A comparative discourse analysis of editorials on an international crisis

This dissertation studies the editorial coverage of the invasion of Lebanon by Israel in the summer of 1982. Editorials from four newspapers, Al-Fair, a Palestinian newspaper, An Nahar, Lebanese, The Jerusalem Post, Israeli, and The New York Times, American, are analyzed from a discourse analytical and critical linguistic approach.;The dissertation attempts to analyze a large corpus comparatively. The methodology draws from suggestions by van Dijk (1988) and Fairclough (1989) but is unique in the attempt to do a discourse analysis of a large body of data from different, and competing, sources. The analysis goes though stages, each one building on the findings of the preceeding one.;Arguments are culled from the editorials and then distilled into five themes per set of editorials. Characterizations of the nations involved and the key events of the summer are analyzed and discussed in detail, with special attention paid to metaphor and imagery. One key concept is found to underlie each set of editorials: what is needed to solve the crisis. For the New York Times, it is the need for the United States to take responsibility for the crisis; for The Jersualem Post, the need for security; for Al-Nahar, the need for unity among the Lebanese; and for Al-Fair, the need for self-determination for the Palestinians.;Findings are summarized within each chapter and synthesized in the Conclusion. Although the four sets of editorials reveal a Rashomon-like view of the events of the summer, they agree on fundamental beliefs about roles of nations at war. Linguistic choices provide support for the themes and propositions found to run through the sets of editorials.