Newsworthiness, attribution and lexicogrammatical strategies in two types of news articles in English and Spanish

Open access


The contrastive analysis of two sets of newspaper articles has been carried out in order to observe how the reports of the same events are constructed in two different languages and cultures as represented by El País and The Guardian newspapers. The first set of texts consists of two science popularization articles dealing with the same scientific finding (Bee Texts), whereas the second set consists of all the articles covering the opening day of a world summit held in Rome (Summit Texts) which were published in the online versions of El País and The Guardian respectively. Newsworthiness (Bell, 1991), attribution and lexicogrammatical strategies have been studied in order to show how ideological construction has been developed in these two different kinds of report, one dealing with a non-controversial event (as represented in the Bee Texts) and the other with a controversial event (as represented in the Summit Texts).

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ALTHUSSER L. 1994. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In: S. Žižek ed. Mapping ideology. London and New York: Verso pp. 100-140.

  • BEAUGRANDE R. A. DE. 1980. Text discourse and process. Norwood: Ablex.

  • BEAUGRANDE R. A. DE. 1996. The story of discourse analysis. In: T. Van Dijk ed. Introduction to discourse analysis. London: Sage pp. 35-62. [online] [Accessed 24 April 2014]. Available at:

  • BEDNAREK M. 2005. ‘He’s nice but Tim’: Contrast in British newspaper discourse. In: P. Danielsson and M. Wagenmakers eds. Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series [Accessed 23 September 2014]. Available at:

  • BEDNAREK M. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • BELL A. 1991. The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • BROWN G. and YULE G. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • DON A. 2007. An approach to the analysis of textual identity through profiles of evaluative disposition. Paper presented at the ASFLA 2007 Conference. [Accessed 31 July 2014] Available at:

  • ELORZA I. 2010. A cross-cultural analysis of popularizations in English and Spanish newspaper discourse. ES: Review of English Studies vol. 31 pp. 85-109.

  • FOUCAULT M. 1980. Power / knowledge: Selected interviews & other writings 1972-1977. Ed. C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

  • HALLIDAY M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Arnold.

  • HALLIDAY M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

  • HALLIDAY M. A. K. and HASAN R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

  • HATIM B. 2007. Intervention at text and discourse levels in the translation of ‘orate’ languages. In: J. Munday ed. Translation as intervention. London: Continuum pp. 84-96.

  • HOEY M. 1999. Persuasive rhetoric in linguistics: A stylistic study of some features of the language of Noam Chomsky. In: S. Hunston and G. Thompson eds. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. London: Oxford University Press pp. 28-37.

  • HUNSTON S. 1999. Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In: S. Hunston and G. Thompson eds. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. London: Oxford University Press pp. 176-207.

  • HUNSTON S. and THOMPSON G. eds. 1999. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

  • HYLAND K. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.

  • JANČAŘÍKOVÁ R. 2009. Naming strategies in newspaper discourse: Means of communicating identity of the participants to the reader. Topics in Linguistics vol. 4 pp. 41-45.

  • LOUW B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In: M. Baker G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli eds. Text and technology. In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 157-176.

  • MACKEN-HORARIK M. 2003. Envoi: Intractable issues in appraisal theory? Text vol. 23 no. 2 pp. 313-319.

  • MARTÍN E. 2008. The verbal expression of belief and hearsay in English and Spanish: Evidence from newspaper discourse. In: A. M. Hornero M. J. Luzón and S. Molina eds. Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English. Bern: Peter Lang pp. 159-175.

  • MARTIN J. R. and ROSE D. 2003. Working with discourse. London: Continuum.

  • MARTIN J. R. and WHITE P. R. R. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

  • MORENO A. I. 2008. The importance of comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In: U. Connor E. Nagelhout and W. Rozycki eds. Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 25-41.

  • MYERS G. 1990. Making a discovery: narratives of split genes. In: C. Nash ed. Narrative in culture. The uses of storytelling in the sciences philosophy and literature. London: Routledge pp. 102-126.

  • PÉREZ BLANCO M. 2013. The use of epistemic adverbs in English and Spanish newspaper opinion discourse: A corpus-based study. In: I. Elorza O. Carbonell i Cortés R. Albarrán B.

  • García Riaza and M. Pérez-Veneros eds. Empiricism and analytical tools for 21st Century applied linguistics. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca pp. 243-253.

  • REAH D. 2002. The language of newspapers. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • SCOTT M. 2004. WordSmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • SCOTT M. and TRIBBLE C. 2006. Textual patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • SINCLAIR J. 2004. Trust the Text. Language corpus and discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • STENVALL M. 2008. On emotions and the journalistic ideals of factuality and objectivity - Tools for analysis. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 40 pp. 1569-1586.

  • STUBBS M. 1996. Text and corpus analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • TADROS A. 1994. Predictive categories in expository text. In: M. Coulthard ed. Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge pp. 69-82.

  • THETELA P. 1997. Evaluated entities and parameters of value in academic research articles. English for Specific Purposes vol. 16 no. 2 pp. 101-118.

  • THOMPSON G. 2004. Introducing functional grammar 2nd edition. London: Arnold.

  • URBANOVÁ Z. 2009. The function of reported language in the discourse of newspaper reports. Topics in Language vol. 4 pp. 82-89.

  • VALDEÓN R. A. 2007. Ideological independence or negative mediation: BBC Mundo and CNN en Español’s (translated) reporting of Madrid terrorist attacks. In: M. Salama-Carr ed. Translating and interpreting conflict. Amsterdam: Rodopi pp. 99-118.

  • VERSCHUEREN J. 2007. The interventionist role of (re)contextualization in translation. In: J. Munday ed. Translation as intervention. London: Continuum pp. 71-83.

  • ŽIŽEK S. 1994. The spectre of ideology. In: S. Žižek ed. Mapping ideology. London and New York: Verso pp. 1-33.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 294 174 10
PDF Downloads 150 93 6