by the BBC on its 50th anniversary, ending with a statement “Enoch Powell was right”. After this statement we get images from Britain intertwined with archival footage, current media snapshots, photos of journalists with a pro-immigration stance whom the author criticizes, along with statistics and experts’ opinions. At the end we see Powell again, after which the author thanks the audience, encouraging them to share the video on Twitter (where apparently he has been banned) and to support the Iconoclast financially. The editing makes it possible to combine various spaces and times, topics and moods, “setting up lines of anticipation and prompting retrospective assessment (the image we are seeing in relation to the ones we shall see and the ones we have seen)” (Corner 1999: 43). Such editing also creates coherence, with the audio-visual material serving as evidence legitimizing claims made by Powell and reasserted by the Iconoclast. In the interview that follows Powell’s prediction about the black man having the whip hand over the white man and his emphasis that it is his duty to address this issue, he speaks of his “underestimation of a magnitude and the danger”. Then the evidence comes in the form of numbers – Murray, referring to Powell’s being “slain by the British press” despite “having the support for his speech of the majority of the British people”, points to 2011 census in the UK, which “showed the people who tick the box saying ‘White British’ were now a minority in London”. Then again, we have Powell speaking about politicians agreeing with his prediction but deciding to ignore it: (8) …to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize, if we were at this stage going to attempt to avert the outcome. The statement is important for two reasons; firstly, both the presence of threat (related to immigration) and its consequences are signaled by two existential presuppositions. The scale of the problem (and also the best way to deal with it) is also highlighted by the nettle 19 The video-recordings from the conference are available at https://swebbtv.se/program/english-programs. Svensk Webbtelevision (SwebbTV) is a citizen-funded initiative to create citizen journalism and sets as its objective “to defend an almost unlimited freedom of expression for what is true and relevant to spread through the media and publishing” (https://swebbtv.se/in-english). 20 Douglas Murray is a British author, journalist, and political commentator with a neoconservative standpoint, known to have argued that multiculturalism, which he described as "the idea that Governments should bend over backwards to accommodate immigrants", is “not multiracialism” (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics12664569/douglas-murray-multiculturalism-is-not-multiracialism). For discussion of framing multiculturalism see Musolff (this Special Issue). Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 151 metaphor,21 which can act as a fear-triggering expression due to associations with physical pain. Secondly, another dimension of threat comes to the foreground, namely the Establishment’s unwillingness to act. The threat affecting (real) British people is thus constructed in the video as coming from these two sources: immigrants as well as all those who allow for and support their presence (politicians, journalists, elites). Fragments of archival videos showing Hitler, Stalin, a nuclear bomb explosion, WTC attack, another terrorist attack, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin, which are combined in the Iconoclast’s opening sequence (here inserted after the parts mentioned above) are likely to have two potential effects. Firstly, the sequence is likely to act as visual triggers of tension and fear. The music in the video contributes to building up a sense of urgency and anticipation. Secondly, Angela Merkel (with her pro-immigration stance) receives, by association, the same evaluation as Hitler, Stalin, weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism. In this way, the second dimension of threat is re-established again, that posed by politicians (the Establishment) who – through their (in)action – bring about destruction in its various forms. The sequence is followed by archival photos of Powell’s 1968 speech about, as the author says, “the detrimental effects mass emigration would bring to Britain”, which in the author’s opinion “in the eyes of the public is probably only beaten by Churchill’s ‘We shall never surrender’ rallying cry”.22 The mention of the latter is important if we consider the video’s framing effects: evoking the frame of war and a call to arms, it grants equivalence to the two speakers and situations of urgency. In the next part of the video, reactions of contemporary media after the BBC had broadcast “Rivers of Blood” are presented (with snapshots of media commentaries and photos of Powel in the background) and criticised