Last year, I delivered a research seminar on a recent project based on a corpus of philosophy texts. One of the comments was something along the lines of,
Ok, that was more interesting than I thought! When I heard the talk featured corpus linguistics, I was worried it was going to be all numbers, numbers, numbers, and we would all be snoring in our chairs.’
I hear a version of that fairly frequently when I mention corpus linguistics. Even among linguists, there is a common misconception that CL is all about probability scores and ignores the context in which stretches of discourse are situated. It’s all a matter of counting beans, right? Occasionally, other misconceptions make an appearance, such as what Raukko (2003: 165) writes:
The linguist looks at a large and somewhat pre-processed selection of text material and tries to find the relevant instances (instantiations, specimens) of the item that
s/he wants to study.
The idea here is that corpus linguistics involves picking out whatever instances of a stretch of discourse suit a researcher’s pre-determined hypothesis and ignoring the rest. While I won’t go into all the reasons some people are suspicious of CL, you hopefully get the general idea by now, and maybe have some others of your own, which I look forward to hearing.
Since I use CL methodology fairly frequently in my research, I will from time to time debunk myths like those above and explore the value of CL. And so I’ll begin by responding to a recent post by Tim Challies, where he laments what he suspects is a rise in the use of the phrase ‘I feel’ as opposed to ‘I think’ or ‘I believe.’ A friend sent that post to me, and I immediately responded with ‘Corpus linguistics can help answer that!’
That’s part of the awesome beauty of CL. Someone has a question like ‘Aren’t these I feel statements more common than they used to be?’. And anyone who understands how corpus linguistics works can access one of the many large corpora freely available to the public and start to find out. For example, to answer Challies’ question, I turned to the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English), and compared ‘feel’ with both ‘think’ and ‘believe’ over a 25-year period.
As you can see in my findings above, Challies’ intuitions were right, at least to some extent. Gradually, feel is getting an edge on believe, and slowly gaining on think, at least in this corpus, which
Now, you may wonder at this point, what does this have to do with women and families? And here we return to Challies’ post, where he argues that when it comes to feel, think, and believe,
The terms are hierarchical rather than synonymous and over time we ought to see a progression from feeling to thinking to believing.
This kind of prescription makes me immediately uncomfortable. There is, first of all, some evidence that women use I feel more frequently than men. While in my investigation of COCA I stopped after an initial, probing query, other linguists have looked further at the context surrounding instances of feel in other corpora. Bellés–Fortuño and Campoy-Cubillo, for example, in their analysis of I feel in the MICASE corpus, found that female academic speakers use this construction more frequently in discourse,
which may be interpreted as a female tendency towards an emotional and attitudinal academic discourse.
Further, they note that the construction I feel was more frequent in highly or mostly interactive speech events, where emphasis was on building rapport.
In light of this, statements like Challies appear to be another in a long line of criticisms of what some evidence indicates are feminine ways of communicating. Challies writes
The things I feel are the things I am unsure of, the things I am encountering and responding to on an impulsive or emotional level.
In fact, scholarship on feel like that of Robert Dixon, suggests that feel is a non-face-threatening way of expressing something one knows intuitively but wishes to present sensitively. Challies’ suggestion, therefore, that we abandon such language for the more forceful (and perhaps more male?) I think and I believe could be seen, therefore, as rooted in a belief that women and our ways of talking are inappropriately emotional and impulsive. Based on corpus-based research I’ve read, I feel like they aren’t.
All that said, I still have questions about points Challies raised, which I can’t answer at this point in time. For example, I didn’t have access to gender data in COCA, so I had to rely on other existing research for information about gendered usage. If I were carrying out a thorough corpus-driven analysis of think, feel, and believe, I would use the corpus statistics as a starting point from which to examine the texts themselves more closely, asking such questions as:
In what contexts are feel, think, and believe used?
To what extent is their usage gendered? marked by age?
Is the increase in use of feel due to greater participation of women in public discourse?
If not, how can we explain its increased use?
Does feel behave like any other tokens? For example, is there a version of feel used more frequently by men? (as some existing research suggests).
Like all methodologies, CL has its limitations and weaknesses. However, good, responsible corpus linguistics, with the proper tools, allows us to answer questions about how people use language, to what extent they use it and when, and in what contexts. It involves looking at patterns in often large bodies of naturally occurring data, carefully and cautiously selected, and examining language features in context. As I will explore in future posts, CL is often combined with other methodologies, such as discourse analysis, which is a text-analytical tool more familiar to biblical scholars.
