This study is anchored in Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), particularly drawing on Roger Fowler’s foundational work on language, power, and ideology in media discourse. Fowler et al. (1979) argue that language is not a neutral medium for reporting reality but a socially constructed system that reflects and reinforces power relations. From this perspective, journalistic texts—especially crime reports—are ideological artifacts shaped by institutional constraints, political pressures, and sociocultural hierarchies.
Central to this framework is Fowler’s theory of transitivity, which examines how grammatical choices assign agency, responsibility, and blame (Fowler, 1991). In crime reporting, transitivity patterns determine whether actors are foregrounded as active agents or backgrounded through passive constructions and nominalizations. Such choices are particularly consequential when reporting murders involving prominent personalities, as they influence how perpetrators, victims, and institutions are represented and morally evaluated.
The framework also incorporates the concept of nominalization, a linguistic strategy that transforms actions and processes into abstract nouns, often obscuring agency and mitigating responsibility (Fairclough, 1995). Nominal references to suspects, such as titles or institutional affiliations, function as discursive resources that either legitimize or delegitimize individuals based on their social status. These strategies intersect with power asymmetries, allowing journalists to navigate legal risks, personal safety concerns, and political pressures while still fulfilling their reporting roles.
Additionally, the study is informed by media framing theory, which explains how journalists select, emphasize, and structure information to guide audience interpretation (Entman, 1993). Linguistic framing in headlines and leads plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of justice, guilt, and innocence. By integrating Critical Linguistics with framing theory, this framework enables a nuanced analysis of how linguistic choices in crime reporting both reflect and reproduce social inequalities and power relations within the Kenyan sociopolitical context.
Literature Review
Media, Language, and Power in Crime Reporting
Extensive scholarship has demonstrated that crime reporting is deeply embedded in power relations, where language choices can legitimize authority or marginalize certain actors. Fowler et al. (1979) and Fowler (1991) highlight that journalistic discourse systematically privileges dominant social groups by normalizing institutional perspectives while problematizing or silencing others. In cases involving elite individuals, journalists often adopt cautious linguistic strategies to avoid legal repercussions or political backlash.
Fairclough (1995) further argues that media discourse operates as a site where power is exercised through subtle linguistic means rather than overt coercion. Headlines and lead paragraphs are particularly influential, as they frame the narrative and establish interpretive cues for readers. Studies have shown that elite actors are more likely to be linguistically protected through passive constructions, vague agency, or abstract nominalizations (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
Transitivity, Nominalization, and Ideological Meaning
Transitivity analysis has been widely used in CDA to uncover ideological bias in news reporting. Halliday and Hasan (1985) emphasize that grammatical structures encode choices about who does what to whom, thereby shaping moral accountability. In crime discourse, active clauses that explicitly name perpetrators tend to reinforce narratives of guilt, while passive or agentless constructions soften responsibility (van Leeuwen, 2008).
Nominalization, meanwhile, has been identified as a powerful tool for obscuring agency and depersonalizing violent acts (Fairclough, 1995). In high-profile murder cases, journalists may rely on nominal references and abstract processes to shield powerful suspects, reflecting broader structural inequalities in access to justice. These linguistic strategies do not merely describe events but actively construct social reality and public understanding of crime.
Media Framing, Justice, and Public Perception
Media framing theory complements critical linguistic approaches by explaining how linguistic and structural choices shape audience interpretation. Entman (1993) argues that frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. In crime reporting, framing can implicitly assign blame or innocence long before legal processes conclude, influencing public trust in judicial institutions.
Research in African media contexts indicates that newspapers often balance professional ethics against political and economic pressures, resulting in uneven representations of justice (Wasserman, 2011). Kenyan media, in particular, operate within a complex environment marked by political polarization and concerns over press freedom, which significantly shape crime reporting practices. However, empirical studies focusing specifically on linguistic strategies in high-profile murder cases remain limited.
Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by offering a critical linguistic analysis of how Kenyan journalists negotiate power, safety, and ethical responsibility through language, highlighting the broader implications for media accountability and public discourse on justice.
References (APA 7th Edition)
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Edward Arnold.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. SAGE.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press.
Wasserman, H. (2011). Popular media, democracy and development in Africa. Journal of African Media Studies, 3(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1386/jams.3.1.7_1
No comments:
Post a Comment