by the Iconoclast, followed by the conclusion that: (9) Enoch Powell was right. In fact the man didn’t even realize just how right he would turn out to be. The way Britain has changed over the past 50 years has gone far beyond some of his predictions and the future of the nation looks just as bleak. Supposed visual evidence for this claim follows in the form of a street photo featuring (presumed) immigrants selling food, several Muslim women dressed in black abayas and other people of non-European appearance who could be judged by the intended audience to be immigrants (Figure 1). The zooming-in camera movement makes the black attire even The metaphor is said to go back to Aesop’s fable in which a boy was advised by his mother to grasp the nettle with all his might to avoid the pain. In Aaron Hill’s Works, circa 1750, we will find the following rhyme advising that a nettle be grasped: “Tender-handed stroke a nettle, And it stings you, for your pains: Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains”. The metaphor has been used in conflict studies, e.g. Crocker et al. (2005). 22 The speech, known also as “We shall fight on the beaches”, delivered by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on 4 June 1940 in the context of a possible German invasion. 21 Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 152 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction more salient against the colourful background. The zoom also creates a sense of physical proximity, contributing to a sense of threat and discomfort. Figure 1: A street in Britain. What can potentially act as even stronger fear triggers is a combination of lexis and grammar in a series of statements presenting native British people – white and female – as victims of immigrants’ aggression. Not only are the roles of victims and agents-villains reflected syntactically as in (10) where passive voice construction is used and in (11) where “Pakistani rape gangs” feature in the Subject position, but continuity and scale of violence are highlighted by Adjuncts related to manner, such as “systematically”. (10) Their daughters won’t be systematically abused by Pakistani gangs. (11) Pakistani rape gangs wouldn’t be running rampant in our towns and cities if tens of thousands of people from Pakistan weren't allowed to come to Britain. Again, when “real horrors of mass immigration” are mentioned by the author, visual evidence is used in the form of snapshots from the media describing crimes targeting white children and young women, who become victims of “racist crimes”. To make the threat even more serious, physical violence is presented as resulting from the perpetrators’ supposed worldviews, as indicated by the second and third headline in Figure 2. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 153 Figure 2: Newspaper headlines concerning immigrants. As already mentioned, the threat is presented as coming from the Establishment too, its agency (and thus responsibility) being highlighted in (12). In (13) “more” triggers the presupposition that the fear-stimulating things mentioned are already part of British reality and that, as predicted by Powell, the scale is going to increase. While the rhetorical question form enhances the emotional impact of these statements, the author also puts himself in the position of a prophet, when in (13) he says “expect more of those…”, and to make it even more threatening emphasises the physical proximity of danger (“in a neighbouhood near you”). The last rhetorical question in (13) again points to continuity and scale of the threat. (12)How many white girls is the establishment media willing to sacrifice in order to maintain their anti-racist, anti-power, moral high-ground. A hundred, a thousand, a million? (13)How many more Islamic terrorist attacks will we suffer in the coming years? How many more murders will London produce? Will acid attacks become a proud British tradition? Female genital mutilation already has apparently. We've mentioned the grooming gangs, but expect more of those to pop up in a neighborhood near you. Where does it end? As regards threat words from Isenberg and colleagues’ list, some can be found in the discourse of the video: “threat” (1), “evil” (7), “condemn” (3), “opposition” (1), “assassinated”, “rape”, “poisonous”, “knives”, “abuse” (2), “hate” (2), “hateful”, “whip” (1), “blame/blamed”(2), “danger” (1), and “dangerous” (2).23 In addition to these words the video features: “detrimental effects” and “horrors” (both referring to mass immigration), 23 Even though some of these words are used to refer to unjustified, in the author’s opinion, criticism of Powell’s speech, they still have the potential to act as fear enhancers. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 154 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction “threat” (posed by minority groups), “bleak” (referring to the future of the British nation), “civil war” (which is prophesied in the fragment of Powell’s speech), as well as “crimes”, “terrorist attacks”, “murders”, “acid attacks”, “genital mutilation”, and even “appalling racism” (all these being attributed to immigrants). 5 Conclusions As mentioned earlier, fear is one of the dominant emotions in contemporary times. Bauman (2006), with his concept of “liquid fear” – a product of “insecurity” and “vulnerability” – considers it to be inherent to globalisation. Others, like Wodak (2015), point to the fact that fear lends itself to manipulation and exploitation by diverse groups, which, in turn, may serve various ideological purposes. Hermann Göring, quoted in Nuremberg Diary, underlines the universal power of fear as an instrument of socio-political control: The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. (cit. in Gilbert 1947: 279) Identifying and analysing discursive mechanisms that stimulate fear, we believe, is important if we want to understand social processes and attitudes, including the success of the Brexit leave campaign and current debates surrounding immigration, or even more generally the dynamics of hostile narratives which contributors to this Special Issue scrutinize. In our analysis we have looked at an example of a text that stimulates fear, with a view to identifying various types of fear triggers. For example, we have shown how the same conceptual schema – immigrants victimising local people—is encoded in different semantic-grammatical structures. Examining the recontextualisation of “Rivers of Blood” we have tried to demonstrate how the affordances of social media (see KhosravNik and Esposito, this Special Issue), including multimodality and intertextuality, expand the scope of possible devices and strategies. The interface of language and emotions is important here. Since emotions are in the mind, or rather mind-body, more work of the type pioneered by Isenberg et al. (1999) is needed, in order to show how demagoguery actually works in this cognitively confused and self-destructive species, homo sapiens. Furthermore, the texts we analysed along with their social impact, should be viewed, in our opinion, in the context of the phenomenon of the “prophet” – a charismatic individual who perceives, or constructs dangers, inculcates fears, and warns of future doom in order to produce social change in line with some set of beliefs (whether ideological or religious, or both combined). That Enoch Powell performed such a role is evident not only in the structural and functional characteristics of his text but also in the recontextualisations of his words which, in addition to confirming the constructed legitimacy of his prophecy, show the emergence of a hero cult. What we may call the discursive production of a prophet may Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 155 play an important role in promoting and legitimizing ideologies, policies, and attitudes, in particular in times of crisis and uncertainty. This is, however, still only part of the story, since further questions of a psychological, social, political and ethical nature arise. We can of course do no more here than outline hypotheses and offer analytic techniques for further empirical work on this and similar types of text. References Abrams, Dominic & Giovanni A. Travaglino. 2018. Immigration, political trust, and Brexit – Testing an aversion amplification hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology 57(2). 310–326. Ahmed, Sara. 2003. The politics of fear in the making of worlds. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16(3). 377–398. Allan, Keith. 2001. Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Altheide, David. 2002. Creating Fear: News and the Construction of a Crisis. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Altheide, David L. 2006. Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. Arcimavičiene Liudmila. Forthcoming. Gender, Metaphor and Migration in Media Representations: discursive manipulations of the Other. In Andreas Musolff (ed.), Migration and Media: Discourses About Identities in Crisis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arcimavčiene Liudmila & Sercan Hamza Baglama. 2018. Migration, Metaphor and Myth in Media Representations: The Ideological Dichotomy of “Them” and “Us”. Sage Open 8(2). 1–13. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244018768657 (accessed 13/7/2018). Ashcroft, Lord. 24 June, 2016. How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why. Lord Ashcroft Polls. Retrieved from: https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdomvoted-and-why/ (accessed 15/5/2018). Atkins, Judi. 2018. “Strangers in their own Country”: Epideictic Rhetoric and Communal Definition in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” Speech. The Political Quarterly 89(3). 362–369. Atwell Seate, Anita & Dana Mastro. 