For more information about CL, below are some resources I have found helpful:
There is power in presentation. The markedly different ways the narrators in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles deal with the dark drama of David, Bathsheba, and Uriah provide a famous example of meaning in selectivity. In 2 Samuel 11, David’s rape of Bathsheba, presented carefully as an abuse of royal power rather than a case of infidelity, is depicted in unstinting and undeniably critical terms. In 1 Chronicles, however, while David is at times a clearly flawed figure, the Bathsheba-Uriah story goes unmentioned. The selectivity is deliberate, fitting in each case the overall purpose of the book. In Samuel, the narrator’s purpose is at least in part to illustrate Israel’s degeneration into a disorderly mashal-type (cf. Gen. 3:16) use of power, from husbands and fathers and brothers to tribal leaders and kings. The books of Samuel constitute a negative moral judgment, more particularly a covenantal indictment, even as they also point the way, by negative example, to the form and shape of the only possible Redeemer. In Chronicles, that messianic-royal Redeemer figure is also the theme, yet in positive form: David (and Solomon) is thus idealized as a figure of the future Redeemer and King, with almost only his positive concerns for temple, ark, and clergy put on display. The Chronicler’s David is not sinless but he does not sin greatly. Instead, the best of David’s story is the message: Israel needs a king like that.
Importantly, like the selectivity at work in the Synoptic Gospels (and in fact in all biblical texts), neither 2 Samuel nor 1 Chronicles is true at the expense of the truthfulness of the other; both presentations are true, yet in ways that fit their authors’ homiletical-theological goals. Chronicles especially reads like an extended sermon directing post-exilic Israel’s reading of her story. She is now, to be sure, something like Virgil’s ‘fated wanderer’: she is without temple, land, or tribal boundary markers, anxiously in search of her identity and a ground for her hope. The Chronicler preaches into that crisis, and his message — as with all messages — requires purposeful, crafted selectivity. In their different ways of handling David, both texts illustrate that there is power in presentation.
The David example touches on an existential difficulty, too. Is he praiseworthy or not? The biblical texts invite us regularly to praise his virtues and qualities, yet for that reason the blatant sins, especially the royal rape of Bathsheba, gnaw at us. To be sure, his repentance is a critical part of that story, yet the jagged edges of David’s reported conduct remain unsettling at least. We face similar questions when our own glorified saints fall, or prove to be less than our favorite parts of their reputation. The storyteller has to decide: Is it better for the reader not to know? What does one lose by not knowing? The relationship of Samuel and Chronicles tells us there is meaning in the selectivity at work.
At the Lydia Center, one of our aims is to examine the Christian church’s rhetoric regarding sexuality and gender, marriage, family, and children, including the Church’s speech about and response to intimate partner violence. That rhetoric and response is, in the nature of the case, largely verbal or written, which pulls us regularly into consideration of the power of presentation.
Occasionally, opportunities arise to discuss these matters in the context of widely known families whose stories have been covered by the media. The case of Saeed and Naghmeh Abedini is one such opportunity. Discourse surrounding the Abedinis’ case reveals how we as a community think and talk about spousal abuse, and the fact that Saeed was himself a victim of cruel imprisonment and torture allows us to consider the ethical significance of such discourse. What happens when a persecuted Christian is revealed to be a wife abuser? (N.B. The reader should note that our analysis in what follows reflects the fact that Pastor Abedini pled guilty to a charge of domestic assault, and that he did so before leaving for Iran.)
This is part one in a series examining media headlines about and reader response to Saeed Abedini’s abuse of his wife Naghmeh. In this first part, we focus on the headlines of 15 Christian media outlets, asking such questions as:
What coverage do Christian media outlets give to Saeed’s abuse of Naghmeh, relative to their reports of his imprisonment and release?
What language do Christian media outlets use to identify the abuse?
In what ways is abuse emphasized and/or minimized via discursive strategies?
The Power of Presentation: Telling the Abedini Story
The media are a mighty and recognized influence on minds, actions, and words. Indeed, ‘The entire study of mass communication is based on the premise that the media have significant effects’ (McQuail, 1994: 327). The choices that journalists make when writing headlines reveals their inescapable ideology and prejudice towards an event (see Edelman, 1993). In turn, these choices systematically influence how readers view these events (Price et al., 1995; Scheufele, 1999).
