10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
This study centres on a cross-linguistic investigation of same-sex unions as articulated within speeches by British and Italian Prime Ministers. The analysis adds to the growing body of research on Queer perspectives and their incorporation into studies on gender and sexuality. It aims to bring together the multi-facetedness of Discourse, and its cross-contamination with Critical and Queer paradigms, as well as corpus-informed tools. The aim is to showcase how the hybrid incorporation of Queer and Critical Discourse-oriented perspectives makes explicit both dominant and marginalized discourses. Methodologically, this is realized through the blending of quantitative and qualitative analyses that combine Queer and Critical paradigms with corpus tools. The results uncover institutionalized heteronormativity operating to different degrees. The Queer engagement leaves open the possibility for a thoughtful reformulation which should challenge the same notion of inclusivity.
application/pdf
1974-4382
15515
en
Carmen Serena Santonocito
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
mediAzioni
discourse of prime ministers
Queering Collective Identities: A Case Study on Same-Sex Unions in the UK and in Italy
Text.Serial.Journal
https://mediazioni.unibo.it/
34
Articles
2022-09-22
2022-09-13
2022-09-22
2022-09-22
A89-A115
M
Carmen Serena Santonocito
2022/09/22
10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A89
Università degli Studi di Messina
1974-4382
discourse of prime ministers
en
A115
Queering Collective Identities: A Case Study on Same-Sex Unions in the UK and in Italy
https://mediazioni.unibo.it/article/download/15515/14682
34
Updating Discourse/s on Method/s                                     mediAzioni 34 (2022)
                                                                           ISSN   1974-4382



   QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES: A CASE STUDY ON
       SAME-SEX UNIONS IN THE UK AND IN ITALY
                                  CARMEN SERENA SANTONOCITO
                                    UNIVERSITY OF MESSINA

carmenserena.santonocito@unime.it



Citation: Carmen Serena Santonocito (2022) “Queering collective identities: a case study
on same-sex unions in the uk and in italy”, in Lucia Abbamonte and Flavia Cavaliere
(eds.)    Updating   Discourse/s   on    Method/s,    mediAzioni    34:      A89-A115,
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515, ISSN 1974-4382.



Abstract: This study centres on a cross-linguistic investigation of same-sex unions as
articulated within speeches by British and Italian Prime Ministers. The analysis adds to
the growing body of research on Queer perspectives and their incorporation into studies
on gender and sexuality. It aims to bring together the multi-facetedness of Discourse,
and its cross-contamination with Critical and Queer paradigms, as well as corpus-
informed tools.
        The aim is to showcase how the hybrid incorporation of Queer and Critical
Discourse-oriented perspectives makes explicit both dominant and marginalized
discourses. Methodologically, this is realized through the blending of quantitative and
qualitative analyses that combine Queer and Critical paradigms with corpus tools.
        The results uncover institutionalized heteronormativity operating to different
degrees. The Queer engagement leaves open the possibility for a thoughtful
reformulation which should challenge the same notion of inclusivity.

Keywords: same-sex unions; critical / queer discourse studies; corpus-informed;
discourse of prime ministers.




Copyright © 2022
The text in this work is licensed under CC-BY 4.0.                                     A89
A90                                                                               SANTONOCITO



1. Introduction: Updating collective identities and methods

Same-sex unions (henceforth, SSU) have been in the spotlight of institutional,
social and academic debates for their non-alignment to normative sexual conduct
and gender norms, which has ignited fervent debates across Western societies
(Donà 2021). The harsh ideological opposition to SSU permeates also
governmental and institutional discourses1 where the opposition between the
official diversity-friendly moves and emergent homophobic practices (Derks and
van den Berg 2020) stands out. As a matter of fact, since the 2000s some Western
European nations have been introducing inclusiveness policies and laws that
recognise SSU; yet still, direct and indirect discrimination persists (Kollman
2009) in these countries. In 2021 ongoing discrimination and inequality were
reported in a EU Resolution2 that urged governments to take action so that SSU
might enjoy equal rights to freedom of movement and family reunification.
     Italy and the UK may be counted among those European countries that
incorporate and promote broad values of gender and sexual inclusiveness. In
fact, both nations legally recognized SSUs during the 2010s, although ultimately
they established two different civil institutions, i.e., same-sex marriage in the UK
in 2014, and registered partnerships between persons of the same sex,
abbreviated to civil partnership (unione civile)3, in Italy in 2016. However, the
seemingly inclusive moves by British and Italian governments were not entirely
accepted, as could be seen in the attitudes of certain conservative political
representatives and social groups. Indeed, their reactions to these recognitions
were in overt contrast to the official position with alarming homophobic
outcomes (Winkler 2017; Winter et al. 2018). Relatedly, many supra-national
bodies and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have reported increased
structural discrimination (Makkonen 2002), together with verbal and physical
attacks against SSU in recent years.4
     It is thus no surprise that SSU have become a major social and political cause
of the 21st century for their relevance to debates over equality, citizenship and
the democratic rights of minorities (Winter et al. 2018). It follows that a wealth
of academic reflection from a diverse range of frameworks and utilising multiple
methodologies is contributing to this evolving subject matter (Paterson and
Turner 2019). Among studies with a linguistic focus on the UK we can count
Baker’s (2004) examination of the discursive construction of same-sex
relationships within institutional Discourse. In his corpus-driven study he argues
that implicit homophobic arguments against non-normalised sexual conducts

1
  The Critical notion of Discourse (i.e., activity in which people accomplish social interaction
through linguistic and other symbolic means) is capitalized, whereas discourse intended in its
broader concept is not capitalized.
2
  European Parliament Resolution of 11 March 2021 on the declaration of the EU as an LGBTIQ
Freedom Zone (2021/2557(RSP)) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=
CELEX%3A52021IP0089&qid=1647125049990
3
  if not otherwise stated, all excerpts in Italian were translated by the author.
4
  “Mapping of studies on the difficulties for LGBTI people in cross-border situations in the EU”
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/mapping_of_studies_on_the_difficulties_for_lgbti_pe
ople_in_cross-border_situations_in_the_eu.pdf
Eurobarometer report on LGBTI acceptance is not the full picture https://www.ilga-
europe.org/resources/news/latest-news/eurobarometer-report-lgbti-acceptance-not-full-picture
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                                 A91



justify opposition to homosexuality, which is viewed as a dangerous and criminal
act. Baker also locates a range of implicit homophobic discursive strategies;
among others, the “thin end of the wedge”, a metaphor with similar connotations
to the “slippery slope”, which also features in a study by the Discourse of
Marriage Research Group (van der Bom et al. 2015). Bachmann (2011) conducts
a corpus-driven analysis of thematically-related keywords that leads him to rule
out the presence of contradictory and marginalizing discourses over SSU. He
complements his analysis with broader discursive considerations and finds
evidence of the “thin end of the wedge” metaphor too. Love and Baker (2015)
engage in a comparative diachronic study of Parliamentary debates on
equalizing the age of consent for gay people and on same-sex marriage
recognition. The two scholars conclude that although explicit homophobic
language has decreased due to social unacceptability, implicit discriminatory
stances still underlie UK Parliamentary Discourse. For this reason, they lay bare
the challenge of uncovering such subtle and covert messages that work to
exclude LGBT*5 groups.
     As for the Italian case, few studies exist on SSU. Notably, the majority of
these centre on socio-political debates (Donà 2009; Winkler 2016), and on legal
matters (Winkler 2017). These contributions mark the complex entanglement of
polarized ideological stances that result in unfair practices and persistent
discriminatory legislation against SSU. Studies with a discursive focus refer to
those conducted by Vigo (2015), and Lasio and Serri (2019). The former entails
a cross-linguistic research centred on newspaper lexical choices to describe SSU
in Italy and in the UK. Vigo shows the comparative extent of change within both
British and Italian cultures when discussing SSU, formerly represented a taboo
subject within both societies. The analysis suggests that British newspapers tend
towards informality, while their Italian counterpart seem to address the topic
with a greater degree of ambiguity and ambivalence. Lasio and Serri’s study
draws on the Foucaldian notion of sexuality (Foucault 1980), and a socio-
psychological view of Critical Discourse Studies (henceforth, CDS) to explore
speeches by Italian stakeholders who participated in the debate on the legal
recognition of SSU in Italy. Echoing the UK-based studies, the authors conclude
that the “natural order” argument reinforces seemingly irreconcilable differences
between traditionally conceived opposite-sex marriage and SSU. This tends to
legitimise the existence of oppositional views within Italian society, thus
facilitating delay in the equalization of rights for individuals in SSU.
     This literature review highlights the imperative for opponents of SSU to
avoid overtly homophobic statements through the use of implicitness. Therefore,
the combination of multi-angled views to reveal underlying patterns of exclusion
and discrimination is pivotal. Coupling with existing research on SSU, this study
combines two paradigms that are currently commanding scholars’ attention
(Koller 2019; Leap 2015), namely, Critical and Queer Discourse Studies
(henceforth, C/QDS). As for the type of Discourse investigated, while works