2016. Media’s influence on immigration attitudes: An intergroup threat theory approach. Communication Monographs 83(2). 194–213. Baider, Fabienne. 2018. “Go to hell fucking faggots, may you die!” Framing the LGBT subject in online comments. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14(1). 69–92. Baider, Fabienne. forthcoming. Au cœur des discours refusant l’Altérité (sexuelle ou ethnique) : la notion de déviance. Déviance et société. (Special issue on Cybercommunication and humiliation). Baider, Fabienne & Maria Constantinou. 2014. Language of cyber-politics: “Imaging/ imagining” communities. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 10. 213–244. Baider, Fabienne & Maria Constantinou. 2017. We’ll come at night and find you, traitor. Cybercommunication in the Greek-Cypriot ultra-nationalist space. In Ourania Hatzidaki and Dionysis Goutsos (eds.), Crisis and Conflict in Contemporary Greece: Integrating Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics, 411–452. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Baider, Fabienne & Monika Kopytowska. 2017. Conceptualising the Other: Online discourses on the current refugee crisis in Cyprus and in Poland. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13(2). 203–233. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 156 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction Baider, Fabienne, Anna Constantinou & Anastasia Petrou. 2017. Conceptual contiguity of race and religion. In Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne Baider & Sharon Millar (eds.), Researching online hate speech in the EU, 99–105. Berlin: Springer. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michał Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery & Ruth Wodak. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19. 273–306. Balica, Ecaterina & Valentina Marinescu (eds.) 2018. Migration and Crime Realities and Media Representations. Palgrave Macmillan. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2006. Liquid Fear. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Zygmunt. 2016. Strangers at Our Door. Cambridge, Malden, MA: Polity Press. Bauman, Zygmunt and Tim May. 2001. Thinking Sociologically. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell BBC. 7 March 2011. Douglas Murray: “multiculturalism is not multiracialism”. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-12664569/douglas-murray-multiculturalism-is-notmultiracialism (accessed 15/5/2018). BBC. 9 September 2015. Migrant crisis: Farage says EU ‘mad’ to accept so many. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34197707 (accessed 15/5/2018). Berger, Peter & Thomas Luckmann. 1991 [1966]. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books. Blumer, Herbert. 1958. Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position. Pacific Sociological Review 1(1). 3–7. Bocskor, Ákos. 2018. Anti-Immigration Discourses in Hungary during the “Crisis” Year: The Orbán Government’s ‘National Consultation’ Campaign of 2015. Sociology 52(3). 551–568. Bond, Daniel. 10 March 2016. Justin Welby: “The EU debate is not all about us. It's about our vision for the world.” The House: Parliament’s Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/house/72877/justin-welby-eu-debate-notall-about-us-its-about-our-vision-world (accessed 7/6/2018). Brouwer Jelmer, Maartje van der Woude & Joanne van der Leun, Framing migration and the process of crimmigration: A systematic analysis of the media representation of unauthorized immigrants in the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology 14(1). 100–119. Burroughs, Elaine. 2014. Discursive representations of ‘illegal immigration’ in the Irish newsprint media: The domination and multiple facets of the ‘control’ argumentation. Discourse & Society 26(2). 165–183. Buzan, Bary, Ole Waver & Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder/London: Rienner. Cap, Piotr. 2018. “We don’t want any immigrants or terrorists here”: The linguistic manufacturing of xenophobia in the post-2015 Poland. Discourse & Society 29(4). 380–398. Cap, Piotr. 2018. From “cultural unbelonging” to “terrorist risk”: communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 15(3). 285–302. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2017. Fire Metaphors: Discourses of Awe and Authority. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Citrin, Jack, Donald P. Green, Christopher Muste & Cara Wong. 1997. Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. Journal of Politics 59(3). 858–881. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 157 Clarke, Harold, Matthew J. Goodwin & Paul Whiteley. 2017. Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote. Parliamentary Affairs 70(3). 439–464. Construction Grammar, http://www.constructiongrammar.org (accessed 6/5/2018). Corner, John. 1999. Critical Ideas in Television Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cresswell, Tim. 1996. In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Crocker, Chester A., Fen Osler Hampson & Pamela Aall. 2005. Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Washington, DC: USIP Press. Damasio, Antonio. 2010. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Mind. London: Vintage Books. Delanty, Gerard. 2008. Fear of Others: Social Exclusion and the European Crisis of Solidarity. Social Policy and Administration 42(6). 676–690. Demos. 2017. Nothing to Fear about but Fear Itself? London: FSC. Retrieved from: https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DEMJ5104_nothing_to_fear_report_ 140217_WEBv2.pdf (accessed 19/12/2017). Esses, Victoria, Stelian Medianu & Andreas Lawson. 2013. Uncertainty, Threat, and the Role of the Media in Promoting the Dehumanization of Immigrants and Refugees. Journal of Social Issues 69(3). 518–536. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. Fitzgerald, Jennifer, K. Amber Curtis & Catherine L. Corliss. 2012. Anxious Publics: Worries about Crime and Immigration. Comparative Political Studies 45(4). 477–506. Garcia-Faroldi, Livia. 2017. Determinants of Attitudes towards Immigration: Testing the Influence of Interculturalism, Group Threat Theory and National Contexts in Time of Crisis. International Migration 55(2). 10–22. Gilbert, Gustave. 1947. Nuremberg Diary. New York: Farrar Straus. Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Hart, Christopher. 2011. Force-interactive patterns in immigration discourse: A Cognitive Linguistic approach to CDA. Discourse & Society 22(3). 269–286. Henry, Frances & Carol Tator. 2009 Contributions and challenges of addressing discursive racism in the Canadian media. Canadian Journal of Communication 34 (4): 711–13. Hogan, Jackie & Kristin Haltinner. 2015. Floods, Invaders, and Parasites: Immigration Threat Narratives and Right-Wing Populism in the USA, UK and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies 36(5). 520–543. Huysmans, Jef. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity. Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London and New York: Routledge. Isenberg, Nancy, David Silbersweig, Almut Engelien, Sylvia Emmerich, Kishor Malavade, Bradley Beattie, Andy C. Leon & Emily Stern. 1999. Linguistic threat activates the human amygdala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 96(18). 10456–10459. Jacobs, Laura, Marc Hooghe, & Thomas de Vroome. 2017. Television and anti-immigrant sentiments: the mediating role of fear of crime and perceived ethnic diversity. European Societies 19(3). 243– 267. Jakubowicz, Andrew. 2017. Alt_Right White Lite: trolling, hate speech and cyber racism on social media. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9(3). 41–60. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 158 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction Jakubowicz, Andrew, Kevin Dunn, Gail Mason, Yin Paradies, Ana-Maria Bliuc, Nasya Bahfen, Andre Oboler, Rosalie Atie & Karen Connelly. 2017. Cyber Racism and Community Resilience: Strategies for Combating Online Race Hate. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kabachnik, Peter. 2010. Place invaders: Constructing the nomadic threat in England. Geographical Review 100(1). 90–108. Kainz, Lena. 2016. People Can’t Flood, Flow or Stream: Diverting Dominant Media Discourses on Migration. Retrieved from: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centrecriminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2016/02/people-can’t (accessed 13/6/2018). KhosraviNik, Majid. 2014. Critical discourse analysis, power and new media discourse. In Yusuf Kalyango & Monika Kopytowska (eds.), Why Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, 287–306. New York: Peter Lang. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2017a. Social Media Critical Discourse Studies (SM‐CDS). In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.), Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis, 583–596. London: Routledge. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2017b. Right wing populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers. Insight Turkey 19(3). 53–68. KhosraviNik, Majid & Eleonora Esposito. 2018. Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14(1). 45–68. Kopytowska, Monika. 2013. Blogging as the mediatization of politics and a new form of social interaction - a case study of Polish and British political blogs. In Piotr Cap & Urszula Okulska (eds.) Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, 379–421. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kopytowska, Monika & Łukasz Grabowski. 2017. European security under threat: mediating the crisis and constructing the Other. In Christian Karner and Monika Kopytowska (eds.), National Identity and Europe in Times of Crisis: Doing and Undoing Europe, 83–112. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Kopytowska, Monika, Julita Woźniak & Łukasz Grabowski. 