User:The JPS/CDA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse, which views "language as a form of social practice" (Fairclough 2001, pg.18). CDA developed within several disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, such as 'critical linguistics' (exemplified by the seminal book Language and Control by Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Bob Hodge and Tony Trew, published in 1979).

CDA uses discourse in both the linguistic sense, refferring to talk and interaction, and also the Foucauldian concern of the connection between langauge, knowledge and power (Hesmondhalgh 2006, pg.122).

Contents

[edit] CDA's remit

Critical discourse analysis is founded on the idea that there is unequal access to linguistic and social resources, resources that are controlled institutionally. The patterns of access to discourse and communicative events is one essential element for CDA. This includes consideration of the political, and even the economic, context of language usage and production.

Although CDA is sometimes mistaken to represent a 'method' of discourse analysis, it is generally agreed upon that any explicit method in discourse studies, the humanities and social sciences may be used in CDA research, as long as it is able to adequately and relevantly produce insights into the way discourse reproduces (or resists) social and political inequality, power abuse or domination. That is, CDA does not limit its analysis to specific structures of text or talk, but systematically relate these to structures of the sociopolitical context.

Mass media output is of significant interest to researchers. Norman Fairclough posits three questions about using CDA to analyse media output.[1]

  1. How is the world represented?
  2. What identities are created (reporters, interviewers/ees, people referred to)?
  3. What relationships are created (host-audience, etc.)?

CDA has a conscious remit to expose how power relations/power abuse and domination/inequality are established through language. (Some early work, for example, studied how racism was implied in media discourse.) It intends to create social change[2], meaning that it should be "accessible." van Dijk points out that: "If students do not understand us, they can neither learn from us, nor criticize us. Complex theorizing and analysis do not require abstruse jargon and profound insights need no arcane formulations".(van Dijk 2001, pg.97)

[edit] Development[3]

Critical discourse analysis emerged from 'critical linguisics' (CL) developed at the University of East Anglia in the 1970s, and the terms are now often interchangable [4]. Sociolinguistics was paying little attention to social hierarchy and power (Wodak 2001, pg.5).

This political motivated form of discourse analysis developed, along with the publication of several books. In January 1991, several leading researchers attended a symposium in Amsterdam.

[edit] Models and methods

CDA uses methods from other approaches to language study (linguistics, pragmatics, etc.). These other approaches, however, "all have major limitations from a critical point of view" (Fairclough 2001, pg.5). Norman Fairclough's criticisms of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis (particulalry conversation analysis) is that they "answer 'what?' questions but not 'how?' and 'why?' questions" (Fairclough 2001, pg.10).

In addition to linguistic theory, the approach draws from social theory — and contributions from Karl Marx, Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, Jürgen Habermas, Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu — in order to examine ideologies and power relations involved in discourse.

[edit] Discouse-historical approach

Ruth Wodak emphasizes the importance of a historical dimension in critical discourse studies, as she also has shown in her work on racism and antisemitism.

This perspective was established towards the end of the 1980s {{Harv|Wodak|2001|loc=pg.7}. It "adheres to the socio-philosophical orientation of critical theory" (Wodak 2001, pg.64). She posis three interconnected aspects: the 'text or discourse immanent critique' aims


[edit] Sociologically-oriented theory

Fairclough notes "that language connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology, and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power" (1989: 15).

His books, Language and Power (1989) and Critical Discourse Analysis (1995), articulate a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, "where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice" (Fairclough 1995, pg.2).

[edit] Social-cognitive

Van Dijk (1998) articulates ideology as the basis of the social representations of groups, and more generally advocates a sociocognitive interface between social structures and discourse structures.

Van Dijk's main motivation for linking media texts to context is to show in detail how social relationships and processes (e.g. the reproduction of racism) are accomplished at a micro-level through routine practices, whereas my [Fairclough] concern is to show how shifting language and discursive practices in the media constitute social and cultural change.
(Fairclough 1995b, pg.29)

[edit] Notable researchers

Notable researchers include Norman Fairclough, Paul Chilton, Teun A. van Dijk, Theo van Leeuwen, Siegfried Jäger, Christina Schäffner, Ruth Wodak, Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Mary Talbot, and Robert Hodge.