5
 The acronym LGBT has acquired a wealth of variants during the last couples of years. Due to
space constraints and as a form of inclusive language, in this study the wildcard after the acronym
LGBT* is used to incorporate any member recognizing themselves into non-conforming sexes and
genders. No form of disrespect is intended here in not using other initialisms.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A92                                                                    SANTONOCITO



outlined so far focus on different kinds of institutional and media discourses, this
cross-linguistic analysis delves into speeches on SSU delivered by British and
Italian Prime Ministers (henceforth, PMs).
     The specificity of the research paradigm and the facet of the Discourse
investigated motivate the following structure of the research questions:
    - Methodological Research Question (henceforth, MRQ) to address the
        controversial views and scepticism (Koller 2019; Motschenbacher 2018)
        on C/QDS: to what extent can Queer-minded approaches be
        complemented with the traditional combination of quantitative and
        qualitative methods in studies on gender and sexuality?
    - Study-focused Research Question (henceforth, SRQ) to address the
        ceremonial exercise of power (Edelman 1977; Fowler et al. 1979) of the
        Discourse of PMs: which linguistic and discursive resources are enacted
        to present SSU?
     Section 2 highlights the relatively recent Queer approach to Discourse (2.1),
and its consonance with CDS and corpus-informed methods (2.2). Section 3
explores the ideologically-laden identity work encompassed in the lexicalization
of SSU. Section 4 brings together the combinations of C/QCDS and corpus-
informed methods in an attempt to theoretically address MRQ. The latter is
interwoven throughout the analysis, which is also devoted to answering SRQ.
Section 5 presents a Critical and Queer-informed analysis while providing an
explanation of how hybrid methods can work in discourse-oriented gender
studies. Section 6 sums up the main results, and ties them to MRQ and SRQ.
Finally, Section 7 reflects on the main gains and challenges of combining such
diverse paradigms and methods.


2. Critical/Queer Discourse Studies

This section highlights how Queer conceptualizations should be considered as an
additional aid that enables any Critical inquiry to reject a rigid monolithic model
(2.1). The affinity of corpus-informed analysis with C/QDS then discusses
reasons why researchers need to employ such a combination (2.2).

2.1. Why Queering?

Before entering the recent endeavour of Queering scholarly research in social
sciences (Koller 2019; Motschenbacher 2019), it is necessary to note that in this
article Queer is capitalized to refer to academic discussions engaged not only
with the problematization of binary consolidations of sex, gender and sexuality
(Milani 2013), but also with the broader challenge of normative discourses with
regulatory consequences (Leap 2015).
    Influenced by post-structuralist and performative constructions of gender
and sexual dichotomies (Butler 1990), Queer approaches emerged during the
1970s and the 1980s as a reaction to rigid classifications of gender and sex; these
dichotomies tend to dictate supposedly coherent and normative ways of
expressing one’s gender and sexual desire(s). While pre-Queer advocates

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                A93



(Foucault 1978; Crenshaw 1991) problematized essentialist views on gender and
sex and pointed to the complex layers of intersectionality, Butler’s studies paved
the way for the social dismantling of binary classifications related to sex
(male/female), gender (masculine/feminine), and desire (heterosexual,
different-sex/homosexual, same-sex). Adding to this, Cameron and Kulick (2003)
noted that the way gender (as a social construction), sex (as biological and the
presence of reproductive organs), and sexuality (as the sexual attraction or
desire) are constructed through reiterated discursive materialisation (Butler
1993) dictates the tenets of patriarchal ideology (Lakoff 1973). Lazar (2005)
acknowledged that patriarchy polarizes gender and sex to an irreducible binary
that assigns to men (sexed males) and women (sexed females) specific identity
construal, social roles and prerogatives with unbalanced power relations
invariably privileging men.
     The Foucauldian tenet of Discourse as a social constitutive, performative and
interpretive process – thus averse to strict categorizations – finds commonalities
with the recent Queer debate and justifies its incorporation in CDS, resulting in
C/QDS (Koller 2019). Originally, C/QDS focused on relativizing the absoluteness
of heteronormativity, i.e., dominant discourse-bound assumptions prescribing
norms that result in perceiving heterosexuality as a naturalised, self-evident,
privileged necessity (Wagenknecht 2007). However, current Queer denunciation
does not involve only heteronormativity and LGBT* people, but rather all kinds
of normalise-seeking phenomena. For example, it involves individuals diverging
from unquestioned patriarchal constructs (cisgender couples unwilling to marry
or to have children, those who cannot have children, mono-parent families) that
face multiple levels of discrimination and social sanctions (Motschenbacher
2010). For this reason, C/QDS relativize normative processes and habits by
confronting those with non-normative alternatives. Therefore, an enlarged Queer
perspective presupposes an anti-speciesism mark going against all identity
categories, since these are perceived as unstable, hegemony-bound social
constructions that reinforce power hierarchies (Milani 2018). A Queer and
Critical inquiry can thus be used as an anti-paradigm whose objective is to
uncover dominant discourses that shape collective understandings of society and
create unbalanced relationships, be these in the realm of gender and sexuality or
in any other form of social injustice. Taking a Queer approach does not, however,
mean rejection of any rule and resort to chaos and anarchy. Rather, Queer
epistemology draws on the Derridean deconstruction of categories, i.e., a process
conceived as conscious exposure to the inherent instability of categories in order
to question their perceived naturalness and coherence (Derrida 1976).
     C/QDS thus conceive the Queer view as an alternative angle and an
additional aid to Critical enquiry in order to shift the perspective from a
monolithic stance to a problematized fluid viewpoint that foreshadows static
categorizations (Milani 2018). In other words, a Queer perspective adds to
Critical enquiry in two ways; firstly, an anti-normative awareness that no longer
unquestionably accepts binarism, as if dyads such as men/women or
masculine/feminine were self-explanatory, biologically-based, macro-categories;
secondly, it envisages the prospect of alternative and inclusive discourses that
can oppose (hetero) normativity.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A94                                                                             SANTONOCITO



2.2. Queer, Critical and corpus-informed

The efficient incorporation of corpus tools in the methodology of sex- and
gender-related studies (Paterson and Coffey Glover 2018) has initiated
discussions on the compatibility of corpus methods with C/QDS
(Motschenbacher 2018; Baker 2018). This has already proved its effectiveness,
especially in studies on gender and sex (Heritage and Baker 2021; Krendel 2020;
Paterson and Coffey Glover 2018), where more ontologically oriented methods
contribute to uncovering the perpetuation of the heteronormative matrix
(Atkinson and De Palma 2009), and dominant regimes on gender and sex
(Motschenbacher 2018).
     There are two reasons for the incorporation of corpus tools in this study.
First of all, given the multi-faceted, ever-changing type of Discourse being
investigated, i.e., the Discourse of PMs, and the conflictual nature of the topic
addressed, i.e., SSU, a synergy of quantitative and qualitative analysis helps to
ground controversial findings with evidenced data collection that embodies a
view of social reality as more scholarly systematized. In so doing, the much-
quoted risk of excessive introspection and unclear methodology is addressed
(Vessey 2013). Second, the broad and flexible perspectives offered by the
multifarious corpus approaches make for a good match with the deconstructing
intent of C/QDS. Such perspectives range from corpora used as an inherently
quantitative approach prioritizing frequency and typicality of syntagmatic
patterns in language use (Sinclair 1991), to corpus data that consistently signpost
linguistic (lack of) evidence to anchor qualitative-based findings or redirect
researchers’ attention (Marchi and Taylor 2018).
     In a Queer fashion, we can resolve the much debated
quantitative/qualitative polarization by borrowing McEnery and Hardie’s (2012)
reflection on the continual scale where all corpus studies should be positioned.
Indeed, the same necessity to move constantly from frequency lists (more
quantitative, famously referred to as corpus-driven approach) to concordances
(more qualitative, i.e., corpus-based) enables us to consider qualitative and
quantitative procedures as falling between two end-points of a continuum
(Partington 2004)6. However, corpora “are not a linguistic panacea”
(Motschenbacher 2018: 146), and reliance on quantification does not get the
study any closer to the misconceived idea of non-biased research (Marchi and
Taylor 2009). In addition, number crunching alone cannot reveal structural
discrimination on non-aligned genders and sexualities. For this reason, a
balanced methodological cross-contamination is even more significant for
unveiling what is implied, insinuated or latently hinted at.




6
  Although what has been argued so far could equate to assimilating corpus-use of this study to
well-known Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies (Partington 2006), it is crucial to note that the
methodology of this study is informed by corpus-use as a complementary tool to uncover
relationships between language and the social context, specifically to reveal normalized
meanings. The latter is generally one of the central concerns of Queer and Critical enquiry,
intertwining the research interest of both corpus studies and C/QDS.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                A95



3. Labels, identities, ideologies that matter

Starting from the assumption that linguistic options to represent the world are a
central issue to the Discourse of politics and institutions (Wilson 2001), Section
3.1 presents the Discourse of PMs, while Section 3.2 deals with the ideological
resonance of identity labels in a C/QDS fashion.

