The global space-time

Global space is represented as an entity, a place, 憈he modern world? 憈his new world? It a participant in processes rather than a circumstance (as it would be in eg 憂ew markets are opening up on an international level?/I>). It is the passive subject (and 憀ogical object? in the first sentence, and the active subject in 憈his new world challenges??  It is also theme of the opening sentence and, one might say, of the first paragraph.

(c) A relationship of subordination of national space-time to global space-time is textured in paragraph 2 as the relation between national policy action (the embedded clause in sentence 1) and an implicit global reason (sentences 2 and 3) for this action. Notice the slippage from national to global in the anaphoric reference at the beginning of sentence 2: 憈hese?refers anaphorically not to ?I>our knowledge, skills and creativity? but to 慿nowledge, skills and creativity?generally.

(d) Processes on a national level are framed by circumstantial elements (慽n a world of short-term pressures? 慽n today抯 tough markets?憈he markets of tomorrow? which embed them within processes on a global level in paragraphs 5 and 6.

(e) The national space-time is populated, one might say colonised,  by the entified and spatialized processes of neo-liberal representations of the 慻lobal economy?(慺lexibility? 慹nterprise?  慽nnovation? 憄artnerships?etc), which are positively valued (verbs such as 憇timulate?and 憄romote?can be seen as textual triggers for positive valuation).

Critical Discourse Analysis in Research on New Capitalism

Let us come back to relations of equivalence, taking 慿nowledge, skills and creativity?as an example. There is potentially a negative aspect to texturing elements as equivalent: it can subvert prior differences. What is striking about this example is that it makes equivalent words which come from different discourses which are historically associated with different domains of social life ?education and learning (慿nowledge?, crafts and trades (憇kills? and art (慶reativity?. This subversion of the difference between prior discourses is constitutive in the making of a new discourse. A discourse is a representation of some area of social life from a particular perspective. One might refer rather to 憆egisters? but 慸iscourses?implies that all domains of social life (and of language use) are multi-perspectival ?representing artistic production in terms of 慶reativity?might be abhorrent from certain perspectives in the artistic field. The new discourse in this case is neo-liberal. That is a way of labelling a particular perspective within the political field, and one characteristic of it is that it makes these words equivalent as co-hyponyms of 慳ssets? I should add that there are issues of time-scale here: the equivalence of 慿nowledge?and 憇kills?is older than their co-equivalence with 慶reativity? Furthermore, some texts are original in texturing new equivalences, others (including this one) are typical of large bodies of texts which characteristically texture particular equivalences. This text is typical I would suggest of a body of texts which draw upon the political discourse of New Labour, of the 慣hird Way, which one can see as a particular variant of the political discourse of neo-liberalism (Fairclough 2000b).

So at one level of analysis, the relations textured by texts constitute discourses in relation to (and potentially in subversive relation to) other discourses. The particular constructions of global and national space-time which I have discussed above can be seen in the same terms. They are characteristic of neo-liberal political discourse, and at the same time subversive of prior political discourses ?in this case, the neo-liberal political discourse of the Third Way is subversive especially of the social democratic discourse of 憃ld Labour? The relations of equivalence in particular point to what I want to suggest is a general property of texts: they hybridize discourses in constituting discourses. Actually that is only one aspect of a more general process: they also hybridize genres in constituting genres, and hybridize styles (in the sense of ways of being, identities, in their language aspect) in constituting styles.  This is an aspect of the multifunctional character of texts, but I am suggesting that texts not only simultaneously have representational, actional and identificatory functions in their linguistic features, they also have these functions 慽nterdiscursively? at the level of discourses, genres and styles. (The version of multifunctionality I am adopting here is of course different from the most familiar version in Systemic Functional Linguistics (ideational, interpersonal, textual), but the principle of multifunctionality is the same ?see Halliday 1994, Fairclough 2003).

In Critical Discourse Analysis, interdiscursive analysis of texts is the mediating level of analysis which is crucial to integrating social and linguistic analysis (Fairclough 1992, Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999). Let us use the term 憇emiosis?in preference to the use of 慸iscourse?as an abstract noun ?one advantage is that it reminds us that what is at issue in not just (verbal) language but also other semiotic modalities (Kress & van Leuwen 2000), another is that it avoids confusion with 慸iscourses?as a count noun in the sense I have just discussed. Semiosis in an element of social practices which is dialectically interconnected with other elements ?in the  terminology of dialectical theory, it is a 憁oment?of the social. What this means is that while different elements of social practices ?including forms of activity, social relations and their institutional forms, persons with beliefs, values, emotions, histories etc, material objects (including the means or technologies of activities), and semiosis ?are indeed different, and cannot be reduced to each other, and demand different social scientific theories and methodologies, they are not discrete. They flow to one another, they 慽nternalize?one another in Harvey抯 terminology (Harvey 1996, see also Fairclough 2001, 2003). Discourses, genres, and styles are three main ways in which semiosis figures in social practices ?as part of the action (genres), in representation (discourses), and in identification (styles).

