Social Media platforms and their participatory dynamic of communication have turned into significant foci of discursive concentrations. On the one hand, the ubiquity and diversity of uses, applications and contexts of these interactive ecologies have facilitated access to invaluable body of bottom-up, social, user-generated communicative content for CDS research (KhosraviNik and Zia 2014, KhosraviNik and Sarkhoh 2017) and on the other hand, they have posed theoretical and analytical challenges in application of classic notions in CDA/CDS e.g. regarding the nature of the data and sampling, dynamic of discursive power, ideology and critique (KhosraviNik 2014). As such, it is high time for CDS to engage with the new media environment both in terms of aspiring to propose empirically-based solutions for issues around adoption of a Social Media Critical Discourse Studies approach (KhosraviNik 2017a, 2017b, KhosraviNik and Unger 2016) as well as topical engagement with relevant discourse analytical case studies. 

The proposed panel brings together an exciting rang of research carried out on a variety of Social Media communication platforms and highlights the impacts of these technologies on the dynamic of discourse production, dissemination and consumption in the society (KhosraviNik 2015). Overall, the panel a. critically engages with theoretical and methodological aspects of doing Social Media CDS b. presents several case studies on some of the classic topics of CDA e.g. Self/Other presentation in discourse, gender identity, conflicts and terrorism and c. brings together a diverse group of scholars from England, Iran, Australia, the US, Cyprus, Malaysia, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Palestine, Chile, and Greece. All the proposed papers are committed to working within general framework of CDA/CDS and effectively engage with Social Media technology aspect of their topic as a meaningfully different mediatised context. The papers are thematically organised into three main sections of Conflict & Terror (politics of extreme Self and Othering, Islamic terrorism, Syrian civil war), Hate Speech (discourses on or around misogyny, gender representation, Islamophobia and anti-immigration discourses) and Identity (collective identity in discourse, contentions of social identities). The panel presents an exciting global breadth of research focusing on European, Asian, and Middle Eastern, and Latin American contexts. 

The panel builds further on the development of Discourse Space and Deictic Space Theory (DST) and its applications in evaluative discourse analysis (e.g. Chilton 2014; Filardo-Llamas et al. 2015). Its aim is to explore the cognitive relationship between thought, language use, and discursive constructions of social reality and practice. The premise is that the human capacity to make sense of the world we live in is based in the generic primacy of spatial cognition and cultural variation in coordinate systems (Duranti 2015; Levinson 2003). The generic property of spatial perception and evaluation is a fundamentally deictic phenomenon (Chilton 2014). Subjective intentionality potentially emerges from these evaluative socio-cultural patterns in coordinate systems of reasoning from which intentions emerge. 

The panel brings together theories, methods and evidence from different approaches. The notions of point of view, scope and force directions-of-fit are central to research using framing, deixis, semantic networks, mental spaces, and vectors to find evidence of the dynamics of evaluative reasoning and sense making towards collective intentions for action. The papers in this panel give evidence of the diversity of research using discourse space theory to get a picture of cognitive background operations that direct evaluation into meaning and intentions for action.   

The discourse-space approach provides ways to analyse how spatial reasoning mediates between perception, thought and language to negotiate the social appropriateness and desirability of collective action. By starting out from the notion of perspective (Chilton 2004; Hart 2014), ideological markers can be identified in an array of texts and discourse domains and semiotic modes of communication – including, for example, pop songs, films, literature, TV programs, social media, text genres, etc.

Social Media platforms and their participatory dynamic of communication have turned into significant foci of discursive concentrations. On the one hand, the ubiquity and diversity of uses, applications and contexts of these interactive ecologies have facilitated access to invaluable body of bottom-up, social, user-generated communicative content for CDS research (KhosraviNik and Zia 2014, KhosraviNik and Sarkhoh 2017) and on the other hand, they have posed theoretical and analytical challenges in application of classic notions in CDA/CDS e.g. regarding the nature of the data and sampling, dynamic of discursive power, ideology and critique (KhosraviNik 2014). As such, it is high time for CDS to engage with the new media environment both in terms of aspiring to propose empirically-based solutions for issues around adoption of a Social Media Critical Discourse Studies approach (KhosraviNik 2017a, 2017b, KhosraviNik and Unger 2016) as well as topical engagement with relevant discourse analytical case studies. 