3.1. The Discourse of PMs

The Discourse of PMs is inevitably affected by pervasive institutional obligations
(Koester 2006). Given the indirect and ceremonially constrained exercise of
power (Edelman 1977; Fowler et al. 1979), the examination of PMs’ speeches
can bear fruitful results in the dominant representation of SSU (Baker 2014).
However, such pervasiveness and relevance have far-reaching implications,
especially in our poly-cross-mediatized society (Abbamonte 2019). This is even
truer as PMs’ speeches are more likely to represent received wisdom on a subject
and, in the long-term, they can anticipate normative familiarity with the public
(Weiss 2013). Edelman (1977) notes that official PMs’ speeches stand out for the
attention to form and style since these communicate reassurance and righteous
authoritativeness. Regardless of the content, PMs must convey reasonableness of
their argumentations and attention to the public opinion. Hence, the importance
of subtle discursive formations that may implicitly project institutionalised
homophobia (Butler 2008) when communicating commonly understood views
of righteousness.
     Due to the crucial importance of stylistic devices and rigorous forms
canonized by both written and unwritten rules, the Discourse of PMs follows a
precise ceremonial and is accompanied by ritualistic formulas that characterize
it as a specialized jargon. Ceremonials, rituals, and specific linguistic
constructions allow for the establishment of normative authoritativeness and
institutional recognisability of the governmental organization. The fact that PMs
use their own jargon is understood as an implicit expression of loyalty to the
dominant values in a government. Additionally, the public undeniably
recognizes this jargon and, though often the meaning of words is not crystal clear
to citizens, they nevertheless tend to feel reassured by the righteous objectives
pursued by the governmental institution.

3.2. Labels do identity work

According to Baker (2008), identity labels address some of the wider issues
regarding language, gender and sexuality. Notably, during the post-structuralist
turn Althusser (1970) and Pêcheux (1982) claimed that ideology materializes in
a variety of forms, including lexical choices whereby the meanings of words are
transformed according to who uses them or, in Foucault’s (1972) view, in
relation to particular discursive formations. Fairclough and Wodak (1997)
recognized that political and institutional leaders have unprecedented access to
huge audiences on a daily basis, providing numerous opportunities to win
support, but also harmful effects when transmitting extremely polarized views.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A96                                                                     SANTONOCITO



These ideas are further developed in CDS. Firstly, Critical scholarship advocates
that language-use and discursive practices make their contribution “to
reproducing and/or transforming society and culture, including power relations”
(Ibid.: 273). Secondly, Critical scholars maintain that discursive practices
disseminate ideology in subtle ways through the use of specific words and
expressions, which evoke but leave untroubled implicit sets of ideological
assumptions. In this sense, CDS practitioners claim that Discourse “does
ideological work” (Ibid.: 275) articulating specific representations of reality and
identities. Therefore, it is the attentive selection of words and expressions, as
well as the cohesion of formulaic patterns, that initiate the ideological
significance of Discourse (Cavaliere 2012). Van Dijk (1998) introduces a socio-
cognitive element to this discussion, positing that titles, labels, and ad-hoc chosen
terms constitute macro-propositions that frame ideological assumptions. To this
it can be added that “any choice of label is inherently political” (Milani 2015: i).
     In relation to the labelling of problematic and unstable concepts such as
those related to gender and sexuality, Motschenbacher (2011) notes that
language and specialized terms present a “poststructuralist problem because
[they] can only construct the world in an incomplete fashion that ignores certain
aspects about referential objects” (ibid.: 157). This is even truer for concepts
located on a continual scale – such as identity continua. For this reason, terms
designating always-developing realities experience a process of ongoing
interpretation that in practice leads to their unsystematic use (Motschenbacher
2010). This high degree of variation affects jargon in the field of politics and
institutions as well. Terms may vary quantitatively and qualitatively according
to historical processes and socio-cultural dynamics (Chilton 2008). In some
cases, semantic penumbra of constantly changing terms prevails, while in other
cases communities posses crystalized terms and concepts that keep the ideas
current in the collective consciousness (Fowler 1985).


4. Hybrid methodology

Since the communicative resources to present SSU concern highly contested
identity formations and are enacted at various discursive levels, we employ a
hybrid methodology by combining tools derived from corpus studies (4.1) and
C/QDS paradigms (4.2).

4.1. Corpus tools and design

This study is defined as corpus-informed in the sense that corpus search
intervenes in the analysis for detecting certain lexical patterns contributing —
together with tools outside corpora — to the discursive construction of SSU. To
this aim, among the various analytical tools offered by corpora, we look at
frequency lists and concordances by using the SketchEngine. While frequencies
can be useful in revealing common patterns or themes in corpora (Baker 2014),
concordances are considered the starting point for qualitative analyses based on
making sense of the contexts where word patterns occur. In particular, close-

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                             A97



reading of expanded versions of co-texts is strongly recommended in C/QDS
(Motschenbacher 2018; Paterson and Coffey-Glover 2018). In addition,
frequency lists and concordances are helpful to identify regularities, repeated
use, but also absences (Schröter and Taylor 2018; Sundaram and Sauntson
2016).
    The two corpora collect official speeches by UK PM David Cameron
(henceforth, DC) and Italian PM Matteo Renzi (henceforth, MR) in the time-
frame 2011-2016. This specific time span covers the years immediately
preceding and following the enactment of legislation recognising SSU. The
speeches were downloaded from institutional websites7 using a lexical criterion:
speeches containing same-sex, gay marriage*8 form the Cameron corpus
(henceforth, C-cor), whose size includes 41,879 tokens; speeches containing
union* civil*, union* tra persone dello stesso sesso make up the Renzi corpus
(henceforth, R-cor), whose size includes 35,067 tokens. These expressions were
chosen for their relevance to the topic addressed (Abbamonte 2018). For the
purpose of this study, written textual data constituted the core of the analysis,
though when multimodal elements such as video or audio versions of the
speeches were available, these were considered for cross-checking of possible
biases in transcription.
    Methodological concerns on the procedure for corpus design involve the
nature of the dataset and corpus representativeness. Atkinson (1984)
acknowledges possible challenges in transcriptions when dealing with
automatically transcribed spoken data, in spite of all efforts to double-check for
involuntary omissions. Additionally, KhosraviNik and Unger (2016) warn
against replicability in data retrieval, which must account for the ahistorical
nature of the continuously changing digital ecosystem. As for corpus
representativeness, it must be noted that the small size of the two corpora is due
to the specificity of the Discourse they collect. Additionally, in C/QDS what
matters for achieving representativeness is not the high quantification of words;
instead, the focus rests on the ability and usefulness of such representativeness
to detect normalized patterns and, consequently, marginalized discourses.
Therefore, C-cor and R-cor are not intended to be representative of the entire
Discourse genre of the British and Italian PMs; rather, these corpora account for
the topic addressed (SSU), and the formulaic unidirectionality of the message.

4.2. C/QDS array

Since C/QDS paradigms translate into various methods of analysis, and may
overlap with a number of commonalities, the present study borrows from more
than one tool. The C/QDS methodological framework results from the merging
of a series of elements derived from the discourse-historical approach (Wodak
2001), van Dijk’s (2006) ideological square, van Leeuwen’s (1996; 2008) socio-
semantic inventory, and Halliday’s (1985) Systemic Functional Linguistics

7
  https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street for
DC http://www.governo.it/Presidente/Interventi/index.asp for MR
8
  In corpus tools, wildcards are used to ease search of different word forms. Namely, after the
wildcard any sequence of zero or more characters can follow.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A98                                                                    SANTONOCITO



(henceforth, SFL). Such hybrid approaches draw together grammatical, textual
and syntactic levels that prompt discursive representations.
     This methodological blending is advocated by many scholars, including
Jørgesen and Phillips (2002), and Balirano and Hughes (2020). Among the vast
array of instruments, we use the following because they direct attention toward
parts of language that are most likely to prompt polarized discourse in need of
closer examination.
    - Referential strategies (Wodak 2001) for naming individuals or groups.
       These include: (1) avoidance, and (2) membership categorization.
    - Ideological contraposition us vs. them (van Dijk 1995), which involves:
       (1) othering, labelling of the out-group as minor or inferior; (2) use of
       euphemisms; (3) vagueness, use of vague expressions that do not have
       precise referents and thus can alternatively align with positive or negative
       representations.
    - Lexicalization (Halliday 1978), i.e., the provision of a term for a concept.
       Since lexical processes reflect the interests and views of social groups,
       Halliday distinguished among: (1) overlexicalization, when many words
       are available to express one concept; (2) underlexicalization, lack of a
       specific term to squarely encode a concept; (3) relexicalization,
       vocabulary that encodes specific concepts in expressions that are
       associated only with a specific setting.
    - Inventory for actors’ descriptors (van Leeuwen 1996; 2008), including:
       (1) beneficialization, i.e., passivization through beneficiary roles; (2)
       indetermination, i.e., unspecific and anonymous representations; (3)
       assimilation and collectivization, the first is realized when groups are
       referred to as indistinguishable, while the second occurs when groups are
       defined as collective categories; (4) genericization, i.e., symbolic removal
       of subjects; (5) differentiation, distinct polarization self vs. others; (6)
       categorization, when individuals are referred solely in terms of the
       function/category they represent in society.
Each of the above instruments intervenes in shaping SFL meta-functions that
involve every communicative event (Jewitt et al. 2016). Therefore, the
distribution of such meta-functions is also indicated. Synthetically, these include:
(1) ideational meta-function, constituted by experiential and logical meta-
functions that construct and connect our experience of the world; (2)
interpersonal meta-function, enacting social relations and expressing stances; (3)
textual meta-function, organizing information.