Social practices are networked. One way of describing a particular social field in the sense of Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992) or indeed a social order is in terms of the networking of social practices which characterizes it. Social change is change in the networking of social practices ?so the transformations of new capitalism can be analysed in terms of changes in network relations, both structural changes (changes in relations between fields or domains) and scalar changes (changes in relations between global, regional, national and local), in the terminology I introduced earlier. The semiotic element or moment of a network of social practices is an 憃rder of discourse??a particular articulation or configuration of genres, discourses and styles. Orders of discourse are the social structuring of semiotic difference or variation. Interdiscursive analysis of texts is the mediating link between linguistic analysis and social analysis because, on the one hand, the 憁ix?of genres, discourses and styles in a text is realized in its semantic, lexico-grammatical and phonological features, and on the other hand that 憁ix?constitutes a particular working at the level of the concrete event of the semiotic moment of social practices. A particular text can simultaneously, depending on the 憁ix?of genres, discourses and styles, constitute a reworking of prior, habitual or familiar constellations of linguistic features (eg relations of equivalence), and a reworking of the relatively durable articulations of genres, discourses and styles which constitute orders of discourse and relations between orders of discourse (and hence, given the dialectical view of semiosis as a moment of the social, relations between social practices).  Thus the equivalences noted in the text not only rework relations between what we can now more properly refer to as orders of discourse, but also between the social practices they are moments of (education, crafts/trades, art). Interdiscursive analysis thus enables textual analysis to be properly integrated into social analysis. In the case of the particular issue in focus in this paper, to be properly integrated into social analysis of the transformations of new capitalism.

I have focused upon the political discourse of Blair抯 text. It would also be possible to analyse its genre and its style, ie to analyse it as a form of political action (specifying what such 慒orewords?are doing) and as a form of constituting the identity of a political leader. But I want rather to comment on relations between discourses, genres and styles in terms of the historical process which this text is positioned within. I described the temporality of the national space-time as 慽rrealis? Putting it differently, this sort of political discourse deals in imaginaries ?it projects ways of acting and ways of being. Whether it remains merely a construal of possible ways of acting and being, or comes to construct real ways of acting and being, is a contingent matter (Sayer 2000). Discourses can be socially constructive ?social life can be remodelled in their image. But there are no guarantees in that regard. There are conditions of possibility for discourses to have such constructive or performative effects (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2002). If they do have such effects, then the dialectics of discourse takes effect: discourses may be enacted in ways of acting and interacting, and they may be inculcated in ways of being, identities. Take for instance 慶reative partnerships? For 慶reative partnerships?to go beyond the realm of imaginary construal into the realm of actual existence, people would need to start acting and interacting differently, and being different. Partly these enactments and inculcations are themselves semiotic, entailing new genres, and new styles. But partly they are non-semiotic, the dialectical internalization of discourses in for instance new management systems and forms of embodiment, and their materialization in for instance new architectural forms, or new ways of organizing urban space. Texts such as this one are of course precisely in the business of creating imaginaries as a step towards changed realities. One needs a dialectical view of semiosis to grasp that potential process in a way which gives due force to the impact of language in initiating it and in carrying it through.

Blair抯 text is positioned in complex chains or networks of texts with which it contracts intertextual relations, both 憆etrospective?and 憄rospective? ie both with prior texts which in one way or other have shaped this text or which it is oriented to or in dialogue with, and with subsequent texts which report, represent, echo etc this text and which it may anticipate. The concept of recontextualization helps to grasp the dynamics of these relations (Bernstein 1990). But these relations on the concrete level of relations between specific events and texts are shaped by the more durable relations of networks of social practices, and orders of discourse as their semiotic moments. Orders of discourse are characterized by 慶hain?relations as well as 慶hoice?relations. In particular, relations within as well as between orders of discourse are regulated by genre chains ?relatively durable and institutionalized relationships between genres characterized by particular principles of recontextualization and transformation. Thus the genres of politics and government are chained with the genres of mass media in such a way that the recontextualization of a political document like this one within a press report, and the transformations from the one to the other, have a relatively regular and predictable character. Social change importantly includes change in these relations of recontextualization and genre chains. For instance, the 慻lobalizing?character of the transformations of new capitalism includes the emergence of relations of recontextualization and genre chains which enable and regulate more fluid ways of acting across scales (at the limit, from the global to the local). Texts such as this not only represent relations between space-times, they are also positioned within such relations. And any account of the constitutive or performative effects of semiosis in the transformations of new capitalism must include these shifts in relations of recontextualization.