The proposed panel brings together an exciting rang of research carried out on a variety of Social Media communication platforms and highlights the impacts of these technologies on the dynamic of discourse production, dissemination and consumption in the society (KhosraviNik 2015). Overall, the panel a. critically engages with theoretical and methodological aspects of doing Social Media CDS b. presents several case studies on some of the classic topics of CDA e.g. Self/Other presentation in discourse, gender identity, conflicts and terrorism and c. brings together a diverse group of scholars from England, Iran, Australia, the US, Cyprus, Malaysia, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Palestine, Chile, and Greece. All the proposed papers are committed to working within general framework of CDA/CDS and effectively engage with Social Media technology aspect of their topic as a meaningfully different mediatised context. The papers are thematically organised into three main sections of Conflict & Terror (politics of extreme Self and Othering, Islamic terrorism, Syrian civil war), Hate Speech (discourses on or around misogyny, gender representation, Islamophobia and anti-immigration discourses) and Identity (collective identity in discourse, contentions of social identities). The panel presents an exciting global breadth of research focusing on European, Asian, and Middle Eastern, and Latin American contexts. 

While universities have been changing dramatically, one can observe a shift from liberal to neoliberal, from state- to market-based modes of academic governance. A number of processes testify to this shift, e.g. universities turning into managerial organizations, the articulation of new academic subjectivities, the changing spaces of academic communication as well as new ideas around the nexus of academia and society. Academia, therefore, can be seen to be at the crossroads. While national academic institutions and cultures persist, they are subject to global discursive trends. In order to account for such change, the interdisciplinary panel brings together research with a background in Academic Discourse Analysis and in Higher Education Studies from France, Germany, Poland, Singapore, Spain and the United Kingdom. Focusing the tension between autonomy and heteronomy, the contributors to this panel will explore the potentials for heterotopic practices within academia today. They will deal with current changes in higher education with a special focus on discursive practices such as CVs and citations, institutional rankings or websites. The focus will be both on science as a social system as well as on discursive micro-practices of academics.

The panel builds further on the development of Discourse Space and Deictic Space Theory (DST) and its applications in evaluative discourse analysis (e.g. Chilton 2014; Filardo-Llamas et al. 2015). Its aim is to explore the cognitive relationship between thought, language use, and discursive constructions of social reality and practice. The premise is that the human capacity to make sense of the world we live in is based in the generic primacy of spatial cognition and cultural variation in coordinate systems (Duranti 2015; Levinson 2003). The generic property of spatial perception and evaluation is a fundamentally deictic phenomenon (Chilton 2014). Subjective intentionality potentially emerges from these evaluative socio-cultural patterns in coordinate systems of reasoning from which intentions emerge. 

The panel brings together theories, methods and evidence from different approaches. The notions of point of view, scope and force directions-of-fit are central to research using framing, deixis, semantic networks, mental spaces, and vectors to find evidence of the dynamics of evaluative reasoning and sense making towards collective intentions for action. The papers in this panel give evidence of the diversity of research using discourse space theory to get a picture of cognitive background operations that direct evaluation into meaning and intentions for action. 

The discourse-space approach provides ways to analyse how spatial reasoning mediates between perception, thought and language to negotiate the social appropriateness and desirability of collective action. By starting out from the notion of perspective (Chilton 2004; Hart 2014), ideological markers can be identified in an array of texts and discourse domains and semiotic modes of communication – including, for example, pop songs, films, literature, TV programs, social media, text genres, etc.

Aristotle identified three species of rhetorical discourse: deliberative rhetoric; forensic rhetoric; and epideictic rhetoric. Each of these three species of persuasive discourse have specific rhetorical goals and so tend to adopt special topics in articulating (and, ideally, in fulfilling) such goals. Epideictic or ceremonial rhetoric is directed towards proving someone or something worthy of admiration or disapproval; it is concerned with the present, its means are praise and censure and its special topics are honour and dishonour.  

