phobic language produced. In Chapter 4, Russell focuses on ‘Le Sentinelle in Piedi’, another group who are against same-sex marriage. In particular, Russell examines the personal participants and the verb phrases they occur with, while drawing on transitivity analysis of the clauses these participants occur in. The chapter examines the degree of agency the social actors have and what kind of verbs they are used with. The findings suggest that governmental social actors were more likely to be seen as agents than Le Sentinelle, while ‘homosexuality’ was prescribed even less agency than Le Sentinelle. This chapter provided interesting quantitative findings which were substantiated with qualitative analysis (e.g. p. 161). It would have been interesting to see how Russell’s data compared to the already existing research on gender and language in Italian political discourse with how other politically charged groups were using language around similar topics. Chapter 5 analyses the language of Belgian nationalist politician Filip Dewinter. In this chapter, Russell argues that Dewinter uses both homoand Islamophobic language, constructing Muslims as a threat to both LGBTQþ people and women, whiley also constructing LGBTQþ people and women as an out-group. Russell’s analysis suggests that anti-Islamic language was used by Dewinter under the guise of protection of LGBTQþ people via pink-washing and homonationalism (arguing that Islam poses a threat to LGBTQþ people) (pp. 250–252). This chapter specifically demonstrates how politicians can project national identities in opposition to social groups (pp. 239–240) Overall, this monograph will be of interest to scholars interested in the language used by far-right groups, especially because it demonstrates some very close, critical linguistic analysis. This book contributes to the scholarly knowledge of how language is used to create and sustain out-groups, drawing in how out-groups are constructed around anti-LGBTQþ or anti-Islam issues.

中文翻译：

---

书评：安娜贝尔卢金，战争及其意识形态：社会符号理论和描述

产生的恐惧语言。在第 4 章中，罗素关注的是另一个反对同性婚姻的团体“皮耶地的哨兵”。特别是，罗素考察了个人参与者及其出现的动词短语，同时利用了这些参与者出现的从句的及物性分析。本章考察了社会行动者的能动性程度以及他们与何种动词一起使用。调查结果表明，政府社会行为者比 Le Sentielle 更有可能被视为代理人，而“同性恋”的规定甚至比 Le Sentielle 更不具有能动性。本章提供了有趣的定量研究结果，这些研究结果得到了定性分析的证实（例如，161）。看看罗素的数据如何与意大利政治话语中现有的性别和语言研究以及其他政治团体如何围绕类似主题使用语言进行比较，将会很有趣。第五章分析比利时民族主义政治家菲利普·杜温特的语言。在本章中，罗素认为杜温特同时使用了同性恋语言和伊斯兰恐惧症语言，将穆斯林构建为对 LGBTQþ 人和女性的威胁，同时还将 LGBTQþ 人和女性构建为一个外群体。罗素的分析表明，杜温特在保护 LGBTQþ 人的幌子下使用反伊斯兰语言，通过粉饰和同性恋（认为伊斯兰教对 LGBTQþ 人构成威胁）（第 250-252 页）。本章具体展示了政治家如何在反对社会团体的情况下投射国家身份（第 239-240 页）总的来说，这本专着对对极右团体使用的语言感兴趣的学者会感兴趣，特别是因为它展示了一些非常接近, 批判性语言分析。本书为语言如何被用来创造和维持外群体的学术知识做出了贡献，描绘了外群体是如何围绕反 LGBTQþ 或反伊斯兰教问题构建的。