At the same time, however, recontextualization should be seen in terms of a colonizing/appropriating dialectic (Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999). In this case for instance, one might refer to recontextualization relations between the economic field and the political field (and their orders of discourse), and between the 慻lobal?scale and the national scale. Blair抯 representation of global space-time can be seen as a recontextualization of representations of the 憂ew economic order? economic 慻lobalization? which are pervasive in texts of for instance the World Bank, IMF or OECD. One can meaningfully consider how national political discourse is being colonized by global economic discourse. But at the same time, this narrative of economic change can be seen as appropriated into doing particular sorts of (憆hetorical? work in particular sorts of text. Thus Hay and Rosamund (2002) claim that legitimizing national policy change in terms of inexorable and uncontrollable processes globalization is a rhetorical strategy used in domestic political discourse in Britain (though not British political discourse within international agencies such as the United Nations), but not in France, where the legitimizing narrative is one of 慐uropean integration? Textually, one can look at how such a recontextualized narrative is transformed (in this case into a very minimal narrative compared with the elaborated versions one finds in for instance World Bank texts, Fairclough 2000a) and worked into a relation with other elements ?in this case elements of policy formulation  - in ways which are rhetorically motivated.

Overdetermination and transdisciplinarity

I have distinguished above different levels of concreteness and abstractness ?social events and texts on the one hand, social practices and orders of discourse on the other. I assume a realist social ontology, in which social structures as well as social events are part of social reality. Social structures are abstract entities which define potentials, sets of possibilities. However, the relationship between what is structurally possible and what actually happens, between structures and events, is a very complex one.  Events are not in any simple or direct way the effects of abstract social structures. Their relationship is mediated ?there are intermediate entities between structures and events. I call these 憇ocial practices? Social practices can be thought of as ways of controlling the selection of certain structural possibilities and the exclusion of others, and the retention of these selections over time, in particular areas of social life.

Language is an element of the social at all levels. Schematically:

                   Social structures: languages

                   Social practices: orders of discourse

                   Social events: texts

Languages can be regarded as amongst the abstract social structures I have just been referring to. A language defines a certain potential, certain possibilities, and excludes. But texts as elements of social events are not simply the effects of the potentials defined by languages. We need to recognise intermediate organisational entities of a specifically linguistic sort, the linguistic moments of networks of social practices, ie orders of discourse. The elements of orders of discourse are not for instance nouns and sentences (elements of linguistic structures), but discourses, genres and styles. These elements select certain possibilities defined by languages and exclude others ?they control linguistic variability for particular areas of social life. So orders of discourse can be seen as the social organisation and control of linguistic variation. There is an argument in Chouliaraki & Fairclough (2000) for an extension of Hasan抯 (2000) account of 憇emologic?to include orders of discourse.

As we move from abstract structures towards concrete events, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate language from other social elements. In the terminology of Althusser, language becomes increasingly 憃verdetermined?by other social elements (Althusser & Balibar 1970)[iii]. So at the level of abstract structures, we can talk more or less exclusively about language ?more or less, because 慺unctional?theories of language see even the grammars of languages as socially shaped (Halliday 1978). The way I have defined orders of discourse makes it clear that at this intermediate level we are dealing with a much greater overdetermination of language by other social elements. Orders of discourse are the social organisation and control of linguistic (semiotic) variation, and their elements (discourses, genres, styles) are correspondingly not purely linguistic categories but categories which cut across t[iv]he division between semiosis and non-semiosis and can act as a bridge between disciplines in transdisciplinary research (see below). When we come to texts as elements of social events, the 憃verdetermination?of language by other social elements becomes massive: texts are not just effects of linguistic structures and orders of discourse, they are also effects of other social practices and structures, as well as of the casual powers of social agents, so that it becomes difficult to separate out the factors shaping texts (Fairclough, Jessop & Sayer 2002).

It follows, I want to suggest, that we should work in a 憈ransdisciplinary?way (Dubiel 1985, Halliday 1993) in doing discourse analysis and text analysis. 慖nterdisciplinarity?covers a multitude of practices, including the coming-together of researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds and training for the purposes of a particular research project, without any implication that the contributing disciplinary theories or methods are affected or changed by the experience. Working in a transdisciplinary way is one way of working in an interdisciplinary way, which is distinguished by a commitment to enter a dialogue with other disciplines and theories, put their logic to work in the development of one抯 own theory, methods, research objects, and research agendas. It is not simply a matter of adding concepts and categories from other disciplines and theories, but working on and elaborating one抯 own theoretical and methodological resources so as to be able to address insights or problems captured in other theories and disciplines from the perspective of one抯 particular concerns. It makes sense to do so in the light of what I said above about overdetermination: semiosis is an analytically separate element of social events whose analysis requires its own theories, categories and methods, but at the same time one must be seeking to analyse the language element of events ?text - in ways which elucidate its dialectical relations with other elements. Disciplinary specialisation is simultaneously necessary and insufficient, desirable and dangerous.

The critical realist distinction between the real, the actual, and the empirical is also germane to this issue. I have already in effect distinguished between the real and the actual: the real for critical realism is structures and their associated 憁echanisms? the structural delimitation of the possible, whereas the actual is the concrete, what actually happens as opposed to what could happen. (This critical realist sense of 憆eal?is unfortunate ?both the 憆eal and the 慳ctual?are real in any reasonable sense of the term.)  The empirical is what is available to us as knowledge of the real and the actual. The real and the actual cannot be reduced to the empirical ?we cannot assume that what is known exhausts what is. If we apply this perspective to texts, it implies that we should be somewhat cautious about what we know as linguists about texts, avoid any claims for a positive science of texts, and recognise the need to work on the common social opacity of textual analyses by developing our resources for textual analysis through a transdisciplinary way of working.

Space-time and equivalence/difference relations

With these considerations in mind, let me come back to the Blair text, to put in focus the incipient transdisciplinary character of the analysis I have done by positioning the text in relation to social scientific theories of space-time on the one hand, and logics of equivalence and difference on the other.

The use of the category of 憇pace-time?in recent geographical and social theory registers the view that there is an 慽ndissoluble link?between space and time (Harvey 1996). People in modern societies simultaneously inhabit different space-times: their own localities (憄laces?, sub-national regions (e.g. 憈he North?in the UK), nation-states, and international space-times (the European Union, the 慻lobal?space-time).  Furthermore, these space-times are not externally given, they are socially constructed. So too are relationships which are established (and negotiated and contested) between them. These relationships can prove to be problematic, and problematic in different ways for different classes and groups of people. For instance, Harvey discusses the persisting problem in working class politics of how to connect the 憁ilitant particularism?(the term is Raymond Williams? of trade union and political activists in particular places (localities, workplaces) with universalist national and international agendas for social emancipation. At the same time, there are mundane and banal ways in which relationships between different space-times are lived and experienced in people抯 daily lives.

The transformations of new capitalism include changes in the social construction of space-times and of relations between space-times. The emergent new social order brings new problems in relating and moving between simultaneously occupied space-times, and new social divisions which have been discussed for instance by Castells (1996) in terms of the differences between those who primarily occupy global and local networks (see also Bauman 1998). It also brings new problems in achieving and legitimising normalised, banal, relations between space-times. The significant points in terms of my present concerns are that (a) these processes of establishing, negotiating and legitimising space-times and relations between space-times are processes which are omnipresent in texts, and (b) an elucidation of these processes (whether for theoretical purposes of understanding them or for political purposes of contesting them) requires the resources of textual analysis. At the same time, however, those resources need to be enhanced in the transdisciplinary way I have been indicating by exploring ways in which we can 憃perationalize?in textual analysis perspectives on space and time which have been developed in social theory. My earlier analysis is an attempt to do this.