Headlines especially act as snapshots of media bias. MacRitichie and Seedat (2008: 339-34) explain it this way, referencing their study on headlines about traffic accidents:
Headlines are the newspapers’ tools to attract prospective buyers and imprint their individuality on what is otherwise a mass-produced product… Headlines, which provide an indication of how an article may portray an accident, are used to convey the first and sometimes the most significant message to the news reading public…Headlines also draw part of their influence and meaning from what is assumed to be the readers’ shared cultural, political and general knowledge. So, although headlines may sometimes seem deeply ambiguous, the surface differences may be a disguise for articulating deeper meanings and associations.
Of course, media headlines do not occur in a vacuum; media discourse both produces and perpetuates an already-present ideology. Through the production and reproduction of such discourse, communities work together to decide how events should be viewed and how social actors should be regarded. By examining these messages, which often are unconsciously absorbed, Christians can evaluate the extent to which the ideas we encounter are faithful to Christian identity and commitments, and resist the ones which are not.
Our Mode, Methods, and Materials
In order to answer our questions about Christian media headlines, we deploy a variety of tools and materials, including the often illuminating tool of critical discourse analysis (CDA) (see Fairclough, 2012), which is
a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power, abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context (Van Dijk, 2001: 352)
In short, CDA aims to identify ideology in discourse, focusing on how certain social actors are represented, whether they are marginalized, viewed apathetically, or held up as social models. To be sure, CDA is as vulnerable as any other tool to misusing and distorting materials, and conclusions ought ordinarily to be reached with conspicuous modesty. Nevertheless, looking at a text through the lens of CDA effectively sensitizes the reader to the inevitable moral-assessment and evaluative aspects of human speech about anyone and anything. CDA is capable of such usefulness as it involves examination simultaneously at the text level (language forms, cohesion, and text structure and their meaning potential) and at the broader levels of text production and distribution, as well as the social context in which these texts are produced. So when we examine headlines, we consider not only their grammatical-lexical-discursive features but also look for evidence regarding the theology and ideology at work in them. It is, as it were, to ask a version of the great transcendental question: what view of the world and of reality must be seen as true by the author to account for this or that way of speaking? What kind of world does this language presuppose, does it fit? And how does that world match up against the real world disclosed by Scripture and in terms of the Christian confession? How does it square with complex yet real Christian commitments regarding speech?
Using Google SiteSearch, we accessed 129 Christian News Headlines from 15 news outlets between 12 November, 2015 and 2 February, 2016, using the combined search terms ‘wife’ and ‘Saeed Abedini’. After several searches using various related search terms, this combination yielded the most fruit. For comparison, we identified 322 US Newspaper and Wire headlines via the same search phrase, using Nexis, a database of UK and international news sources. In 322 headlines, there were five mentions of the Abedinis’ ‘separation,’ the rest spread fairly evenly between coverage of Saeed’s imprisonment and release and that of the other prisoners.
Christian headlines were grouped into three stages, which arose inductively from the data:
Abuse goes public: 12 November – 8 December, 2015
(after which all outlets ceased referring to the abuse)
Interim period: 9 December, 2015 – 15 January, 2016
(during which 6 outlets reported on statements Naghmeh Abedini made about the Christian life)
Saeed is released: 16 January – present
Abuse back in the spotlight: 18 January – present
Stages 3 and 4 overlapped as various media outlets moved back and forth between reporting on Saeed’s release and the Abedinis’ spousal abuse case. For instance, Charisma News reported on Saeed’s release four times, documented Naghmeh’s hope for ‘a miracle with marriage’, returned to Saeed’s release (two articles), and then published four articles on Naghmeh’s charges and public statements, Franklin Graham’s statement, and Saeed’s response.
1. What kind of coverage do Christian media outlets give to Saeed’s abuse of Naghmeh, relative to their reports of his imprisonment and release?
The table below provides details of the number and timing of articles each outlet devoted to the Abedinis during the period in question. We note that all but four reported on the abuse pre-release, and the abstaining outlets reported only on Saeed’s release and did not make explicit or implicit mention of abuse in their headlines. A total of 51 headlines made some reference to the abuse, compared with 67 which reported on Saeed’s release with no mention of abuse.
2. What language do Christian media outlets use to identify the abuse?
Christian journalists used a wide variety of words and phrases to refer to Saeed’s abuse of Naghmeh, from the more direct ‘abuse,’ ‘marital abuse’, and ‘spousal abuse’ to the more ambiguous ‘marital woes’, ‘marriage problems,’ and ‘marital issues’. Breaking Christian News was among those using the softest language, referring only to Naghmeh’s ‘stress’ in pre-release coverage headlines and omitting any direct reference to the abuse post-release, instead making an oblique reference to Naghmeh’s ‘surprise move.’ Charisma News, on the other hand, used ‘abuse’ fairly frequently, though we will explore later how such language was countered with discursive strategies.
