THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE EUROPEAN MIGRATION NETWORK: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

This research analyses six Annual Reports (AR) written by the European Migration Network, in particular two general AR (written in English) and four AR depending on its French and Italian National Contact Points (written in French and in English, respectively). It aims at studying the way in which paratext - namely Peircean diagrams (maps, boxes and charts) - does not only contribute to a better textual comprehension by the target public as compared with AR in which these tools are rare or lacking, but also convey their authors' opinion. Our hypothesis, verified during the analysis, consists of inferring that the EMN chooses official and reliable data to catch public's attention, so not respecting neutrality which may deal with an official report of an institution. If the usage of Peircean diagrams is wider in the EMN AR than in its NCP AR, these tools represent reliability for institutions and politicians who may be interested in reading them, but they are also a source of authority for editors who write them. This research is based on the analysis of expert and institutional discourse (Maingueneau 2002; 2004; Maris 2002; Cusso & Gobin 2008) and on its pragmatic outcomes (Bouchard 2015; Espeland 2015).