My analysis of the Blair text is intended to suggest the significance of the text and texturing in the shifting constructions of global and national space-times and of the relationship between them associated with the new capitalism and neo-liberal political discourse. Global space-time is represented ?described ?as a reality of the undelimited (憈imeless? present (though as I pointed out in a somewhat contradictory way in that the 憆ealis?description disguises some 慽rrealis?prediction). The processes of global space-time are also represented as spatially universal though 慻reat new opportunities?might seem rather difficult to see for millions of people in the poorest countries. Its processes are processes without responsible human agents ?technologies for instance simply 慹merge? they are not developed and promoted by human agents (such as corporations or governments) in connection with particular purposes and interests. It is described rather than analysed or explained ?a sense of its reality is built up through a cumulative list of evidences, appearances, rather than through analysis of causes and effects. A relationship is textured between the global space-time and of the national space-time which frames the latter within the former: the global space-time is an incontrovertible and inevitable reality, and 憌e?must respond to it in ways which allow us to live and succeed within it. This is reminiscent of accounts of 憈ime-space compression?and its implications in terms of enhanced connectivity between between scales of social life, and the inescapability of global processes and events at other scales (Giddens 1990, Harvey 1996). National space-time is irrealis, a set of prescriptions for future action to achieve success in the global reality. Its agents are human and collective. Policies and actions which are prescribed are in some cases rationalized and legitimized.  Ends are associated with means (eg 慴y opening markets?, reasons are given, though generally implicitly (eg 慶ompanies alone cannot (invest in British capabilities)?is a reason for 憉s?doing so, being in 慳 world of short term pressures?is a reason for promoting a long-term vision). In contrast with the description of the global in terms of appearances, there is a causal logic at work in these national policy prescriptions.

Heller (1999) characterizes modernity as legitimizing present actions in terms of grand visions of the future. The Blair text has something of this character, but without its optimistic or visionary aspects. The national space-time is not visioned in terms of progress in the modernist sense. The inevitable and imperative global space-time which broods over the national space-time enforces a particular direction of change, the grand vision (if such it be) is coloured by an implicit sense of risk and danger from 憂ew competitors? 憇uccess?is contingent, failure to compete effectively now will mean we will not 憄rosper in the markets of tomorrow?  Neo-liberalism may as Gray suggests (1993) share the 慶anonical thinking?of socialism, but without its optimistic sense of progress for the betterment of humankind. The prescribed future is more a matter of acting to create reality in accordance with a neo-liberal blueprint so as not to fail.

Let me turn more briefly to relations of equivalence and difference. Laclau & Mouffe (1985) theorize the political process (and 慼egemony? in terms of the simultaneous working of two different 憀ogics? a logic of 慸ifference?which creates differences and divisions, and a logic of 慹quivalence?which creates equivalences in 憇ubverting?existing differences and divisions. This can usefully be seen as a general characterization of social processes of classification: people in all social practices are continuously dividing and combining - producing (also reproducing) and subverting divisions and differences. Social interaction, as Laclau & Mouffe suggest, is an ongoing work of articulation and disarticulation. This is true of the textual moment of social events. Elements (words, phrases etc) are constantly being textured into relations of equivalence and relations of difference, prior equivalences and differences are constantly being 憇ubverted? and these processes are an important part of the textual moment of the social process of classification. In operationalizing this theory in textual analysis we are also strengthening the claims of textual analysis to be able to contribute to social research on classification and processes of articulation and disarticulation. Laclau & Mouffe抯 political theory is already a discourse theory in a Foucaultian sense, but what it lacks is a text analytical capacity.

Conclusion

What is at issue on one level in this paper is how we can make a strong case to other social scientists for textual analysis as a significant element in social research on the transformations of new capitalism (or 慻lobalization?. Traditions of textual analysis in Linguistics already have much to offer, and I have of course drawn upon Systemic Functional Linguistics in particular in the analysis. But I have also made a case for a transdisciplinary way of working in textual analysis in which one attempts to maintain a dialogue with social theoretical and research perspectives and to develop and enhance textual analysis by seeking to operationalize within it categories and insights from these perspectives. I have also argued that interdiscursive analysis of texts is a crucial mediating link between linguistic analysis and social analysis, a link which we need I would argue if we are to succeed in incorporating textual analysis more substantively within social research. The rationale and clarification of how interdiscursive analysis can act in this mediating way depends upon theoretical categories and perspectives within Critical Discourse Analysis which I have briefly discussed.