Epideictic rhetoric has, in the past, been depreciated as ceremonial “praise or blame” speeches which simply trade on commonplace knowledge. As such, epideictic tends to be the Aristotelian species of rhetoric that attracts the least critical attention from scholars (though see Billig & Marinho 2017). This may be attributable to Aristotle’s own failure to “formulate its role in the instilling, preservation, or enhancement of cultural values, even though this was clearly a major function” (Kennedy 2005: 22). Epideictic does invoke praise and blame. However, given that the rhetorical strategies of praise or blame assume the existence of social norms, upon which this praise or blame is based, epideictic also acts to presuppose and evoke common values – and, implicitly, a collective recognition of shared social responsibilities to uphold these values (Kampf & Katriel 2016; Richardson forthcoming). Vatnoey (2015: 1) goes as far as to suggest that epideictic “has the potential to strengthen the common values in society, create community, and form the beliefs that determine future decision-making.”  

This panel will approach epideictic rhetoric with renewed critical rigour. The papers apply a wide range of methodological approaches within (C)DS: Speech Act Theory, Discourse-Historical Analysis, Discursive Psychology, Mediated DA, and Rhetorical Political Analysis. The topics and data are equally diverse, including: a corpus of the (British) Queen’s Christmas Message since 1952; the environmental epideictic of Prime Ministers Tony Blair and David Cameron; Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration; journalistic strategies of reporting on the speech acts condemnation, congratulation and greeting; the testimonial discourses generated by two Israeli witnessing organizations; immigrants’ praiseworthy and blameworthy rhetoric about technology use; and the fundamentally anomalous rhetorical style of President Trump.

Social Media platforms and their participatory dynamic of communication have turned into significant foci of discursive concentrations. On the one hand, the ubiquity and diversity of uses, applications and contexts of these interactive ecologies have facilitated access to invaluable body of bottom-up, social, user-generated communicative content for CDS research (KhosraviNik and Zia 2014, KhosraviNik and Sarkhoh 2017) and on the other hand, they have posed theoretical and analytical challenges in application of classic notions in CDA/CDS e.g. regarding the nature of the data and sampling, dynamic of discursive power, ideology and critique (KhosraviNik 2014). As such, it is high time for CDS to engage with the new media environment both in terms of aspiring to propose empirically-based solutions for issues around adoption of a Social Media Critical Discourse Studies approach (KhosraviNik 2017a, 2017b, KhosraviNik and Unger 2016) as well as topical engagement with relevant discourse analytical case studies. 

The proposed panel brings together an exciting rang of research carried out on a variety of Social Media communication platforms and highlights the impacts of these technologies on the dynamic of discourse production, dissemination and consumption in the society (KhosraviNik 2015). Overall, the panel a. critically engages with theoretical and methodological aspects of doing Social Media CDS b. presents several case studies on some of the classic topics of CDA e.g. Self/Other presentation in discourse, gender identity, conflicts and terrorism and c. brings together a diverse group of scholars from England, Iran, Australia, the US, Cyprus, Malaysia, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Palestine, Chile, and Greece. All the proposed papers are committed to working within general framework of CDA/CDS and effectively engage with Social Media technology aspect of their topic as a meaningfully different mediatised context. The papers are thematically organised into three main sections of Conflict & Terror (politics of extreme Self and Othering, Islamic terrorism, Syrian civil war), Hate Speech (discourses on or around misogyny, gender representation, Islamophobia and anti-immigration discourses) and Identity (collective identity in discourse, contentions of social identities). The panel presents an exciting global breadth of research focusing on European, Asian, and Middle Eastern, and Latin American contexts. 

Conflict communication is one of the essential communication domains, and discourse and conflict are intertwined in human existence and practice. Many valuable contributions have been made to the discussion of discourse of conflict (e.g., Chilton, 1997; Fairclough, 1989; van Dijk, 2005; Reisigl & Wodak, 2005; Cap, 2013; Hodges, 2013; among others), and this panel sets out to further its understanding through the investigation of the discursive processes and practices associated with the current Ukrainian crisis. The panel highlights an extraordinary upsurge in linguistic creativity triggered by the turbulent political, social, and military situation in Ukraine an explores various aspects of such innovation, its causes, features, and functions in various spheres of communication. 

