Abstract

This article presents a corpus-driven study of evaluative discourses surrounding asylum seekers in parliamentary debates. It explores how Australian political parties have expressed unfavorable attitudes toward asylum seekers. These attitudes are operationalized by implementing Martin and White’s appraisal framework, which comprises affectual (affect), ethical (judgment), and aesthetic (appreciation) values. The findings reveal that the subcategories of affect, judgment, and appreciation are strategically deployed by both right- and left-wing parties. The right-wing discourse, conveying ethical values, emphasizes the difference between “in” and “out” groups, whereas the left-wing discourse, engaged in affectual values, demonstrates their humanitarian side. The study has also a methodological focus, namely, testing the feasibility of the behavioral profile approach in critical discourse analysis to obtain more replicable and reliable quantitative results. The method consists of the manual annotation of the corpus and multivariate statistical analysis.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.