There is much in Systemic Functional Linguistics which is of value in this project, including a long-term concern with socially-oriented analysis of text and a linguistic theory which is itself socially oriented and informed. Also, the dynamic, process view of text as 憈exturing?echoes thinking within SFL (Lemke 1988). The key difference is over interdiscursivity and the category of 憃rder of discourse?(Chouliaraki & Fairclough 1999). We can put this in terms of the levels of concreteness and abstractness I have distinguished: just as the general relationship between social structures and social events needs to seen as mediated by social practices, so also does the relationship between semiotic structures (languages) and texts need to be mediated by orders of discourse, the semiotic moment of social practices. The interdiscursivity of texts is the correlate at the concrete level of social events of orders of discourse at the more abstract level of social practices. Incorporating interdiscursive analysis into textual analysis allows us as I suggested earlier to link linguistic analysis to social analysis, and thus places us in a stronger position to make a substantive contribution to social research.

References

Althusser, L & Balibar, E (1970) Reading Capital, London: New

          Left Books

Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization, Cambridge: Polity Press

Bernstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse,

London:

Bourdieu, P (1998) A reasoned utopia and economic fatalism New

          Left Review 227: 25-30

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive

 Sociology, Cambridge: Polity Press

Bourdieu, P & Wacquant L (2001) NewLiberal Speak: notes on the

          new planetary vulgate Radical Philosophy 105: 2-5

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Cambridge:

 Blackwell

Chouliaraki, L & Fairclough, N (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity:

          Re-Thinking Critical Discourse Analysis Edinburgh:

          Edinburgh University Press

Chouliaraki, L & Fairclough, N (2000) Language and power in

          Bourdieu: on Hasan抯 揟he Disempowerment Game?

          Linguistics and Education 10 (4): 399-409

Dubiel, H. (1985) Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development

of Critical Theory, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

Fairclough, N (1992) Discourse and Social Change Cambridge:

           Polity Press

Fairclough, N (2000a) Represenciones del cambio en discurso

neoliberal Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales 16, 2000.

pages 13-36.

Fairclough, N (2000b) New Labour, New Language? London:

Routledge

Fairclough, N (2001) The dialectics of discourse Textus 14: 231-

242

Fairclough, N (2003) Analyzing Discourse and Text: Textual

 Analysis for Social Research London: Routledge

Fairclough, N,  Jessop, R & Sayer, A  (2002) Critical realism and

Semiosis, Journal of Critical Realism 5.1: 2-10

Giddens, A (1990) Modernity and Self-Identity Cambridge: Polity

Press

Graham, P. (2001) Space: irrealis objects in technology policy and

their role in a new political economy Discourse & Society

12(6): 761-788

Gray, J. 1993 Beyond the New Right: Markets, Government and

 the Common Environment, London:Routledge

Halliday, M. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic, London: Edward

Arnold

Halliday, M 1993 Language in a Changing World. Occasional

Papers 13, Sydney: Applied Linguistics Association of

Australia

Halliday, M. (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2^nd

edition, London: Edward Arnold

Harvey, D (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference,

          Oxford: Blackwell

Hasan, R (2000) The disempowerment game: a critique of

          Bourdieu抯 view of language Linguistics and Education 10

Hay, C & Rosamund B (2002) Globalization, European integration

          and the discursive construction of economic imperatives

          Journal of European Public Policy 9(2): 147-167

Held, D, McGrew, A, Goldblatt, D & Perraton, J (1999) Global

          Transformations, Cambridge: Polity Press

Heller, A (1999) A Theory of Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell

Hoey, M. (2001) Textual Interaction, London: Routledge

Iedema, R (1998) Institutional responsibility and hidden meanings

Discourse & Society 9(4): 481-500

Iedema, R (1999) Formalizing organizational meaning Discourse &

          Society 10 (1): 49-66

Jessop, R (2000) The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and

          the ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism

          International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies 24(2):

          323 ?360

Kress, G & van Leeuwen T (2000) Multimodal Discourse, London:

          Arnold

Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy,

London: Verso

Lemke, J. (1988) Text structure and text semantics, in R. Veltman

& E. Steiner eds. Pragmatics, Discourse and Text: Systemic

 Approaches, London: Pinter

Lemke, J. (1998) 慠esources for attitudinal meaning. Evaluative

orientations in text semantics? Functions of Language 5, 1:

33-56

Martin, J. (1992) English Text, Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Salskov-Iversen, D, Hansen, H. & Bislev S (2000)

          Governmentality, globalization and local practice:

          transformations of a hegemonic discourse Alternatives 25:

          183 ?222

Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science, London: Sage

Van Leeuwen, T. (1996) 慣he representation of social actors? in C.

R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds.) Texts and

Practices, London: Routledge