For too long the linguistic tradition has been dominated by the understanding of linguistic creativity as generating endless number of sentences by applying a set number of syntactic rules. Thankfully, later research moved on and acknowledged the active and formative role of language users, or rather “language-makers” (Harris, 1980). Linguistic creativity is ubiquitous; it is fundamentally purposeful, emerges from interactional language encounters (Carter, 2004), and foregrounds personalized expressive meanings beyond proposition-based information (Maynard, 2007). These features of linguistic creativity are the focus of this panel. While describing the trends in manipulation and persuasion, verbal aggression, framing and categorization, evaluation, and other elements of goal-oriented conflict communication, the contributors examine both the ‘micro’ considerations of linguistic phenomena with the ‘macro’ considerations of their social motivations and consequences. They employ a variety of approaches, including discourse-analytic, corpus-linguistic, multimodal and metaphor analysis, and sociolinguistics. The projects largely concentrate on the current discursive processes in Ukraine; however, the panel also includes contributions investigating the reactions of other discourse communities to the Ukrainian situation. 

Investigating the complex ways in which crisis manifests itself in language and discourse will advance the understanding of the relationship between language, discourse, and society by highlighting the complex interrelation of linguistic and extra-linguistic phenomena in the time of crisis and through attention to the active and deliberate communicative activity of the discourse participants.

Social Media platforms and their participatory dynamic of communication have turned into significant foci of discursive concentrations. On the one hand, the ubiquity and diversity of uses, applications and contexts of these interactive ecologies have facilitated access to invaluable body of bottom-up, social, user-generated communicative content for CDS research (KhosraviNik and Zia 2014, KhosraviNik and Sarkhoh 2017) and on the other hand, they have posed theoretical and analytical challenges in application of classic notions in CDA/CDS e.g. regarding the nature of the data and sampling, dynamic of discursive power, ideology and critique (KhosraviNik 2014). As such, it is high time for CDS to engage with the new media environment both in terms of aspiring to propose empirically-based solutions for issues around adoption of a Social Media Critical Discourse Studies approach (KhosraviNik 2017a, 2017b, KhosraviNik and Unger 2016) as well as topical engagement with relevant discourse analytical case studies. 

The proposed panel brings together an exciting rang of research carried out on a variety of Social Media communication platforms and highlights the impacts of these technologies on the dynamic of discourse production, dissemination and consumption in the society (KhosraviNik 2015). Overall, the panel a. critically engages with theoretical and methodological aspects of doing Social Media CDS b. presents several case studies on some of the classic topics of CDA e.g. Self/Other presentation in discourse, gender identity, conflicts and terrorism and c. brings together a diverse group of scholars from England, Iran, Australia, the US, Cyprus, Malaysia, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Palestine, Chile, and Greece. All the proposed papers are committed to working within general framework of CDA/CDS and effectively engage with Social Media technology aspect of their topic as a meaningfully different mediatised context. The papers are thematically organised into three main sections of Conflict & Terror (politics of extreme Self and Othering, Islamic terrorism, Syrian civil war), Hate Speech (discourses on or around misogyny, gender representation, Islamophobia and anti-immigration discourses) and Identity (collective identity in discourse, contentions of social identities). The panel presents an exciting global breadth of research focusing on European, Asian, and Middle Eastern, and Latin American contexts. 

Conflict communication is one of the essential communication domains, and discourse and conflict are intertwined in human existence and practice. Many valuable contributions have been made to the discussion of discourse of conflict (e.g., Chilton, 1997; Fairclough, 1989; van Dijk, 2005; Reisigl & Wodak, 2005; Cap, 2013; Hodges, 2013; among others), and this panel sets out to further its understanding through the investigation of the discursive processes and practices associated with the current Ukrainian crisis. The panel highlights an extraordinary upsurge in linguistic creativity triggered by the turbulent political, social, and military situation in Ukraine an explores various aspects of such innovation, its causes, features, and functions in various spheres of communication. 

For too long the linguistic tradition has been dominated by the understanding of linguistic creativity as generating endless number of sentences by applying a set number of syntactic rules. Thankfully, later research moved on and acknowledged the active and formative role of language users, or rather “language-makers” (Harris, 1980). Linguistic creativity is ubiquitous; it is fundamentally purposeful, emerges from interactional language encounters (Carter, 2004), and foregrounds personalized expressive meanings beyond proposition-based information (Maynard, 2007). These features of linguistic creativity are the focus of this panel. While describing the trends in manipulation and persuasion, verbal aggression, framing and categorization, evaluation, and other elements of goal-oriented conflict communication, the contributors examine both the ‘micro’ considerations of linguistic phenomena with the ‘macro’ considerations of their social motivations and consequences. They employ a variety of approaches, including discourse-analytic, corpus-linguistic, multimodal and metaphor analysis, and sociolinguistics. The projects largely concentrate on the current discursive processes in Ukraine; however, the panel also includes contributions investigating the reactions of other discourse communities to the Ukrainian situation. 