What we found most surprising was the fact that pre-release, Christian news outlets used more direct language to refer to the abuse, this despite the fact that Saeed was still in prison and might, in our thinking, be endangered by such reports. As seen in the first word cloud here, capturing pre-release references to abuse, the word ‘abuse’ appears prominently. Seven out of eleven outlets used the word ‘abuse’ in their headlines.
However, post-release, many of the outlets changed tactics. Aside from using a much wider range of language to reference the abuse, the most common approach was to omit any explicit reference to the abuse (see second word cloud), as in such headlines as:
We will explore what we believe this may mean later, but it certainly appears that the returning persecuted hero is, at least on the surface, a powerful image in the Christian community, and powerful enough to displace the widely recognized image — for the same individual — of the abusive spouse.
3.In what ways is abuse emphasized and/or minimized via discursive strategies?
We observed in our headlines corpus a wide variety of discursive strategies that Christian media outlets used to minimize Saeed’s abuse of Naghmeh and maximize Saeed’s imprisonment, suffering, and denial of the abuse. We will focus on two of the most prominent of these, including the Christian media’s emphasis on Saeed’s victimization and its placement of reference to abuse in an insignificant place in the headline.
a. Who’s the real victim?
The most conspicuous way in which the headlines minimized abuse and emphasized Saeed’s freedom was in the sheer number of headlines (52%) devoted to Saeed’s release from Iran. At first sight, the fact of his release would seem to account for the headlines. However, upon examination, this focus on release alongside a displacement of abuse was accomplished in subtler ways as well. We see this first in the way readers are reminded, even in headlines mentioning ‘abuse’ directly, that Saeed is a victim, persecuted and separated from his family for many years. Consider this headline from Christian Post, wherein Naghmeh’s filing of a ‘domestic relations case’ is set alongside Saeed’s reunion with his children.
Mention of Saeed’s suffering is not always in prominent position, as in one headline from Christianity Today (see table below). However, with few exceptions, the reader is regularly reminded of Saeed’s imprisonment, which acts as a point of comparison when considering his abuse of his wife.
In sum, the image of a persecuted, suffering hero is bolstered by reference to Saeed’s ‘years of demonic abuse’, ‘details of torture’, and ‘human rights abuses,’ language which stands in stark contrast to Naghmeh’s ‘abuse claims’ and ‘accusations’. To be sure, identifying Saeed as ‘imprisoned’ or as ‘prisoner’ may function as little more than an identifying mark, since this his imprisonment is why he is known to the public at all in the first place. Yet the regular pairing of his imprisonment with the abuse element of his story has the effect of qualifying the abuse element from the outset, in some cases even potentially mitigating it. This discourse gives the impression that Saeed is the sole real, or at least most important, victim here. Some examples can be seen below.
Some might argue that this is evenhanded treatment; after all, both Naghmeh and Saeed suffered persecution. Notably, however, though Saeed had pled guilty to abuse before ever leaving for Iran, several outlets headlined Saeed’s persecution and abuse without mentioning Naghmeh at all, as in the following headlines:
The noteworthy feature of these headlines is not simply in their capturing Saeed’s prison torture without mention of his wife. What we ask readers to notice is the relationship these headlines bear to those headlines which mention Saeed’s abuse of Naghmeh, which are typically ‘combination’ headlines, pairing the abuse element with the tacit reminder of Saeed’s own torture and imprisonment. In other words, mention of Saeed’s abuse can and does stand alone, whereas Naghmeh’s abuse is regularly discussed in combination with Saeed’s imprisonment. Further, in the examples where Nagmeh’s abuse is mentioned but Saeed’s imprisonment is not mentioned, her abuse is still regularly undermined using other discursive strategies, as we shall see.
b. Abuse as an afterthought
In English, the first position in a clause signals the topic of that clause, the theme, that which has informational prominence. The information coming after the first participant, process, or circumstance is the rheme (see Fairclough, 2003). In headlines, the theme is the interpretive lens through which the rheme is intended to be viewed. For example, the headline below from Charisma News leads with ‘persecuted Pastor Saeed Abedini,’ placing his imprisonment in thematic position in the clause, situating Naghmeh’s actions in the more minor position of rheme (end). Beyond identifying Saeed as the one who the public knows as the imprisoned Christian Pastor, this headline also tacitly encourages the reader to think first of Saeed’s persecution, considering Naghmeh’s actions in light of his imprisonment.
