Prevalent Discourses in ESC Lyrics

  • Heiko Motschenbacher
Part of the Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse book series (PSDS)


Europeanisation centrally surfaces in the ritualisation of the use of certain concepts in ESC performances throughout the years. The present chapter therefore concentrates on the intertextual dimension of meaning negotiation and materialistion in the contest. The theoretical discussion of intertextuality has to a large extent been advanced outside linguistics (especially in literary studies, drawing on the work of Kristeva and Bakhtin; see e.g. Allen 2000 for a detailed overview), but the insights of these debates have been fruitfully incorporated into poststructuralist -minded linguistic research and critical discourse analysis (see e.g. Fairclough 2003; Solin 2004). One central tenet of this work is that every text is made up of traces of earlier texts—a phenomenon that often is not consciously realised by language users (Busch and Pfisterer 2011: 435). Viewing texts as parts of intertextual networks moves them away from the text-producing individual, seeing them rather as embedded in and discursively shaped by society at large. According to Solin (2004: 271), two basic types of intertextuality can be distinguished: (a) generic intertextuality (i.e. the citing of abstract genre conventions) and (b) referential intertextuality (i.e. the citing of concrete elements from earlier texts). Intertextual links may be observable on the surface of texts (through duplication or similarity of form, as in direct quotations , reported speech or repetition) or operate on deeper semantic levels (through duplication or similarity of the concepts expressed, as in semantic relations and isotopy).


Semantic Category Grammatical Gender Critical Discourse Analysis Semantic Field Keyword Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Anthony, Laurence. 2013. AntConc (Version 3.3.5) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, Dawn. 2009. Does frequency really matter? In What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction, ed. Dawn Archer, 1–15. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, Dawn, Jonathan Culpeper, and Paul Rayson. 2009. Love—‘a familiar or a devil’? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies. In What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction, ed. Dawn Archer, 137–157. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Aston, Elaine. 2013. Competing femininities: A girl for Eurovision. In Performing the ‘New’ Europe: Identities, feelings and politics in the Eurovision Song Contest, ed. Karen Fricker and Milija Gluhovic, 163–177. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, Paul. 2004. Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency, and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2005. Public discourses of gay men. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2010. Will Ms ever be as frequent as Mr? A corpus-based comparison of gendered terms across four diachronic corpora of British English. Gender and Language 4(1): 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Michal Krzyżanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19(3): 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Busch, Brigitta, and Petra Pfisterer. 2011. Interaction and the media. In The Sage handbook of sociolinguistics, ed. Ruth Wodak, Barbara Johnstone, and Paul Kerswill, 428–442. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Charteris-Black, Jonathan, and Clive Seale. 2009. Men and emotion talk. Evidence from the experience of illness. Gender and Language 3(1): 81–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2009. Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dukes, Richard L., Tara M. Bisel, Karoline N. Borega, Eligio A. Lobato, and Matthew D. Owens. 2003. Expressions of love, sex, and hurt in popular songs: A content analysis of all-time greatest hits. Social Science Journal 40(4): 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fairclough, Norman. 2003. Analysing discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Garside, Roger, and Nicholas Smith. 1997. A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora, ed. Roger Garside, Geoffrey N. Leech, and Tony McEnery, 102–121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Kreyer, Rolf. 2012. ‘Love is like a stove—it burns you when it’s hot’: A corpus-linguistic view on the (non-)creative use of love-related metaphors in pop songs. In English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, ed. Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Rayson, and Geoffrey Leech, 103–115. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2015. ‘Funky fresh dressed to impress’: A corpus-linguistic view on gender roles in pop songs. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2): 174–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kreyer, Rolf, and Joybrato Mukherjee. 2007. The style of pop song lyrics. A corpus-linguistic pilot study. Anglia 125(1): 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, Elisabeth D. 1999. ‘I just want to make love to you’—Seductive strategies in blues lyrics. Journal of Pragmatics 31(4): 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson, and Andrew Wilson. 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken English. Based on the British National Corpus. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  24. Mautner, Gerlinde. 2009. Checks and balances. How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA. In Methods of critical discourse analysis, ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 122–143. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Motschenbacher, Heiko. 2012a. ‘I think Houston wants a kiss right?’: Linguistic constructions of heterosexualities at Eurovision Song Contest press conferences. Journal of Language and Sexuality 1(2): 127–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2012b. Negotiating sexual desire at the Eurovision Song Contest. On the verge of homonormativity? In Let’s talk about (texts about) sex. Sex and language, ed. Marietta Calderón and Georg Marko, 287–299. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2013b. ‘Now everybody can wear a skirt’. Linguistic constructions of non-heteronormativity at Eurovision Song Contest press conferences. Discourse & Society 24(5): 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pettijohn, Terry F., and Donald F. Sacco. 2009. The language of lyrics: An analysis of popular billboard songs across conditions of social and economic threat. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28(3): 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillipson, Robert. 2003. English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2008. Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalisation. World Englishes 27(2): 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Potts, Amanda, and Paul Baker. 2012. Does semantic tagging identify cultural change in British and American English? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(3): 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2009. Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Accessed 23 Sept 2015.
  34. Singleton, Brian, Karen Fricker, and Elena Moreo. 2007. Performing the queer network. Fans and families at the Eurovision Song Contest. SQS 2(2): 12–24.Google Scholar
  35. Solin, Anna. 2004. Intertextuality as mediation. On the analysis of intertextual relations in public discourse. Text 24(2): 267–296.Google Scholar
  36. Weigold, Tobias. 2015. Success in English only? Der Einsatz von Sprachen beim ESC. In Eurovision Song Contest: Eine kleine Geschichte zwischen Körper, Geschlecht und Nation, ed. Christine Ehardt, Georg Vogt, and Florian Wagner, 30–45. Wien: Zaglossus.Google Scholar
  37. Werner, Valentin. 2012. Love is all around. A corpus-based study of pop lyrics. Corpora 7(1): 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wodak, Ruth, and Jo Angouri. 2014. From Grexit to Grecovery: Euro/crisis discourses. Discourse & Society 25(4): 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiko Motschenbacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Goethe-University Frankfurt am MainFrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations