From ‘cultural unbelonging’ to ‘terrorist risk’: communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse

References

• Cap, P. (2006). Legitimization in political discourse: A cross-disciplinary perspective on the modern US war rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (2008). Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 17–41. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (2010). Axiological aspects of proximization. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 392–407. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (2014). Applying cognitive pragmatics to critical discourse studies: A proximization analysis of three public space discourses. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 16–30. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (2015). Crossing symbolic distances in political discourse space: Evaluative rhetoric within the framework of proximization. Critical Discourse Studies, 12, 313–329. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2015.1013481
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (2017). The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cap, P. (in press). Aspects of threat construction in the polish anti-immigration discourse: A cognitive-theoretical study. In A. Musolff & L. Viola (Eds.), Migration and media: Crisis communication about immigration in Europe and the world. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P. (2005). Discourse space theory: Geometry, brain and shifting viewpoints. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 78–116. doi: 10.1075/arcl.3.06chi
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P. (2010). From mind to grammar: Coordinate systems, prepositions, constructions. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 640–671). London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P. (2011). Deictic space theory (DST): The fundamental theory and its applications. Paper presented at the 42nd Poznań Linguistic Meeting, Poznań.
   Google Scholar
• Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chovanec, J. (2010). Legitimation through differentiation: Discursive construction of Jacques Le Worm Chirac as an opponent to military action. In U. Okulska & P. Cap (Eds.), Perspectives in politics and discourse (pp. 61–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cienki, A., Kaal, B., & Maks, I. (2010). Mapping world view in political texts using discourse space theory: Metaphor as an analytical tool. Paper presented at the RaAM 8 conference, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Dunmire, P. (2011). Projecting the future through political discourse: The case of the bush doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Filardo Llamas, L. (2010). Discourse worlds in northern Ireland: The legitimisation of the 1998 agreement. In K. Hayward & C. O’Donnell (Eds.), Political discourse and conflict resolution. Debating peace in northern Ireland (pp. 62–76). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Filardo Llamas, L. (2013). ‘Committed to the ideals of 1916’. The language of paramilitary groups: The case of the Irish republican army. Critical Discourse Studies, 10, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2012.736396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filardo Llamas, L., Hart, C., & Kaal, B. (Eds.). (2016). Time, space and evaluation in ideological discourse. Special issue of Critical Discourse Studies (12). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gavins, J. (2007). Text world theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain: Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C., & Cap, P. (Eds.). 2014. Contemporary critical discourse studies. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and persuasion. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kaal, B. (2012). Worldviews: The spatial ground of political reasoning in Dutch election manifestos. CADAAD, 6, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Knapton, O. (2016). Dynamic conceptualizations of threat in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Language and Cognition, 8, 1–31. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2015.18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8, 243–281. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
   Google Scholar
• Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijk, T. (2017). Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In J. Flowerdew & J. E. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 26–43). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Werth, P. (1999). Text worlds: Representing conceptual space in discourse. Harlow: Longman.
   Google Scholar