5. Discursive and textual representation of SSU

Section 5.1 delves into the analysis of the Italian case (R-cor), while Section 5.2
examines the British case (C-cor).




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                                 A99



5.1 SSU in the Italian speeches

In table 1 the SketchEngine queries are listed on the left-hand side, while the
different forms of each query are listed on the right-hand side, with the number
of occurrences in squared brackets. The wild card “*” is used when it is necessary
to search for masculine and feminine singular and plural forms, e.g.,
“coppia/coppie”.

          Table 1. SSU in the R-cor
    SketchEngine Queries         Occurrences
    Person* dello stesso sesso   Persone dello stesso sesso (same-sex people) [3]

    Person* che                  Persone che si amano (people who love each other) [4]
                                 Persone che si vedono riconosciuti diritti (people who
                                 see their rights recognized) [2]
    Person* car*                 Persona cara (loving person) [1]
    Chi                          Chi non sa dove festeggiare (who doesn’t know where to
                                 celebrate) [1]
                                 Chi per tanto tempo ha nascosto (who has hidden for
                                 long) [1]
                                 Chi si sente finalmente riconosciuto (who finally feels
                                 recognized) [1]
                                 Chi vede che […] gli vengono restituti diritti (who notes
                                 that their rights are restored) [1]
                                 Chi semplicemente non sta più nella pelle (who simply
                                 is beside themselves with joy) [1]

As is clear from the occurrences above, at the intra-textual level there is
minimum presence of referential strategies to name individuals directly involved
in the construction of SSU. The first striking element of note is that same-sex
couples are not mentioned as social subjects, neither by reference to their
emotional bond nor via mention of their civic status. Indeed, there is an absence
of terms such as “coppie gay/lesbiche” (gay/lesbian couples), “unioni
gay/lesbiche” (gay/lesbian unions) or “unioni tra persone dello stesso sesso”
(same-sex unions). Such specific terms are indirectly evoked by the indefinite
relative pronoun “chi”. When same-sex couples should express their
interpersonal meta-function, i.e., when they are referred to for the civic function
they perform, entering a legally committed union is transformed into a state
action through nominalization, i.e., “unioni civili” (civil unions). Apart from
“unioni civili”, the erasure of the concrete action is expressed also through the
following nominalizations: “unioni di fatto” (de facto unions), “unioni alla
tedesca” (German-like unions), “civil partnerships”. The last one is not translated
here because it does not fully equate to the English “civil partnership”; in fact,
notwithstanding the sameness of the form, the concept in Italian does not
correspond to the English term.9 The latter thus is a clear example of resorting

9
  Due to the recent change in the UK and Italian legislation it is noteworthy that until 2018 civil
partnerships were possible only to same-sex couples in England and Wales. In late 2019 the law
was changed, and since then opposite-sex couples have been able to enter into civil. This means
that when referring to civil partnerships in the C-cor, the dataset does not include latest
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A100                                                                              SANTONOCITO



to the use of foreign words not because of underlexicalization, but prompted by
the sole aim to avoid ideologically marked and problematic choices in the Italian
language.
     As for the query “person* dello stesso sesso” (same-sex people), in terms of
ideational meta-function this appears to be a euphemism to avoid the overt
mention of same-sex couples. Despite the apparent unmarkedness of this phrase,
which could point to the hybrid and non-normalized state of SSU, its use actually
indicates markedness, and favours the erasure of SSU as active and unique
subjects. In fact, if we compare the lexicalization to refer to opposite-sex couples
(i.e., “famiglie”, “un uomo e una donna”), their ideational meta-function
indicates an unmarked prototypical social group that perpetuates patriarchal
constructs. In terms of the relationship between terms and objects, “persone dello
stesso sesso” does not seem to relate to the existing entity it should logically refer
to, i.e., same-sex couples. The following excerpt is illustrative of this mismatch:

       (1) La legge alla tedesca è un buon punto di mediazione e consente di dare
       alle persone dello stesso sesso i diritti civili10

In the excerpt above there is a mismatch in terms of ideational meta-function,
because of the inappropriate representation; in other words, “persone dello
stesso sesso” prevents an authentic construction of our experience of the world.
Indeed, in (1) it seems more reasonable that “diritti civili” (civil rights) are
granted to same-sex couples, rather than same-sex people. Here the hypothesis
of hypercorrection (Labov 1966) seems legitimate. While making an effort to
conform to a more context-appropriate language to allude to SSU, the Italian PM
reveals linguistic insecurity (Bucci and Baxter 1984) for a problematic and
tabooed topic which seems to be overtly avoided in formal contexts. Since
“persone dello stesso sesso” has three occurrences in the R-cor, it is noteworthy
that this hypercorrection happens consistently, maybe as an over-application of
the English morpheme “same-sex”. Despite its hypercorrectness, we could argue
that the literal translation of a foreign morpheme (“same-sex” into English,
“stesso sesso” in Italian) to avoid a subject that is supposedly considered
distasteful reinforces the hypothesis of a taboo topic. Considering the rest of (1),
the reference to proximity to the German model displays the interpersonal meta-
function whereby Germany and Italy are placed on the same level. Throughout
the R-cor the Italian PM often makes comparisons with Germany, evaluating this
country partly as a model to emulate, partly as a challenging ally with whom
Italy can nevertheless engage in a sound competition. The word “mediazione”
(mediation) reveals the internal tensions among the many wings of MR’s
coalitions, together with the contrasts emerging from right-wing conservatives.



modifications to the law. In Italy the same term, civil partnership, is an Anglicism which is
synonym of unione civile, and, since 2016 it regulates SSU thanks to law 76/2016 regulating civil
unions between same-sex people and cohabiting couples. The latter, in Italian “convivenza di
fatto” or “unione di fatto” regulates unions between opposite-sex people (before 2016 no SSU
was recognized in Italy).
10
   The German law is a good point of mediation and allows us to grant civil rights to same-sex
people.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                             A101



      The query “person* che” is a dependent relative noun-phrase, occurring
only in the plural form and with vague referents intended to construct the
ideational meta-function. In this case there is no specific lexicalization as SSU
are not designated with precise referents of the real world. This vagueness, on
the one hand, does not constrain SSU in any categorization, thus allowing fuzzy-
bordered subjects the expression of multifarious possibilities of being.
Subsequently, this might resonate with a Queer mind-set. On the other hand, the
same vagueness entails such a neutrality that negative or positive messages can
be attached to the social group depending on the case, without any risk of losing
face. Since this term is a dependent noun-phrase, this means that to make sense
it needs to be accompanied by some form of predicate. Looking at the predicates,
the first one refers to the behavioural process of loving each other, i.e., “persone
che si amano” (people who love each other). According to Dedaić (2006) an
appeal to emotions and to loving feelings when speaking in public is aimed to
induce pathos, which, in this case, serves to mitigate rational ideological
oppositions. Simultaneously, reference to feelings enhances common ground and
consensus among the audience by creating temporary emotional
interconnections. However, when looking at the extended concordance, it can be
noted that the feeling of love comes imprecisely from two subjects whose
harmless loving relation is covertly questioned by a rhetorical question.

         (2) L’ho fatto perché è giusto, due persone che si amano che paura possono
         fare?11

The apparently genuine question that should encourage to accept same-sex
couples conversely positions the latter as people who are different from “the
norm”. This evokes uncertainty, ambiguity, fear, confirmation-seeking, and it
reveals the lack of knowledge on SSU beyond heteronormativity. The othering
effect (Coupland 2010) created by the contraposition between the PM and the
out-group is visible in the syntactic construction. Firstly, the use of impersonal
“è giusto” (it is right) marks a strong modality and the completion of one’s duty,
positing the fairness of the act as an external obligation dictated by
circumstances, and not directly involving personal and political beliefs.
Secondly, the opposition of the implied personal pronouns stands out: first
person singular is used by MR to differentiate himself from third person plural
pronoun, i.e., the out-group. The emphasis on a different kind of love whose
effects should cause no harm to others is expressed through the final rhetorical
question that appears anything but rhetorical. Indeed, it hints at the oddness and
otherness of same-sex couples. The other predicate refers to the recognition of
rights, i.e., “persone che si vedono riconosciuti diritti” (people who see their
rights recognized). In this case the force of the predicate gradually dissolves as
the reflexive verb-form “vedersi” has a passive meaning, which is further
reinforced in the past participle “riconosciuti”. The action basically does not
reverberate on the indirectly implied subjects, i.e., SSU; rather, it is neutralized
and performed by an external entity evoking a sense of beneficialization. In this


11
     I did it because it’s right, two people who love each other, how can they be scary?
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A102                                                                              SANTONOCITO



case, the vaguely defined “persone” benefits from having their rights recognized
with action attribution being de-emphasized by the transitivity structure.
    Although not constituting a specific case of lexicalization, the query “person*
car*” (loving person), indirectly addresses SSU and entails interpersonal meta-
function that positions the speaker’s point of view in direct involvement and
solidarity with the matter. In addition, the personal touch of this utterance is
reinforced by a memory.