This is a pattern that Christian media outlets relied on again and again in our corpus. The table below focuses on examples of headlines which mention ‘abuse’ directly. Note the language that comes before the word ‘abuse’, setting the reader up to frame or theme the abuse in a particular way.
For example, a headline we saw in various forms was that of Christianity Today (see Christian Post example above as well), where emphasis is placed on Naghmeh’s halting of public advocacy, the abuse mentioned in the less important end position.
Then compare these with the Charisma News headline thematising Saeed’s ‘years of demonic abuse,’ a preferential treatment of Saeed’s suffering — including the ironically loaded vocabulary of ‘abuse’ for that suffering — that Christian media seldom afforded Naghmeh.
In both, ‘abuse’ appears closer to thematic position, suggesting a bolder approach to coverage by this outlet than by others. However, we encourage readers to consider the extent to which ‘claims’ and ‘despite’ introduce doubt.
Summary of Part One
We have presented evidence that suggests that the Christian media have downplayed Saeed’s abuse of Naghmeh in their coverage of the abuse, not only in the terminology they have used to refer to (or ignore) the abuse, and in the constant reminders of Saeed’s imprisonment, but also in the way they relegated Saeed’s abuse of his wife to a less significant place within the headlines. In part two of our study, we will turn our attention to the significance of these examples in the larger context of Christian commitments regarding speech, ethics, and the nature of abuse.
Like What You See Here?
If you believe in the importance of this and other work of the Lydia Center and would like to support its development, please consider donating at the Greystone site: http://greystoneinstitute.org/give.html
Over the next few months, I will be reporting on an in-progress project on the topic of conservative Christian discourse about and response to intimate partner violence. This project, funded by a Faculty Small Grant from the University of Sheffield, is informed by existing research on the religious response to intimate partner violence and founded on theoretical and methodological principles derived from corpus linguistics (CL) and critical discourse analysis (CDA). My data will be drawn primarily from the 25-30 most popular (most frequently downloaded) sermons on divorce from SermonAudio, ‘the largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide’, which hosts, for free, over 1 million audio files of sermons which are freely accessible (Sermon Audio, n.d.). Eventually, I will supplement the resulting small sermon corpus (collection of texts) with personal accounts of clerical response to abuse from survivors of intimate partner violence within the Reformed Christian community. Findings from multiple data types will be cross-compared and patterns identified and explained via discussion of socio-historical/theological conditions within which the discourse was created (Fairclough, 2013). Research questions include:
In this community, in what contexts is divorce permissible?
How are wives’ and husbands’ actions in divorce framed in clerical discourse, i.e. how are wives/husbands given or denied agency?
Intimate Partner Violence
Intimate partner violence is ‘physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse’ (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Among the most vulnerable survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA are religious women (Nason-Clark, 2004), many of whose communities espouse a patriarchal form of domination in marriage and stress preserving marriage at all costs. Research on IPV in religious communities has historically focused on interviews with and questionnaires and/or surveys from female survivors (statistically the most frequently victimized), perpetrators, and those who counsel them (Levitt & Ware, 2006b; Nash & Hesterberg, 2009). These studies provide valuable statistics and rich, powerful accounts of IPV but neglect the wider perspective arising from triangulation with other data such as sermons, articles, blogs or other texts produced within religious communities. Research which gives voice to IPV stories whilst also uncovering the wider patterns of discourse which either work against or aid in raising awareness about IPV and empowering victims in religious communities is urgently needed. Indeed, overwhelming evidence exists, both anecdotal and systematic, of the growing on- and offline presence of influential patriarchal voices which empower abusers and send clear messages to women that they should stay in abusive relationships rather than seek separation and/or divorce (Pyles, 2007).
Research on clerical involvement in IPV has produced often conflicting findings revealing a range of attitudes and approaches but has consistently shown that many clerics are ‘conflicted about actions, such as separation or divorce, which they deem threatening to the sanctity of marriage’ (Shannon-Lewy & Dull, 2005: 648-649). Existing research has tended to rely either on:
interviews with leaders from one or more religious communities (Horne & Levitt, 2004; Levitt & Ware, 2006a; 2006b; Moon & Shim, 2010),
a combination of survey and interview (Nason-Clark et al., 2010) or,
in a few instances, interviews with IPV agencies about the role of church support in IPV cases (Pyles, 2007).
