From Complicity to Critique: A Socio-Cognitive Analysis of Reader Positioning and Ideological Transformation in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Abstract

This article investigates how “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” uses discourse to position readers, construct moral credibility, and enact ideological transformation. Drawing on van Dijk’s socio-cognitive framework, the analysis examines how linguistic features—particularly pronouns, deixis, modality, and evaluative lexis—guide readers through a rhetorical shift from passive complicity to critical awareness. The narrative not only shares personal experience but strategically constructs an evolving ethical stance that invites reflection on broader structures of power and responsibility. While critical discourse analysis has traditionally focused on institutional discourse, this study extends its scope to testimonial narratives that merge confession with political critique. It argues that first-person accounts can function as discursive interventions, shaping shared beliefs by leveraging linguistic form to reframe systemic complicity and encourage ethical engagement. In doing so, the article highlights the role of personal storytelling in transforming ideological positions. By demonstrating how hybrid genres such as political testimony activate reader cognition, align moral stance, and challenge dominant ideologies, this study contributes to discourse studies and broadens understanding of how language, cognition, and ideology intersect in narrative texts.

Keywords

• Reader positioning
• moral authority
• ideological shift
• confessional narrative
• socio cognitive discourse analysis
• complicity

Suç Ortaklığından Eleştiriye: Bir Ekonomik Suikastçının İtirafları'nda Okuyucu Konumlandırması ve İdeolojik Dönüşümün Sosyo-Bilişsel Analizi

Abstract

Bu makale, “Bir Ekonomik Suikastçının İtirafları”nın okuyucuları konumlandırmak, ahlaki güvenilirlik oluşturmak ve ideolojik dönüşüm gerçekleştirmek için söylemi nasıl kullandığını araştırmaktadır. Van Dijk’ın sosyo-bilişsel çerçevesinden yararlanarak, analiz dilbilimsel özelliklerin –özellikle zamirler, deixis, modalite ve değerlendirici sözcükler– okuyucuları pasif suç ortaklığından eleştirel farkındalığa doğru retorik bir dönüşümde nasıl yönlendirdiğini incelemektedir. Anlatı, yalnızca kişisel deneyimleri paylaşmakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda daha geniş güç ve sorumluluk yapıları üzerine düşünmeye davet eden, stratejik olarak gelişen bir etik duruş oluşturur. Eleştirel söylem analizi geleneksel olarak kurumsal söylemlere odaklanırken, bu çalışma kapsamını itiraf ile siyasi eleştiriyi birleştiren tanıklık anlatılarına genişletir. Çalışma, birinci şahıs anlatılarının söylemsel müdahaleler olarak işlev görebileceğini, dilbilimsel formu kullanarak sistemik suç ortaklığını yeniden çerçeveleyerek ve etik katılımı teşvik ederek ortak inançları şekillendirebileceğini savunmaktadır. Bunu yaparken, makale ideolojik pozisyonları dönüştürmede kişisel hikâye anlatımının rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Siyasi tanıklık gibi melez türlerin okuyucunun bilişini nasıl harekete geçirdiğini, ahlaki duruşu nasıl uyumlu hale getirdiğini ve egemen ideolojilere nasıl meydan okuduğunu göstererek, bu çalışma söylem çalışmalarına katkıda bulunmakta ve dil, biliş ve ideolojinin anlatı metinlerinde nasıl kesiştiğine dair anlayışı genişletmektedir.

Keywords

• Okuyucu konumlandırma
• ahlaki otorite
• ideolojik değişim
• itirafçı anlatı
• sosyo-bilişsel söylem analizi
• suç ortaklığı

References

1. Bednarek, M. (2010). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London, UK: Continuum.
2. Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
3. Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Couser, G. T. (2012). Memoir: An introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
6. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman.
7. Fairclough, N. (2000). New Labour, new language? London, UK: Routledge.
8. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

9. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
10. Hart, C. (2014). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
11. Hui, S. Y. E. E. (2024). Critical Discourse Analysis of Student Testimonials of an Erasmus International Exchange Programme. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.1946.v1
12. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
13. Iegorova, A. V. (2022). Forensic testimony as a genre of narrative discourse. Scientific Journal of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, 22(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.31392/NPU-nc.series22.2022.2(36).12
14. Igartua, J. J., & Rodríguez-Contreras, L. (2020). Narrative health communication and identification with characters: The role of self-referencing and perceived similarity. International Journal of Communication, 14, 2386–2408.
15. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
16. Jaworska, S., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2012). On the F-word: A corpus-based analysis of the media representation of feminism in British and German press discourse, 1990–2009. Discourse & Society, 23(4), 401–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441113
17. Llompart, J., & Ribeiro, B. (2022). Apologising without admitting blame: Evaluative strategies and agency in corporate apologies. Discourse & Communication, 16(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211060988
18. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London, UK: Sage.
19. Manfredi, M. (2020). Corporate storytelling and discursive legitimation. Critical Discourse Studies, 17(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1554521
20. Mulderrig, J. (2011). The grammar of governance. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2011.533564
21. Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2
22. O’Halloran, K. A. (2010). How to use corpus linguistics in the study of media discourse. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 563–577). London, UK: Routledge.
23. Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
24. Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
25. Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Sarikakis, K., & Shaukat, S. (2008). Pakistan: Emergency rule and the media. In R. Mansell (Ed.), The handbook of global media and communication policy (pp. 191–206). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
27. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28. Tartory, R. A. (2020). Critical discourse analysis of online publications ideology. SAGE Open, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020941471
29. van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908
30. van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. van Dijk, T. A. (2016). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 62–85). London, UK: Sage.
32. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.50
33. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
34. Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.