       (3) Ma a me piace pensare semplicemente a qualche persona cara che oggi
       si sente parte di una nuova stagione di diritti. E io aggiungo di doveri. E mi
       piace ricordare chi non è più con noi, per esempio Alessia. E questo mi
       basta.12

This excerpt exemplifies a number of controversial aspects at stake when
referring to SSU in the R-cor. On the one hand, the indefinite adjective “qualche”
(some), whose presence might be also motivated by the conversational tone of
politicians (Demata 2018), communicates vagueness and lack of interest in
specifying who should be the beneficiaries of this new season of rights. On the
other hand, the distancing effect created by this vague quantifier is mitigated by
the personal memory of Alessia, whose identity is not explicitly mentioned. Only
through intertextual and inter-modal inferences we discover that Alessia
metonymically refers to the LGBT* community, being the only indirect reference
in the whole R-cor to a LGBT* person. In fact, cross-referencing with the visual
mode helps to connect the name Alessia to the LGBT* activist Alessia Ballini,
thanks to a picture of her that is shown on a screen during MR’s speech. The
personal narrative on Alessia, although it can potentially create common ground
and plausibility for the speaker (Labov and Watelsky 1967), refrains from
constructing any detail on the subject. So, despite the explicit nomination of the
individual (limited to her first name), at the textual level indetermination
prevails.
    Further, the query “chi” (who) is not a real case of specific lexicalization as
the ideational meta-function of this indefinite relative pronoun designates SSU
as undetermined individuals. The result of such indetermination anonymises
SSU, as if their personal identities were irrelevant to the discussion. Moreover,
the indefinite pronoun in nominal function is accompanied by epistemic verbs
such as, “non sa” (doesn’t know), “si sente riconosciuto” (feels recognized) that
preclude the subjects from any concrete action, and by other verbal constructions
pointing to marginalization and silenced practices, such as “ha nascosto” (has
hidden). In contrast, some predicates refer to celebrative actions, namely
“festeggiare” (celebrate) and “non stare più nella pelle” (be beside oneself with
joy). It must be noted that these occurrences are part of speeches delivered after
legal recognition of SSU. The excerpt below is taken from an official declaration
delivered after civil unions became law:



12
   But I’d like to think simply of some loving person who today feels part of a new season of
rights. And I add, duties. And I’d like to remember someone who is no longer with us, for example
Alessia. And this is enough for me.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                               A103


      (4) È un giorno di festa per tanti, oggi. Per chi si sente finalmente
      riconosciuto. Per chi vede dopo anni che gli vengono restituiti diritti
      talmente civili da non aver bisogno di altri aggettivi.13

The repetition of the noun-phrase “per chi” (for those) presents the
contraposition between past denial and present recognition, further marked by
the time expressions “finalmente” (finally), and “dopo anni” (after years). It must
be noted that recognition of SSU is defined simply as a civil right, and no other
forms of evaluation are attached. The lack of any adjectives can be interpreted
as an honest commitment to this matter, but it may well be part of a neutralizing
strategy in order to avoid any qualifier for SSU, which could prompt criticism
from both supporters and opponents. In addition, apart from the indefinite “chi”,
a similar pronoun with undetermined reference is “tanti” (many). Noted in this
case also, SSU are not referred to as individuals worthy of distinct relevance;
rather, they are assimilated into an undistinguished group that remains distant
and different from PM’s occupations.

5.2. SSU in the British speeches

In table 2 the SketchEngine queries are listed on the left-hand side, while their
different forms are listed on the right-hand side with the number of occurrences
in squared brackets. The wild card “*” is used when it is necessary to search for
singular and plural forms, e.g., “couple/couples”.

        Table 2. SSU in the C-cor
 SketchEngine Queries                          Occurrences
 Gay couple*                                   Gay couple [1]

 Same sex couple*                       Same-sex couple [2]
                                        Same-sex couples [3]
 Same sex married couple*               Same-sex married couples [2]
 Same sex couple* in civil partnership* Same-sex couples in civil partnerships [1]
 People                                 People [3]
 Men and men                            Men and men [3]
 Women and women                        Women and women [3]


At the intra-textual level there is a moderate presence of referential strategies to
name individuals directly involved in the construction of SSU. In the C-cor these
are mentioned only as social subjects with minimum level of lexical variation, as
testified to by the synonymic forms “gay couple*” and “same-sex couple*”. There
is also reference to their civic status, which from 2004 to 2013 could only be
“same-sex couple* in civil partnerships”, while now it is enlarged to “same-sex
married couple*”. Similarly to the R-cor, vague expressions such as “people”,
“men and men”, “women and women” are present, although these involve
different discursive strategies.


13
  It is a day of celebration for many, today. For those who finally feel recognized. For those who
see after years that they are given such civil rights that these do not need other adjectives.
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A104                                                                              SANTONOCITO



     The query “gay couple*” occurs only once in its plural form. Although in the
English language the term “gay” has become a hyperonym encompassing a
general discourse of sexual and gender liberation (Milani 2015), in this case the
low presence of this expression does not seem to adhere to a Queer fashion,
which however leans towards masculine predominance. Rather, the choice of
not over-using the term “gay couple” might be encompassed within a national
language policy campaign led by activist groups such as Stonewall, which
advocated for greater inclusivity.14. So, instead of over-reliance on the
markedness of the term “gay couple” (Jones et al. 2017), the more inclusive
preference is for “same-sex couple”. Notwithstanding the inclination to
inclusivity, in this case the expression is contrasted with heterosexual couples.
Therefore, its presence highlights the interpersonal meta-function that opposes
the pairs heterosexual couple vs. gay couple, betraying the perception of the
deviant nature of gay people, usually opposed to straight people (Turner et al.
2018). This usage seems to persist notwithstanding the fact that the
terminological opposition gay/straight has long been discouraged in inclusive
language forms (Baker 2005). In the case below, although the link is not overt,
it can still be noted:

         (5) And it’s really saying, if you’re going to get, to have a civil marriage, you
         can have a civil marriage as a heterosexual couple or a civil marriage as a
         gay couple.

In (5) opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples appear to be contrasted to
highlight the liberal and democratic commitment of DC and his party, but with
no intent to give action to the epistemic reality of the two kinds of couples,
collectivized and perceived as static subjects. So, in this case, when referring to
marriage, be it same- or opposite-sex, the emphasis remains strictly on the
judicial matter. The opposition “heterosexual couple” / “gay couple” signals the
afore-mentioned heteronormative dualism that recurs throughout both corpora.
However, although “gay couple*” is not the most inclusive choice, it must be
noted that an even more pejorative option is absent from the C-cor, namely,
“homosexual couple*”. This absence might be motivated by the derogatory
connotation of “homosexual”, which in British English has medicalized
references, as discussed at length inside and outside academia (ibid.: 3).
    “Same sex couple*” has four occurrences, two in the singular form and two
in the plural form. As discussed above, if compared with the synonymic
expression “gay couple”, its higher presence is motivated by the deeper cultural
and sociological discussion for more inclusive forms that has also permeated the
political debate. The following excerpt shows how interpersonal meta-function
is enacted through DC’s intent to create a stance whereby framing same-sex
marriage within the core points of his party:

         (6) I think that the Equal Marriage Bill is about extending marriage to same
         sex couples.



14
     https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/rshe-march2022_-_final_edited_pdf.pdf
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                      A105



In this case SSU are genericized since their struggle is decentralized to give space
to the concession of a benefit, enacted by the PM himself. Moreover, although
“same sex couple” is considered an inclusive choice by many academics (Turner
et al. 2018; Paterson and Coffey-Glover 2018), the same scholars recognize that
a Queer perspective unveils the introduction of same-sex marriage by a British
Conservative government as an attempt to assimilate SSU to heteronormative
ideals, and, simultaneously, as an endeavour by a patriarchal government to
sanitize SSU.
     As for the phrases “same sex married couple*” and “same sex couple* in civil
partnership*”, these ease the construction of the ideational meta-function since
they indicate the possibility for both civil statuses. However, close scrutiny of
the following passage reveals the prominence given to the dominant group:

      (7) The policy benefits married couples, including same sex married couples
      and civil partners where one is a basic rate taxpayer.

