Abstract
This study, set in a discourse-analytical and constructionist framework, explores the impact of biomedical advances on language and discourse. The main focus is on surrogacy and on the websites of ten organizations promoting it, with headquarters in various countries where this practice is legal. The discursive representation of the different forms of surrogacy and related Assisted Reproductive Technologies is discussed, focusing in particular on the communicative strategies enacted to deal with the most sensitive and controversial aspects. The analysis provides evidence of an approach that represents surrogacy, the actors and the moral issues involved in absolutely positive terms, and at the same time disregards the most problematic and controversial aspects, making recourse to some recurrent discursive frames. A further aspect investigated is the representation and denomination of the various actors involved, in a context where the spread of new reproductive technologies has introduced the possibility of significantly altering the natural mechanisms presiding over the inception of human life, and has thus triggered a process of lexical innovation and adaptation of the basic vocabulary associated with reproduction and kinship roles.
Funding statement: Research financed by the Italian Ministry for the University (PRIN 2015 no.2015TJ8ZAS).
About the author
Giuliana Elena Garzone is Professor of English Linguistics and Translation at IULM International University of Languages and Media, Milan, Italy, where she is currently Co-ordinator of the Master’s Programme in Specialised Translation and Conference Interpreting. She previously taught at the University of Milan, where she directed the PhD Programme in Linguistic, Literary and Intercultural Studies. Her research interests are mainly in ESP, which she has explored in a discourse analytical perspective, integrating it with corpus linguistics. She has co-ordinated several research projects and published extensively on legal, scientific and business discourse as well as on translation and interpreting. Address for correspondence: Giuliana Elena Garzone, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Libera Università IULM di Lingue e Comunicazione, Via Carlo Bo 1, 20143 MILANO, Italy. E-mail: giuliana.garzone@iulm.it
References
Andrews, Lori B. 1989. Between strangers: Surrogate mothers, expectant fathers, and brave new babies. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar
ASRM. 2007. Financial compensation of oocyte donors. ASRM Ethics Committee Report. Fertility and sterility 88(2)August. 305–309.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.104Search in Google Scholar
Bartel, Lee. 2010. Discursive frame. In Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos & Elden Wiebe (eds.), Ecyclopedia of case study research, vol. 1. 310–312. Thousand Oack, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Berend, ZsuZsa. 2010. Surrogate losses: Understandings of pregnancy loss and assisted reproduction among surrogate mothers. Medical anthropology quarterly 24(2). 240–262.10.1111/j.1548-1387.2010.01099.xSearch in Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610295Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar
Brugger, Kristiana. 2012. International law in the gestationa surrogacy debate. Fordham international law journal 35(3). 664–687.Search in Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, Helena & Teun A. van Dijk. 2004. Popularization Discourse and Knowledge about the Genome. Discourse & Society 15(4). 369–389.10.1177/0957926504043705Search in Google Scholar
Choudury, Cyra Akila 2016. Transnational commercial surrogacy: Contracts, conflicts, and the prospects of international legal regulation. Oxford Handbooks Online. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935352-e-38 (accessed 10 January 2019).10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.38Search in Google Scholar
Corea, Gena. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper & Row.10.1097/00005721-198609000-00014Search in Google Scholar
Davis, Angela. 1993. Outcast mothers and surrogates: Racism and reproductive politics in the nineties. In Linda S. Kaufman (ed.), American feminist thought at century's end: A reader, 355–366. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Dworkin, Andrea. 1983. Right-wing women. New York: Perigee Books.Search in Google Scholar
Entman, Robert. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4). 51–58.10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2014 [1989]. Language and power. London: Longman.10.4324/9781315838250Search in Google Scholar
Field, Martha. 1990. Surrogate motherhood: The legal and human issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674036833Search in Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2017. Persuasive strategies on surrogacy websites: A discourse-analytical and rhetorical study. In Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti & María Ángeles Orts (eds.), Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: Providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities, 101–130. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2018. Evaluative lexis and employer branding in job advertisements on LinkedIn. In Giuliana Garzone & Walter Giordano (eds.), Discourse, communication and the enterprise: Where business meets discourse, 16–48. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Search in Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana & Francesca Santulli. 2004. What can corpus linguistics do for critical discourse analysis? In Alan Partington, John Morley & Louann Haarman (eds.), Corpora and discourse, 351–368. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana & Srikant Sarangi. 2007. Discourse, ideology and specialised communication: A critical introduction. In Giuliana Garzone & Srikant Sarangi (eds.), Discourse, ideology and specialised communication, 9–36. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hardt-Mautner, Gerlinde. 1995. Only connect: Critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics. Technical Papers. Lancaster University.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2012. Selling ART: An empirical assessment of advertising on fertility clincs’ websites. Indiana Law Journal 88. 1147–1179.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobson, Heather. 2016. Labor of love: Gestational surrogacy and the work of making babies. New Bunswick NJ: Rutgers University.10.36019/9780813569529Search in Google Scholar
Kotler, Philip & Kevin Keller. 2015. Marketing management. 15th edn. Harlow: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther R. & Robert Hodge. 1979. Language as ideology. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther R. & Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203619728Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Markens, Susan. 2007. Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520940970Search in Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2017. Oxford University Press. (March 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Pande, Amrita. 2011. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters? Reproductive biomedicine online 23. 618–625.10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.007Search in Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969 [1958]. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation, Transl. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Search in Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan & Margaret Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Powers, James. 2017. Creating a value proposition for geriatric care. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-62271-2Search in Google Scholar
Ragoné, Helena. 1994. Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar
Raymond, Janice. 1993. Women as wombs: Reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom. San Francisco: Harper.Search in Google Scholar
Riggs, Damien & Clemence Due. 2017. Constructions of gay men’s reproductive desires on commercial surrogacy clinic websites. In Miranda Davies (ed.), Babies for sale, transnational surrogacy, human rights and the politics of reproduction, 32–45. London: ZED Books.10.5040/9781350218567.ch-002Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, Elizabeth. 1998. Examining surrogacy discourses between feminine power and exploitation. In Nancy Scheper-Hughes & Carolyn Sargent (eds.), Small wars: The cultural politics of childhood, 93–110. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rothman, Barbara. 2000. Recreating motherhood. 2nd edn. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton (eds.). 2001. Handbook of discourse analysis, Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2012. WordSmith Tools 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Search in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena, Zófia Demjén & Jane Demmen. 2018. An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics 39(5). 625–645.10.1093/applin/amw028Search in Google Scholar
Teman, Elly. 2010. Birthing a mother: The surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/california/9780520259638.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductiv technologies. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
UNO (United Nations Organization). 1990 [1989]. Convention on the rights of the child. https://treaties.un.org (accessed 05 February 2017).Search in Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2). 249–283.10.1177/0957926593004002006Search in Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
van Rees, M. Agnes. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9150-6Search in Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth & Michael Meyer (eds.). 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.10.4135/9780857028020Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