Investigating the complex ways in which crisis manifests itself in language and discourse will advance the understanding of the relationship between language, discourse, and society by highlighting the complex interrelation of linguistic and extra-linguistic phenomena in the time of crisis and through attention to the active and deliberate communicative activity of the discourse participants.

Music, in all its forms, is omnipresent across the media including advertising, computer games, concerts, song recordings, videos and film. It is bought, sold and traded, heard and played for not only entertainment, but also for political and social purposes, often performing a central role in the construction of social notions of Self and Other. Political and social actors of all sorts attempt to harness its power, though its social and political relevance is one of continuing academic debate, positions ranging from the benign (Adorno 1941) to explicit political importance (Street 2012). At CADAAD 2014, a group of scholars explored ‘music as discourse’, contributing to a greatly underexplored area in both music studies and discourse analysis, with some notable exceptions (van Leeuwen 1999: Machin 2010; Way 2017). This initial exploration of ‘music as discourse’ resulted in a significant contribution to the field (see Way and McKerrell 2017). 

This panel proposal seeks to continue this analysis of music and discourse from a variety of critical-analytical perspectives, explicitly focusing upon its multimodal nature. Whether in pubs, cafes, protests, on screen or at political rallies, music communicates to us multimodally and this we all use as our starting point in order to critically analyse music as discourse. Papers will explore multimodal discourses of popular, folk and subcultural musics relating to music and identity, authenticity, oppression, power, sport and music in advertising. 
A common theme for each presentation is examining music multimodally from a critical perspective. It is hoped this will contribute to the growing critical debate around the social power of music and multimodal discourse. 

References 
Adorno, T. (1941). ‘On Popular music’, Studies in philosophy and social science (9): 17-48. 
Machin, D. (2010). Analysing popular music, London: Sage. 
Street, J. (2012). Music and Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. 
Van Leeuwen, T. (1999) Speech, Music, Sound. London: Macmillan Press. 
Way, L. (2017). Popular Music, Politics and Power in Turkey since 2002, London & New York: Bloomsbury 
Way, L. & McKerrell, S. (eds.) (2017). Music as Multimodal Discourse: Semiotics, Power and Protest. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 

This panel explores the study of discourse within socio-cognitive and functional models of language. More specifically, it takes an interdisciplinary, integrative and contrastive (English-Spanish) approach to the study of emergent, peripheral discourses; those minority discourses that confront the more public and hegemonic discourses of the community. The main aim of the panel is thus to study how these minority discourses come into being by means of specific linguistic, cognitive and social strategies; and how the more official and these peripheral discourses interact. 

We understand peripheral and emergent discourses as forms of action and social interaction (Bourdieu 1994), multimodal texts which are created continuously in an ever-changing society through ever-changing media and semiotic modes. These discourses are peripheral because they transmit and generate alternative, outlying versions of reality which differ from the more institutionalized, hegemonic ones (Giménez Montiel 1983, Raiter 2003, Raiter y Zullo 2008). And emergent because they have been created recently and are essentially dynamic and unstable. Peripheral and emergent discourses, in short, trasmit a mediated image of the individuals and communities they represent, as well as of their ideological and social stance (Van Dijk 1991, 2008; Fairclough 1992, 2003). The discourses analysed in this panel come close to Serrant-Green’s (2004) ‘screaming silences’, discourses that are politically undervalued and thus understimated by the academic community, and that must be made visible. 

To these aims, the panel propounds an approach to emergent and peripheral discourses, encompasing:
(i)Cognitive Theories of Language, and their new interest in the relationship between language, cognition and society, and in language in use, as studied by Socio-Cognitive Linguistics (Langacker 1994, 2001; Geeraerts & Grondelaers 1995; Bernárdez 1995). 
(ii)Critical Discourse Analysis, which has recently moved in the direction of a more cognitive perspective on language and discourse (Chilton 2004, 2011; Charteris-Black 2004, 2005; Hart 2010). 
(iii)Theoretical concepts such as embodiment (Zlatev 1997; Linbolm & Ziemke 2002), identity (Bucholtz & Hall 2005), and multimodality (Jewit 2009; Kress 2010). 
(iv)A methodological approach based on language in use, and the statistical analysis of data in real communicative contexts.

Music, in all its forms, is omnipresent across the media including advertising, computer games, concerts, song recordings, videos and film. It is bought, sold and traded, heard and played for not only entertainment, but also for political and social purposes, often performing a central role in the construction of social notions of Self and Other. Political and social actors of all sorts attempt to harness its power, though its social and political relevance is one of continuing academic debate, positions ranging from the benign (Adorno 1941) to explicit political importance (Street 2012). At CADAAD 2014, a group of scholars explored ‘music as discourse’, contributing to a greatly underexplored area in both music studies and discourse analysis, with some notable exceptions (van Leeuwen 1999: Machin 2010; Way 2017). This initial exploration of ‘music as discourse’ resulted in a significant contribution to the field (see Way and McKerrell 2017). 

This panel proposal seeks to continue this analysis of music and discourse from a variety of critical-analytical perspectives, explicitly focusing upon its multimodal nature. Whether in pubs, cafes, protests, on screen or at political rallies, music communicates to us multimodally and this we all use as our starting point in order to critically analyse music as discourse. Papers will explore multimodal discourses of popular, folk and subcultural musics relating to music and identity, authenticity, oppression, power, sport and music in advertising. 

A common theme for each presentation is examining music multimodally from a critical perspective. It is hoped this will contribute to the growing critical debate around the social power of music and multimodal discourse. 

References 
Adorno, T. (1941). ‘On Popular music’, Studies in philosophy and social science (9): 17-48. 
Machin, D. (2010). Analysing popular music, London: Sage. 
Street, J. (2012). Music and Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press. 
Van Leeuwen, T. (1999) Speech, Music, Sound. London: Macmillan Press. 
Way, L. (2017). Popular Music, Politics and Power in Turkey since 2002, London & New York: Bloomsbury 
Way, L. & McKerrell, S. (eds.) (2017). Music as Multimodal Discourse: Semiotics, Power and Protest. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 

This panel explores the study of discourse within socio-cognitive and functional models of language. More specifically, it takes an interdisciplinary, integrative and contrastive (English-Spanish) approach to the study of emergent, peripheral discourses; those minority discourses that confront the more public and hegemonic discourses of the community. The main aim of the panel is thus to study how these minority discourses come into being by means of specific linguistic, cognitive and social strategies; and how the more official and these peripheral discourses interact. 

We understand peripheral and emergent discourses as forms of action and social interaction (Bourdieu 1994), multimodal texts which are created continuously in an ever-changing society through ever-changing media and semiotic modes. These discourses are peripheral because they transmit and generate alternative, outlying versions of reality which differ from the more institutionalized, hegemonic ones (Giménez Montiel 1983, Raiter 2003, Raiter y Zullo 2008). And emergent because they have been created recently and are essentially dynamic and unstable. Peripheral and emergent discourses, in short, trasmit a mediated image of the individuals and communities they represent, as well as of their ideological and social stance (Van Dijk 1991, 2008; Fairclough 1992, 2003). The discourses analysed in this panel come close to Serrant-Green’s (2004) ‘screaming silences’, discourses that are politically undervalued and thus understimated by the academic community, and that must be made visible. 

To these aims, the panel propounds an approach to emergent and peripheral discourses, encompasing:
(i)Cognitive Theories of Language, and their new interest in the relationship between language, cognition and society, and in language in use, as studied by Socio-Cognitive Linguistics (Langacker 1994, 2001; Geeraerts & Grondelaers 1995; Bernárdez 1995). 
(ii)Critical Discourse Analysis, which has recently moved in the direction of a more cognitive perspective on language and discourse (Chilton 2004, 2011; Charteris-Black 2004, 2005; Hart 2010). 
(iii)Theoretical concepts such as embodiment (Zlatev 1997; Linbolm & Ziemke 2002), identity (Bucholtz & Hall 2005), and multimodality (Jewit 2009; Kress 2010). 
(iv)A methodological approach based on language in use, and the statistical analysis of data in real communicative contexts.