As a matter of fact, “married couples” refers to the normalised commonplace that
a couple is formed by two opposite-sex people. Married opposite-sex couples are
thus considered the norm, from which same-sex marriage departs. Even when
envisaged in the legislation under scrutiny, the abnormality of SSU must be
specified. This signals that same-sex marriages, although available for British
citizens, are different and have to be identified as such from the dominant
common-sense understandings of a “married couple”. Indeed, the former are in
continuous need of specification and explanation, as if their existence required
justification.
     The query “people” features the ideational meta-function for it aids in the
social construction of SSU. The employment of such a vague designation to
represent SSU seems a reasonable and neutral choice at the identity level,
because the focus rests on the social actors, who are presented primarily as
people (and the rest comes after); however, the risk is that such social actors
become considered as self-standing entities. Indeed, the latter are not given any
additional qualitative or predicative support. On the contrary, as can be seen in
the following excerpt, “people” are portrayed as receivers/beneficiaries of the
action:

      (8) The LGBT+ rights movement […] has campaigned for decency, respect
      and equal treatment; and underlying it all were simple demands: that people
      should be able to love and live equally with someone of the same sex, that
      people should be respected and valued for who they are.

In excerpt (8) modality plays a pivotal role in conveying subjective logical
necessity. In fact, the information is presented as if the speaker were personally
interested in and committed to achieving respect and equality. But this epistemic
necessity (“should”) clashes with the absence of the speaker, i.e., DC, who is not
the subject of (8). In addition, looking at the predicates of “people”, in the first
case, agency is activated in the behavioural process of being able to love, while
in the second case, the bestowed action is passively beneficialized by a third
party that remains unknown. Excerpt (8) shows that, even if the vague reference

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A106                                                                      SANTONOCITO



to “people” can be Queerly interpreted as an inclusive choice allowing for non-
static categorizations, the fact that the speaker totally detaches himself from the
supposedly praiseworthy affirmation betrays distance.
     The query “men and men” / “women and women” enacts the ideational
meta-function. The two phrases are not a form of specific lexicalization but their
presence is key to understanding how SSU are categorized within the
oppositional pair of men/women. This categorization recalls the
heteronormative convention of assimilating sexual and gender practices into
rigid identity categories. Moreover, these two expressions occur only in the
plural form, pointing also to assimilation which does not place any value on
individuals, and, in this case, connotes promiscuity. This echoes previous studies
(Baker 2005; Bachmann 2011) on the negative construction of SSU as unable to
maintain stable and monogamous relationships, thus considered unreliable and
less committed.

       (9) For the first time, the couples getting married won’t just include men
       and women but men and men, and women and women.

In the above excerpt the sequencing of the utterance marks the categorization of
the social actors, together with the male primacy. In addition, since this phrase
has three occurrences in the C-cor, double-checking reveals that male priority
occurs three times out of three, meaning that there is no gender pair-terms
alternation.


6. Discussion

Addressing MRQ, Queer-minded approaches can be complemented with the
traditional combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, provided that
researchers do not take any aspect for granted, and integrate the different
discursive and socio-semiotics dimensions (Fairclough 1995; van Leeuwen 2008;
Wodak 2009) according to the topic and context analysed. Agreeing with Koller
(2019) and Motschenbacher (2010), the combination of C/QDS and corpus
search suits the present study in that it does not merely document linguistic and
discursive aspects of fixed sex and gender categories; on the contrary, it makes
hetero-normative discourses explicit through textually verifiable data. Rather
than complying with academic tribalism on the irreducibility of quantitative and
qualitative oppositions (Marchi and Taylor 2018), corpus use informs this study
in the sense that the presence or the absence of textual data is taken as empirical
evidence to guide qualitative generalizability (Partington and Marchi 2015) and
problematization of monolithic stances.
     SRQ considers the different elements borrowed from C/QDS. The process of
how meta-functions create contextually-derived meanings from discursive
constructions and from lexicalization is shown in the following tables.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                             A107



        Table 3. Communicative resources to present SSU in the R-cor
 R-cor
 Query             Meta-             Discursive                   Lexicalization
                   function          construction
 Person* dello     ideational        Avoidance/                   Underlexicalization/
 stesso sesso                        euphemism                    Hypercorrection
 Person* che       ideational        Othering/                    Underlexicalization
                                     beneficialization
 Person* car*      interpersonal     Indetermination/             Underlexicalization
                                     vagueness
 chi               interpersonal     Indetermination/             Underlexicalization
                                     assimilation

        Table 4. Communicative Resources to present SSU in the C-cor
 C-cor
 Query                      Meta-              Discursive                 Lexicalization
                            function           construction
 Gay couple*                Interpersonal      Collectivization           Lexicalization
 Same-sex couple*           Interpersonal      Genericization             Lexicalization
 Same-sex married           Ideational         Differentiation            Lexicalization
 couple* /
 Same-sex couple* in
 civil partnerships
 People                     Ideational         Beneficialization /        Underlexicalization
                                               Passivization
 Men and men /              Ideational         Categorization /           Underlexicalization
 women and women                               Assimilation

From tables 3 and 4 it can be noted that in both corpora the textual meta-
function is absent, meaning there is no organization on the structuring of the
message that presents SSU. In the R-cor the ideational meta-function tends to
avoid or to leave behind SSU via othering and beneficialization. The latter
happens also in the C-cor with “people”, testifying to the exclusionary practice
of backgrounding agency for SSU. Coming back to the Italian case, interpersonal
meta-function seems to enact social relations coherently with the vague
constructions derived from the ideational meta-function, that is, undetermined
stances and relationships. The R-cor displays this negotiation of relationships
(i.e., interpersonal meta-function) treating SSU as collectivized identities and
generic quantifications. The ideational meta-function constructs SSU as different,
or passive beneficiaries, or part of an undistinguished group subject to
polarizations. Overall, it can be noted that excluding and polarized presentations
of SSU deliver an imprecise construction of the agents, whereby logical
connections with reality appear almost unfeasible. Therefore, it is no surprise
that textual meta-function is not even activated in both cases.
     As for lexicalization, its ideological significance for SSU comes to the fore
when we acknowledge that in both corpora there is no high productivity of
specific lexical patterns to refer to SSU. For specific lexical items we intend those
prompting interdiscursive reference with the domain of gender and sexuality.
This means that the provision of terms to explain the concept of SSU is rather

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A108                                                                  SANTONOCITO



minimum in both corpora. The only specific lexicalization in the R-cor is
“persone dello stesso sesso”, signalled as a case of hypercorrection and linguistic
insecurity. Therefore, the R-cor leans towards underlexicalization for its lack of
specific terms to present SSU. This posits a number of problems for the linguistic
community, including the PM, who, when encouraged to use inclusive language,
resorts to avoidance, imprecise euphemisms and indeterminate words. On a
broader discursive level, such awkwardness and reticence make SSU
undervalued and unknown. It follows that there is a prevalent tendency to avoid
overt institutional talking about them. The C-cor presents greater lexicalization
with more explicit reference to the domain of gender and sexuality. However,
we cannot refer to overlexicalization. The range of lexicalization could indicate
a moderate variety within jargons and slangs of the dominant group, together
with a degree of creativity to encode specific events or experiences. In this case,
the moderate quantity of terms to refer to SSU reflects the interest and
consideration the British-English community has put into the specific discursive
construction of SSU. Although the overall picture may signal the C-cor as the
most lexically inclusive to refer to SSU, heteronormative discursive conventions
– i.e., male primacy, vague words and assimilation through the use of the plural
“men and men” – betray the permanence of strict monolithic classifications and
patriarchal ideologies.
     The low level of lexicalization noted in both corpora is accompanied by
generic use of terms referring to SSU. In this respect, both the R-cor and the C-
cor share the use of superordinates like “people” / “persone” to designate SSU.
In both cases we point to relexicalization since the most common meaning of
“people” / “persone” (“human beings making up a group” for the English
language15; “individui della specie umana, senza distinzione di sesso, età,
condizione sociale e sim.” for the Italian language16) is backgrounded for the
sake of an alternative concept describing a specific entity perceived as new or
different. The main differences consist in the fact that in the C-cor “people”
designates SSU as a self-standing entity, while in the R-cor “persone” depends
upon predicative constructions. The common point is that in both corpora the
lexemes “people” / “persone” tend to construct SSU as subaltern out-groups,
passive receivers or beneficiaries of patriarchal largesse.
     Recalling the Queer fashion, we can affirm that lexicalization is
unsystematic, despite the formal rigour in the Discourse of PMs. A lack of stable
conceptualization for terms related to the domain of gender and sexuality seems
legitimate not only for the patriarchal biases but also because of the high
fluctuation of these concepts and identities that escape fixation. Therefore, even
if underlexicalization might be part of the process of terminological formations
in the domain of gender and sexuality, it surely highlights reticence,
unfamiliarity and a constrained concept of inclusiveness. However, such vague
and incomplete lexicalization has nonetheless provided a contextually informed
detection of discursive strategies, polarized structures, and social action
attributions.