While these studies have revealed much about how the clergy describe their response to IPV, I am unable to identify any study which looks at the extent to which this self-reported data is consistent with clerical discourse, such as sermons, about IPV produced within and for the religious community itself.
The growing impetus of corpus linguistics (CL) methods (the study of language using samples of authentic text) has revolutionized all areas of modern linguistics and provided opportunities for quantitative/qualitative research in the exploration of language communities worldwide. Given the increasing dependence of religious organizations on online presence via blogs, news sites, and sermon libraries such as SermonAudio (Cheong et al., 2009), CL offers an effective means of examining patterns within the public discourse about IPV among prominent RPC church leaders.
Likewise useful to exploring discursive patterns is the framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA), which relies on the understanding that ‘public discourse often serves the interests of powerful forces over those of the less privileged’ (Huckin, 2002: 158-159) and that language choices facilitate and even constitute these exercises of power. While few, if any, studies exist which apply principles of CDA to religious leader response to IPV, relevant research includes analysis of political discourse on violence against women (see Berns, 2001; Vives-Cases & La Parra Casado, 2008) which examines discursive strategies obscuring IPV.
In this project, analysis will involve close reading of texts and linguistic analysis, aided by a corpus tool, relying on concepts derived from CDA, starting with features that demonstrate agency, such as transitivity, i.e. who is doing what to whom (Fairclough, 1989), and classification, i.e. the naming and labelling of wives and husbands and their actions via language such as noun phrases, modifiers, and complements (Lakoff, 1990). However, close reading will drive choice of features. Future posts will explore and explain these in greater detail.
Sermons are only part of the picture that the church paints for someone who is facing IPV. Ultimately, this project, in the long-term, aims to describe this picture more fully, capturing the various places where IPV survivors encounter the conservative Christian church’s discourse about and response to IPV as well as divorce more broadly. In this first stage, I focus on one part of the picture, displayed in the language used by church leaders in public-facing, online discourse in the form of sermons and in the counsel/response they offer, as reported by survivors. This first step will aid in the identification of discursive features to facilitate a larger-scale study on religious leader discourse about and response to IPV and its connection to a theology of divorce and of women. In future posts, I hope, step by step, to explain in detail the stages of this project as well as its findings.
Like What You See Here?
If you believe in the importance of this and other work of the Lydia Center and would like to support its development, please consider donating at the Greystone site: http://greystoneinstitute.org/give.html
Alsdurf, J. M., & Alsdurf, P. (1988). A pastoral response. Abuse and Religion: When Praying Isn’t Enough, 165-171.
Berns, N. (2001). Degendering the problem and gendering the blame: Political discourse on women and violence. Gender & Society, 15(2), 262-281.
Bowker, L. H. (1988). Religious victims and their religious leaders: Services delivered to one thousand battered women by the clergy. Abuse and Religion: When Praying Isn’t Enough, 229-234.
Cheong, P. H., Poon, J. P., Huang, S., & Casas, I. (2009). The Internet highway and religious communities: Mapping and contesting spaces in religion-online. The Information Society, 25(5), 291-302.
Choi, Y. J. (2015). Korean American clergy practices regarding intimate partner violence: Roadblock or support for battered women? Journal of Family Violence, 30(3), 293-302.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
Horne, S. G., & Levitt, H. M. (2004). Shelter from the raging wind: Religious needs of victims of intimate partner violence and faith leaders’ responses. Journal of Religion & Abuse, 5(2), 83-97.
Huckin, T. (2002). Critical discourse analysis and the discourse of condescension. Discourse Studies in Composition, 155-176.
Lakoff, R. T. (1990). Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. Basic Books (AZ).
Levitt, H. M. & Ware, K. N. (2006a). Anything with two heads is a monster. Violence Against Women, 12(12), 1169-1190.
Levitt, H. M., & Ware, K. N. (2006b). Religious leaders’ perspectives on marriage, divorce, and intimate partner violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 212-222.
Moon, S. S., & Shim, W. S. (2010). Bridging pastoral counseling and social work practice: An exploratory study of pastors’ perceptions of and responses to intimate partner violence. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 29(2), 124-142.
Nash, S. T., & Hesterberg, L. (2009). Biblical framings of and responses to spousal violence in the narratives of abused Christian women. Violence against Women, 15(3), 340-361.
Nason-Clark, N. (2004). When terror strikes at home: The interface between religion and domestic violence. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(3), 303-310.