The objective of the panel is to provide an understanding of Brexit and the events around it that is both broad in its scope and deep in its insights. We believe that the specific combination of authors, data, methods and discourses brought together in Discourses of Brexit aids such understanding.

The convenors will kick off the panel by giving a brief introduction to the social, economic and political background to, and consequences of, the British EU referendum of June 2016 and mention some of the work that has since been done on this topic. We then make the case for a specifically discourse analytic approach to ‘Brexit’, pointing out the wide variety of methods and data involved in the following papers. The first half of the panel addresses political and economic discourses around Brexit and starts with a study on what many see as one of the main driving forces for Leave and the referendum in the first place: the UK Independence Party and immigration.

Gendered norms and expectations that position women as ‘natural’ carers continue to persist in today’s western society (Gillies, 2007; Wall, 2010). Many scholars have argued, however, that perceptions of parenting and motherhood are gradually shifting as they undergo a process of cultural transition, often led by women themselves, who find a mismatch between idealised constructions of motherhood and their everyday practices (Maher & Saugeres, 2007; Miller, 2007). Digital technologies can offer fruitful sites for these transitional and transformative processes. In online discussion forums where participants adopt pseudonymous usernames, for example, anonymity can be said to liberate users from the constraints of social norms and conventions (Markham, 2004). Furthermore, increasingly visualised modes of digital communication can offer new resources for negotiating subject positions and collective identities (Boon & Pentney, 2015). 

This panel focuses on how female parents negotiate their individual and shared experiences, stories and beliefs alongside dominant cultural norms and expectations of motherhood in a range of contemporary digital contexts, including social networking and sharing platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and the popular British parenting website, Mumsnet. Like much research that explores cultural expectations around motherhood (Lawler, 2000; Johnston & Swanson, 2007; Wall, 2010), several panel participants focus on the western context, including the UK, US and Canada. However, we also aim to broaden our discussion through papers that explore transnational and Malaysian contexts. 

They include original methodological innovations, with Zhao and Zappavigna's presentation utilising grounded theory to develop new analytical categories for the multimodal analysis of intersubjective relations and Mackenzie drawing on a mixed-methods approach that is underpinned by feminist poststructuralist theory.

The objective of the panel is to provide an understanding of Brexit and the events around it that is both broad in its scope and deep in its insights. We believe that the specific combination of authors, data, methods and discourses brought together in Discourses of Brexit aids such understanding.

The convenors will kick off the panel by giving a brief introduction to the social, economic and political background to, and consequences of, the British EU referendum of June 2016 and mention some of the work that has since been done on this topic. We then make the case for a specifically discourse analytic approach to ‘Brexit’, pointing out the wide variety of methods and data involved in the following papers. The first half of the panel addresses political and economic discourses around Brexit and starts with a study on what many see as one of the main driving forces for Leave and the referendum in the first place: the UK Independence Party and immigration.

Gendered norms and expectations that position women as ‘natural’ carers continue to persist in today’s western society (Gillies, 2007; Wall, 2010). Many scholars have argued, however, that perceptions of parenting and motherhood are gradually shifting as they undergo a process of cultural transition, often led by women themselves, who find a mismatch between idealised constructions of motherhood and their everyday practices (Maher & Saugeres, 2007; Miller, 2007). Digital technologies can offer fruitful sites for these transitional and transformative processes. In online discussion forums where participants adopt pseudonymous usernames, for example, anonymity can be said to liberate users from the constraints of social norms and conventions (Markham, 2004). Furthermore, increasingly visualised modes of digital communication can offer new resources for negotiating subject positions and collective identities (Boon & Pentney, 2015). 

This panel focuses on how female parents negotiate their individual and shared experiences, stories and beliefs alongside dominant cultural norms and expectations of motherhood in a range of contemporary digital contexts, including social networking and sharing platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and the popular British parenting website, Mumsnet. Like much research that explores cultural expectations around motherhood (Lawler, 2000; Johnston & Swanson, 2007; Wall, 2010), several panel participants focus on the western context, including the UK, US and Canada. However, we also aim to broaden our discussion through papers that explore transnational and Malaysian contexts. 

They include original methodological innovations, with Zhao and Zappavigna's presentation utilising grounded theory to develop new analytical categories for the multimodal analysis of intersubjective relations and Mackenzie drawing on a mixed-methods approach that is underpinned by feminist poststructuralist theory.