15
     https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people
16
     https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/persona/
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                  A109



    Considering the Queering intent that allows for the possibility of changing
perspectives, lexis, and discourses – notwithstanding the constrained and
ideology-laden Discourse of PMs – we agree with Fowler (1985) that views can
be reformulated and brought forward in previously unthought-of way. Drawing
on Giddens (1991), we also argue that a “reflexive construction of the self” (ibid.:
32) can dismantle divisive discursive practices through the creation of new
possibilities to articulate meaning. Part of this reformulation starts from different
linguistic and discursive representations that can be enhanced from lexical
micro-level to discursive macro-level with the intent of transforming such
misconceived representations. As for the case of labels and terms in the language
of PMs, these seem to vary according to precise contexts but also arising from
individuals’ thoughtful choices. In Chilton’s (2008) words, “the phenomenon of
lexical meaning occurs both in the mind and in the mind-in society” since
“individuals contest concepts in the public arena, such concepts vary across
society and across time, […] they may be part of or have an influence on political
action” (ibid.: 239).
    Having verified the awkwardness and constraint in presenting SSU, we want
to challenge the biased notion of inclusiveness that is forcedly heralded in
various institutional contexts. We have further shown that the current notion of
inclusiveness has revealed its numerous fallacies by enacting avoidance, erasure,
passivization and other discursive strategies that can be summarized under the
over-arching phenomenon of misrepresentation. For this reason, we argue for
the gradual substitution of this hetero-normative inclusiveness with a Discourse
of co-existence. In such co-existence, centuries-old discourses of normative
righteousness blend in with new practices that view non-normalized realities, for
instance SSU, as fully-entitled social actors that are firmly lexicalized and able
to express their experiences, relations and messages via different communicative
resources.


7. Concluding remarks

In order to examine the communicative resources enacted at the discursive and
linguistic levels to present SSU (SRQ) this study adopted hybrid methods that
provided a variety of Queer and Critical frameworks informed by corpus tools to
analyse data from multiple perspectives (MRQ). Therefore, notwithstanding the
fervent criticism for C/QDS lack of empirical applicability and relevance, we
contributed to the view that Queer perspectives can be combined with tools
traditionally allocated to the realm of quantification.
    The results showed that the enactment of the socio-semiotic meta-functions
reveals clumsiness in presenting SSU. The various discursive constructions point
to avoidance, vagueness and polarization to different degrees, whereas
lexicalization is low, constrained and unsystematic.
    While we can argue the extent to which SSU are inclusively represented by
PMs and political institutions at large, it is indisputably the case that the current
period is pervaded by discourses about diversity and inclusivity, prompted
especially by bottom-up advocacy. Therefore, this growing awareness cannot be

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A110                                                                   SANTONOCITO



ignored even among the most heteronormative standpoints. As hard it might
seem to disagree with diversity, the discourses of PMs still need to be grounded
in better understanding of how to address SSU in order to appreciate this
multifarious reality, and to spread a more authentic message.
     This study brought to the surface the persistence of institutionalized
heteronormativity. While there is still much to do, the hope is that,
notwithstanding ongoing discrimination and sexism, studies like this can inspire
further research and contribute to social change. Relatedly, bringing together
Giddens’ (1991) post-modern reflexivity and Queer challenges to binarism,
future prospects may include contributions to linguistic and discursive
reformulations that do not bring forward a normative inclusivity, but instead the
creation of co-existing linguistic and discursive practices where non-normalized
individuals can inhabit with traditional models.
     Due to its topicality and to the multi-angled methodology, this study faces a
series of inevitable challenges. Some can object to the combination of Queer
theory for the investigation of the legal recognition of SSU, since this process can
be viewed as homonormative institutionalization of a practice which should
escape any constraining encaging. Nonetheless, here the legal recognition of SSU
is viewed as a breach in the core values of heteronormative societies. Siding with
Critical scholars (Fairclough 1992; Wodak 2001) we maintain that when
ideological clashes and contrapositions abound, ongoing turmoil and resistance
to change begin. Despite the seemingly irreconcilable positions, the legal
recognition of SSU – be it in the form of a marriage or a civil union – is not the
end of the journey. Quite the contrary, in a C/QDS fashion this is a starting point
for a broader process of dismantling dichotomy-driven views that currently
dictate the few possibilities of how to be a woman or a man.


REFERENCES

Abbamonte, L. (2019) “The 2019 State of the Union Address – Trump’s
       presidential rhetoric vs fact check in our poly-cross-media environment”,
       paper presented at 5th Estidia Conference (Naples, 19th-21st Sept. 2019).
------ (2018) ‘Black Lives Matter’: Cross-Media Resonance and the Iconic Turn of
       Language, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Althusser, L. (1970) Essays on Ideology, London: Verso.
Atkinson E. and De Palma R. (2009) “Un‐believing the matrix: queering
       consensual heteronormativity”, Gender and Education, 21(1): 17-29, DOI:
       10.1080/09540250802213149.
Atkinson, M. (1984) Our Masters’ Voices, London: Routledge.
Bachmann, I. (2011) “Civil partnership – ‘gay marriage in all but name’. A
       corpus-driven analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK
       Parliament”, Corpora 6(1): 77-105.
Baker, P. (2018). “Language, sexuality and corpus linguistics: Concerns and
       future directions”, Journal of Language and Sexuality 7(2),263-279.
------ (2014) Using corpora to analyse gender, London: Bloomsbury.
------ (2005) Public Discourses of Gay Men, London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                   A111



Balirano, G and Hughes, B. (2020) “Introduction”, in Balirano, G. and Hughes,
       B. (eds) Homing in on HATE: Critical Discourse Studies of Hate Speech,
       Discrimination and Inequality in the Digital Age, Napoli: Loffredo Editore, V-
       XIV.
Bucci, W. and Baxter M. (1984) "Problems of Linguistic Insecurity in
       Multicultural Speech Contexts", Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
       433: 185-200.
Butler, J. (2008) “Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Times”, The British Journal
       of     Sociology       59(1):       1-23.       https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
       4446.2007.00176.x.
------ (1993) Bodies that Matter. On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’, London:
       Routledge.
------ (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London:
       Routledge.
Cameron, D. and Kulick, D. (2003) Language and Sexuality, Cambridge:
       Cambridge University Press.
Cavaliere, F. (2012) The Shaping of the News. How Information can be Molded by
       the Press, Roma: La Nuova Cultura.
Chilton, P. (2008) “Political terminology”, in Wodak, R. and Koller, V. (eds)
       Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter
       Mouton, 225-242.
Coupland, N. (2010) “Other” representation, in Jaspers, J., Östman, J. and
       Verschueren, J. (eds) Society and language use, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
       241-260.
Crenshaw, K. (1991) “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics,
       and Violence against Women of Color”, Stanford Law Review 43(6), 1241-
       1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039.
Dedaić, M. N. (2006) “Political Speeches and Persuasive Argumentation”, in
       Brown K. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics, vol. 9, Amsterdam;
       Oxford: Elsevier, 700-707.
Demata, M. (2018) “’I think that Maybe I Wouldn’t be Here if it Wasn’t for
       Twitter.’ Donald Trump’s Populist Style on Twitter”, Textus 31(1): 67-90.
Derks, M. and van den Berg, M. (2020) “Public Discourses About Homosexuality
       and Religion in Europe and Beyond: An Introduction”, in Derks, M. and van
       den Berg, M. (eds) Public Discourses About Homosexuality and Religion in
       Europe and Beyond, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-20.
Derrida, J. (1976) Of Grammatology, Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University
       Press.
Donà, A. (2021) “Somewhere over the rainbow: Italy and the regulation of same-
       sex unions”, Modern Italy 26(3): 261-274 doi:10.1017/mit.2021.28
------ (2009) “From Pacs to Didore: Why are Civil Partnerships Such a Divisive
       Issue in Italian Politics?”, Bulletin of Italian Politics 1(2): 333-46.
Edelman M. (1977) Political language. Words that succeed and policies that fail,
       New York: Academic Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language,
       London; New York: Longman.
------ (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A112                                                                   SANTONOCITO



Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) “Critical Discourse Analysis”, in van Dijk,
       T. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage, 258-284.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writing 1972-
       1977, New York: Pantheon Books.
------ (1978) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York NY:
       Penguin.
------ (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language.
       New York: Pantheon.
Fowler, R. (1985) “Power”, in van Dijk, T. (ed.) Handbook of discourse analysis:
       discourse analysis in society, London: Academic Press, 61-82.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979) Language and control,
       London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward
       Arnold.
------ (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and
       Meaning, London: Edward Arnold.
Heritage, F. and Baker, P. (2021) “Crime or culture? Representations of chemsex
       in the British press and magazines aimed at GBTQ+ men”, Critical Discourse
       Studies, DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2021.1910052
Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J. and O’Halloran, K. (2016) Introducing Multimodality,
       London: Routledge.
Jones, L., Mills, S., Paterson, L. L., Turner, G., & Coffey-Glover, L. (2017)
       “Identity and naming practices in British marriage and civil partnerships”,
       Gender and Language 11(3): 309-335. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.27916
Jørgensen, M. and Phillips, L. (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method,
       London: Sage.
KhosraviNik, M. and Unger, J. (2016) “Critical Discourse Studies and Social
       Media: Power, Resistance and Critique in Changing Media Ecologies”, in
       Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, London:
       Sage, 3rd edition, 206-233.
Koester, A. (2006) Investigating Workplace Discourse, London: Routledge.
Koller, V. (2019) “Critical Discourse Studies of Language and Sexuality”, in Hall,
       K. and Barrett, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Sexuality,
       Oxford      Handbooks       Online:     Oxford    University    Press.   DOI:
       10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190212926.013.5
Kollman, K. (2009) “European institutions, transnational netwirks and national
       same-sex union policy: when soft law hits harder”, Contemporary politics 15
       (1): 37-53.
Krendel, A. (2020) “The men and women, guys and girls of the ‘manosphere’: A
       corpus-assisted discourse approach”, Discourse and Society 31(6): 607-630.
       doi:10.1177/0957926520939690
Labov, W. (1966) "Hypercorrection by the Lower Middle Class as a Factor in
       Linguistic Change", in Bright, W. (ed) Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the
       UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, The Hague: Mouton, 84-113.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                  A113



Labov, W. and Watelsky, J. (1967) “Narrative analysis: oral versions of personal
        experience”, in Helms, J. (ed) Essays on the verbal and visual arts, Seattle:
        University of Washington Press,12-44.
Lakoff, R. (1973) “Language and woman’s place”, Language in Society 2(1): 45–
        80.
Lasio, D. and Serri, F. (2019) “The Italian public debate on same-sex civil unions
        and gay and lesbian parenting”, Sexualities 22(4): 691-709.
Lazar, M. M. (ed.) (2005) Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and
        Ideology in Discourse, London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Leap, W. (2015) “Queer Linguistics as Critical Discourse Analysis” in Tannen, D.,
        Hamilton, H. and Schiffrin, D. (eds) The handbook of discourse analysis,
        Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons, 2nd edition, 661-680.
Love, R. and Baker, P. (2015) “The hate that dare not speak its name?”, Journal
        of Language Aggression and Conflict 3(1): 57-86.
Makkonen, T. (2002) “Multiple, Compound and Intersectional Discrimination –
        Bringing Experiences of the Most Disadvantaged to the Fore”, Institute for
        Human               Rights          Research            Reports          11:
        (http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/norfa/timo.pdf).
Marchi, A. and Taylor, C. (2018) “Introduction: Partiality and Reflexivity”, in
        Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical
        Review, Oxford: Routledge,1-15.
------ (2009) “If on a winter’s night two researchers ... A challenge to assumptions
        of soundness of interpretation”, CADAAD 3(1): 1-20.
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. (2012) Corpus Linguistics Method, Theory and Practice,
        Cambridge; New York: Cambridge UP.
Milani, T. (2018) “Queering Language, Gender and Sexuality: Theory and
        Practice”, in Milani, T. (ed) Queering Language, Gender and Sexuality,
        London: Equinox, 1-12.
------ (2015) “Language, Gender and Sexuality in South Africa”, Stellenbosch
        Papers in Linguistics Plus 46: i.
------ (2013) “Are ‘queers’ really ‘queer’? Language, identity and same-sex desire
        in a South African online community”, Discourse and Society 24 (5): 615-
        633.
Motschenbacher, H. (2019) “Discursive shifts associated with coming out: A
        corpus-based analysis of news reports about Ricky Martin”, Journal of
        Sociolinguistics 23(3): 284-302. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12343
------ (2018) “Corpus linguistics in language and sexuality studies: Taking stock
        and looking ahead”, Journal of Language and Sexuality 7(2): 145-174. Doi:
        https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.17019.mot
------ (2011) “Taking Queer Linguistics further: Sociolinguistics and critical
        heteronormativity research”, International Journal of the Sociology and
        Language, 212: 149-179.
------ (2010) Language, Gender and Sexual Identity: Poststructuralist Perspectives,
        Amsterdam         and       Philadelphia:     John       Benjamins.     Doi:
        https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.29
Partington, A. (2006) “Metaphors, motifs and similes across discourse types:
        Corpus- assisted discourse studies (CADS) at work”, in Stefanowitsch, A.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
A114                                                                    SANTONOCITO



       and Gries, S. (eds) Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy,
       Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 267-304.
------ (2004) “‘Utterly content in each other’s company’: semantic prosody and
       semantic preference”, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 131-
       56.
Partington, A., and Marchi, A. (2015) “Using corpora in discourse analysis” in
       Biber, D. and Reppen, R. (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus
       Linguistics,   Cambridge:      Cambridge       University  Press,    216-234
       doi:10.1017/CBO9781139764377.013
Paterson, L. and Coffey- Glover, L. (2018) “Discourses of marriage in same- sex
       marriage debates in the UK press 2011– 2014”, Journal of Language and
       Sexuality 7 (2): 175-204.
Paterson, L. and Turner, G. (2019) “Approaches to discourses of marriage”,
       Critical Discourse Studies DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2019.1657030.
Pêcheux, M. (1982) Language, Semantics and Ideology, London: Macmillan.
Schröter, M. and Taylor, C. (eds.) (2018) Exploring silence and absence in discourse:
       Empirical approaches, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus Concordance Collocation, Oxford: Oxford University
       Press.
Sundaram, V. and Sauntson, H. (2016) “Discursive silences: using critical
       linguistic and qualitative analysis to explore the continued absence of
       pleasure in sex and relationships education in England”, Sex Education
       16(3): 240-254, DOI: 10.1080/14681811.2015.1058771
Turner, G., Mills, S., van der Bom, I., Coffey-Glover, L., Paterson, L. and Jones,
       L. (2018) “Opposition as victimhood in newspaper debates about same-sex
       marriage”, Discourse and Society 29(2): 180-197.
van der Bom, I., Coffey-Glover, L., Jones, L., Mills, S. and Paterson, L. (2015)
       “Implicit homophobic argument structure: Equal-marriage discourse in The
       Moral Maze”, Journal of Language and Sexuality 4 (1): 102-137.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006) “Politics, ideology, and discourse”, in Brown, K. (ed) The
       Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 9 Oxford; New York: Pergamon
       Press, 728-740.
------ (1998) Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach, London: Sage.
------ (1995) “Ideological Discourse Analysis”, in Ventola, E. and Solin, A. (eds.)
       New Courant. Interdisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Analysis, 4:135-161.
van Leeuwen, T. (2008) Discourse and Practice, Oxford: OUP.
------ (1996) “The representation of social actors”, in Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and
       Coulthard, M. (eds) Texts and Practices, London and New York: Routledge,
       32-70.
Vessey, R. (2013) “Challenges in cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse
       studies”, Corpora 8(1): 1-26.
Vigo, F. (2015) “And what about same sex marriages? A corpus-based analysis
       of lexical choices and social attitudes”, in Balirano, G. and Nisco, M. C.
       (eds) Languaging Diversity. Identities, Genres, Discourses, Newcastle Upon
       Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 197-210.
Wagenknecht, P. (2007) “Was ist Heteronormativitat? Zu Geschichte und Gehalt
       des Begriffs”, in Hartmann, J., Klesse, C., Wagenknecht, P., Fritzsche, B.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
QUEERING COLLECTIVE IDENTITIES                                                A115



       and Hackmann, H. (eds) Heteronormativitat. Empirische Studien zu
       Geschlecht, Sexualitat und Macht, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur
       Sozialwissenschaften,17-34.
Weiss, M. (2013) “Prejudice Before Pride: Rise of an Anticipatory
       Countermovement”, in Weiss, M. and Bosia, M. (eds) Global Homophobia,
       Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 149-73.
Wilson, J. (2001) “Political Discourse”, in Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton,
       H. (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell, 399-415.
Winkler, M. (2017) “Italy’s Gentle Revolution: The New Law on Same-Sex
       Partnerships” The Digest. National Italian American Bar Association Law
       Journal 25: 1-31.
------ (2016) “At Long Last, Italy Moves to Comply with European Human Rights
       Imperative to Recognize Same-Sex Partners”, LGBT Law Notes
       https://www.academia.edu/26095488/At_Long_Last_Italy_Moves_to_Comp
       ly_with_European_Human_Rights_Imperative_to_Recognize_Same_Sex_Partn
       ers
Winter, B., Forest, M. and Sénac, R. (2018) “Introduction”, in Winter, B., Forest,
       M. and Sénac, R. (eds) Global Perspectives on Same-Sex Marriage. A Neo-
       Institutional Approach, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 1-18.
Wodak, R. (2009) “Language and Politics”, in Culpeper, J., Kerswill, P., Wodak,
       R., McEnery, A. and Katamba, F. (eds) English Language. Description,
       Variation, Context, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 576-593.
------ (2001) “The discourse-historical approach”, in Wodak, R. and Meyer, M.
       (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage, 63-94.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1974-4382/15515
