To date, the concept of ‘European identity’ remains quite vague and obscure. Who is European and who is not? What values do Europeans share, and who is included in or excluded from the European community? This paper deals with the renegotiation of European identity/ies and the simultaneous increase of discourses about national security and nationalism in Europe, especially during the financial crisis since 2008. We first discuss a range of theoretical approaches to European identity from an interdisciplinary perspective. In a second step, after summarising theDiscourse-Historical Approach(DHA) to Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and especially the concept oftopos, we illustrate the link between discursive constructions of European identities and cultural ‘Others’ via some recent examples of European and national debates on migration and economic issues. More specifically, we first analyse a speech by Geert Wilders on immigration and multiculturalism after the clashes in Tunisia in 2011 and the subsequent arrival of many refugees in Italy; secondly, we focus on a speech about British relations to the European Union in the 21st century by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. It becomes apparent that debates about European identities – especially since the financial crisis of 2008 – have increasingly been accompanied by debates about both more traditional racialised cultural concerns and more recently, about economic security, leading to new distinctions between ‘Us’, the ‘real Europeans’, and ‘Them’, the ‘Others’. In this way, the socio-political unification of Europe is challenged – once again.

In this paper we juxtapose the European Union's (EU's) supranational policies on language and migration with their recontextualisation into national policies of the linguistic integration of migrants in two EU member states, Austria and Greece. The EU member states adapt the European legislation according to their national laws (National Acton Plans) which have to also account for national traditions and national citizenship legislation. Moreover, we explore the national regulations on language testing and the linguistic integration of migrants in Austria and Greece which are part and parcel of the National Action Plans and which establish obstacles for migrants: Indeed, they function as gate-keepers. Hence, a context-dependent micro-level discourse analytic approach suggests itself.The data for the analysis stem from legal and policy texts of the EU, Austria and Greece (regulations on citizenship, language education, testing and the linguistic integration of migrants). By employing the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) of Critical Discourse Studies we analyze how specific EU regulations are implemented in national legislation; how migrants, who live in Austria and Greece are represented by the legislators, and finally how the respective national identities in the context of migration legislation are constructed.

The concept of topos(oi) has received considerable attention from both argumentation and discourse studies, although its usage and meaning remain obscure. In this article, I argue that the rediscovery of Aristotelian thought might provide a comprehensible explication of topos. Despite the discourse historical approach's (DHA) emphasis on topos, its context is found to be limited and this exposes the argumentation strategies of the DHA to criticism. To overcome any shortcomings and provide a better understanding of topos, a classical approach to the concept is suggested, derived from Aristotle's rhetoric and dialectic. By focusing on Greek media discourses on 'Islamist terrorism', I seek to illustrate the synthesis between the DHA's argumentation strategies and Aristotelian topos as a fruitful analytical and theoretical tool.

No abstract