2017. From “patriotism” to hate: axiological urgency in online comments related to refugees. In Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne H. Baider and Sharon Millar (eds.), Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A DiscourseAnalytic Perspective, 42–51. Berlin: Springer. Kopytowska, Monika, Łukasz Grabowski & Julita Woźniak. 2017. Mobilizing against the Other: Cyberhate, refugee crisis and proximization. In Monika Kopytowska (ed.), Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres, 57–97. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Kubota, Jennifer T., Mahzarin R. Banaji & Elizabeth A. Phelps. 2012. The neuroscience of race. Nature Neuroscience 15(7). 940–948. Lahav, Gallya & Marie Courtemanche. 2012. The Ideological Effects of Framing Threat on Immigration and Civil Liberties. Political Behavior 34(3). 477–505. LeDoux, Joseph. 2002. Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Penguin Books. Lu, Lily. 2016. Emotional insight: Discovering the nature of prejudice development and reduction through emotional mechanisms. Expose Magazine. Retrieved from: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/expose/book/emotional-insight-discovering-nature-prejudicedevelopment-and-reduction-through (accessed 6/5/2018). Lulle, Aija & Elza Ungure. 2015. Asylum seekers crisis in Europe 2015: Debating spaces of fear and security in Latvia. Journal on Baltic Security 1(2). 62–95. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 159 Mahtani, Minelle. 2008 How are immigrants seen – and what do they want to see? Contemporary research on the representations of immigrants in the Canadian English-language media. In John Biles, Meyer Burstein & James Frideres (eds.), Immigration and Integration in Canada in the Twenty-First Century, 231–251. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Mahtani, Minelle & Alison Mountz. 2002. Immigration to British Columbia: Media representation and public opinion. Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis Working Paper Series, No. 02–15. Retrieved from: http://mbc.metropolis.net/assets/uploads/files/wp/2002/ WP02-15.pdf (accessed 2/2/2017). Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman & Michael MacKuen.2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mason, Rowena. 12 March, 2015. Nigel Farage: British Muslim “fifth column” fuels fear of immigration. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/12/ nigel-farage-british-muslim-fifth-column-fuels-immigration-fear-ukip (accessed 15/5/2018). Musolff, Andreas. 2012. Immigrants and parasites: The history of a bio-social metaphor. In Michi Messer, Renée Schroeder & Ruth Wodak (eds.), Migrations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 249– 258. Vienna: Springer. Musolff, Andreas. 2014. Metaphorical parasites and “parasitic” metaphors: Semantic exchanges between political and scientific vocabularies. Journal of Language and Politics 13(2). 218–233. Musolff, Andreas. 2017. Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. In Monika Kopytowska (ed.), Contemporary discourses of hate and radicalism across space and genres, 41–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Musolff, Andreas. 2018. The “legitimation” of hostile attitudes towards immigrants’ languages in press and in social media: Main fallacies and how to challenge them. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14(1). 117–131. Petersson, Bo & Lena Kainz. 2017. Migration in the Media Metaphors in Swedish and German News Coverage. NordEuropa Forum 38-65. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut. Retrieved from: https://edoc.huberlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/19159/NEF2017_Art_ Petersson_Kainz_Migration%20in%20the%20Media.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 3/5/2018). Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review 60(4). 586– 611. Ritzer, George and Jurgenson, Nathan. 2010. Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”. Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1). 13–36. Schwarz, Bill. 2011. The White Man’s World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sedláková, Renáta. 2017. Moral Panic over migration in the broadcasting of Czech Radio. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13(2). 235–260. Sedláková, Renáta & Zdenka Burešová. 2016. Obraz muslimů a islámu v českých médiích [Media representation of Muslim and Islam in the Czech media]. In Daniel Topinka (ed.), Muslimové v ČR - etablování muslimů a islámu na veřejnosti, 273–295 Brno: Barrister and Principal. Sedláková, Renáta & Monika Kopytowska. Forthcoming. Different Faces of the Unknown: The Media and the Semiotics of Fear. In Monika Kopytowska & Artur Gałkowski (eds.), Current Perspectives in Semiotics: Texts, Genres and Representations. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Sperber Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2 edn. Oxford: Blackwell. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 160 Monika Kopytowska and Paul Chilton “Rivers of Blood”: Migration, fear and threat construction Sperber Dan. 1994. Understanding verbal understanding. In Jean Khalfa (ed.), What is Intelligence? 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sperber Dan. 2001. In defense of massive modularity. In Emmanuel Dupoux (ed.), Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Sperber Dan. 2005. Modularity and relevance: How can a massively modular mind be flexible and context-sensitive? In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, 53–68. New York: Oxford University Press. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice, Clément, Christophe, Heintz, Olivier, Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25(4). 359–393. Stansfield, Richard & Brenna Stone. 2018. Threat Perceptions of Migrants in Britain and Support for Policy. Sociological Perspectives. 61(4). 592–609. Stephan, Walter G., Lousanne C. Renfro & Mark Davis. 2008. The role of threat in intergroup relations. In Urlich Wagner, Linda R. Tropp, Gillian Finchilescu, & Colin Tredoux (eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew, 55–72. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Stephan, Walter G., Oscar Ybarra & Kimberly Rios Morrison. 2009. Intergroup threat theory. In Todd D. Nelson (ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, 43–60. New York: Psychology Press. Swales, Kirby. 2016. Understanding the Leave vote. London: NatCen Social Research. Retrieved from: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NatCen_Brexplanations-reportFINAL-WEB2.pdf (accessed 7/6/2018). The Iconoclast. 2016. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClJ8Z0YvEm-ClFj3fdQgQkw/about. The Iconoclast. 2018. Enoch Powell vs The Establishment. 50th Anniversary of “Rivers Of Blood” Speech. Demographics. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XET3SXjUgWw (accessed 25/4/2018). The Iconoclast. The Iconoclast Magazine. Available at https://www.iconoclast-media.com (accessed 15/6/2018). Tomasello, Michael. 2016. A Natural History of Human Morality, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Travis, Alan. 29 March, 2016. Does the EU really allow dangerous criminals free entry to the UK? The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/realitycheck/2016/mar/29/eu-dangerous-criminals-allowed-free-entry-uk-vote-leave-claims (20/4/2018). Wiggen, Mette. 2012. Rethinking Anti-Immigration Rhetoric after the Oslo and Utøya Terror Attacks. New Political Science 34(4). 585–604. Wodak, Ruth. 2015. The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage. Zmigrod, Leor, Peter J. Rentfrow & Trevor W. Robbins. 2018. Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of Brexit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(19). E4532–E4540. Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14.1 (2018): 133–161 Special issue on Narrating hostility, challenging hostile narratives https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0007 About the Authors Monika Kopytowska is assistant professor in the Department of Pragmatics at the University of Łódź, Poland. Her research interests revolve around the interface of language and cognition, identity, and the pragma-rhetorical aspects of the mass-mediated representation of religion, ethnicity, and conflict. She has published internationally in linguistic journals and volumes (e.g. [ed.] Contemporary discourses of hate and radicalism across space and genres, Benjamins, 2017, with Yusuf Kalyango [eds.] Why Discourse Matters, Peter Lang, 2014, with Christian Karner [eds.], National Identity and Europe in Times of Crisis, Emerald, 2017, with Paul Chilton [eds.] Religion, Language and Human Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018). Address Department of Pragmatics, University of Lodz Pomorska 171/173, 90-236 Łódź, Poland e-mail: monika.kopytowska@uni.lodz.pl Paul Chilton is Professor Emeritus in Linguistics at the University of Lancaster and also Associate Fellow in the Centre for Applied Linguistics at the University of Warwick. His primary research is in the field of cognitive linguistics, his most recent publication being Language, Space and Mind (CUP 2014). He has also published scholarly work in the humanities, and politically oriented work in the social sciences. He is the author of Security Metaphors (Lang 1996), Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice (Routledge 2004) and numerous research papers in discourse analysis. With Monika Kopytowska he is editor of the multi-disciplinary volume, Religion, Language and the Human Mind (OUP 2018). Address Centre for Applied Linguistics University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom e-mail: P.Chilton@warwick.ac.uk Brought to you by | University of Sussex Library Authenticated Download Date | 9/25/18 4:27 PM 161