[edit] Criticisms

Some have noted that the scientific approach disguises the researcher's subjectivity. Ian Hutchby, for example, identifies the debate about "the nature of the claims that can legitimately be made about the data we gather." [5] He suggests that CDA uses social theory to disguise preconceptions as 'insights', using (sometimes complex) academic discourse to give claims weight.

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ These questions are posited in his book Media Discourse (1995), and articulated in Hesmondhalgh (2006)
  2. ^ An example of 'social change' in media education is within undergraduate journalism courses, where students use CDA to become aware of how their own future professional writing could reproduce power relations.
  3. ^ Ruth Wodak's chapter "What CDA is about" in Wodak and Meyer (2001) was very useful for this section.
  4. ^ Some still insist on distinctions between the two terms, although they are relateivly minor
  5. ^ (Hutchby, 2006, pg. 35). Hutchby is a conversation analysist, and is particularly responding to Fairclough's claims that CA says little about ideology. (pg. 32)

[edit] References

  • Fairclough, Norman (1995a), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Langauge, Essex: Longman, 0582219841
  • Fairclough, Norman (1995b), Media Discourse, London: Edward Arnold
  • Fairclough, Norman (2001), Language and Power
  • Fairclough, Norman (1995), Media Discourse, London: Edward Arnold
  • Hutchby, Ian (2006), Media Talk, Buckinghamshire: Open University Pres
  • Hutchby, Ian (2006), Media Talk, Buckinghamshire: Open University Pres
  • Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (eds.) (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

[edit] Book list

This section will disappear

  • Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa & Coulthard, Malcolm (Eds.) (1996). Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
  • Chouliaraki, Lilie & Norman Fairclough (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Norman Fairclough (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow: Longman.
  • Norman Fairclough (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
  • Norman Fairclough (2001). Language and Power (2nd edition). Harlow: Longman.
  • Norman Fairclough (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
  • Jaworski, Adam, & Coupland, Nikolas (Eds.) (2002). The Discourse Reader. New York: Routledge.
  • Lazar, Michelle (Ed.) (2005). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology In Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • Rogers, Rebecca (2003). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Family Literacy Practices: Power in and Out of Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rogers, Rebecca (Ed.) (2003). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Talbot, Mary, Atkinson, Karen and Atkinson, David (2003). Language and Power in the Modern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Toolan, Michael (Ed.) (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol I: Precursors and Inspirations). London: Routledge.
  • Toolan, Michael (Ed.) (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol II: Leading Advocates). London: Routledge.
  • Toolan, Michael (Ed.) (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol III: Concurrent Analyses and Critiques). London: Routledge.
  • Toolan, Michael (Ed.) (2002). Critical Discourse Analysis: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol IV: Current Debates and New Directions). London: Routledge.
  • Teun A. Van Dijk. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Teun A. Van Dijk. (1998). Ideology. London: Sage.
  • Teun A. Van Dijk (Ed.). (1997). Discourse Studies. 2 vols. London: Sage.
  • Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Palgrave.
  • Young, Lynne & Harrison, Claire (Eds.) (2004). Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in Social Change. London: Continuum.

For critical debates on CDA see, for example:

  • Henry Widdowson (1995). Review of Fairclough's Discourse and Social Change. Applied Linguistics 16(4): 510-516.
  • Norman Fairclough (1996). A Reply to Henry Widdowson's 'Discourse Analysis: A Critical View. Language & Literature 5(1): 49-56.
  • Henry Widdowson (1996). Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and Interpretation: Conjectures and Refutations. Language & Literature 5(1): 57-69.
  • Henry Widdowson (1998). "The Theory and Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis." Applied Linguistics 19/1: 136-151.
  • Beaugrande, Robert de (2001). "Interpreting the Discourse of H.G. Widdowson: A Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics 22(1): 104-121.
  • Toolan, Michael (1997). What Is Critical Discourse Analysis and Why Are People Saying Such Terrible Things About It? Language & Literature 6(2): 83-103.
  • Stubbs, Michael (1998). Whorf's Children: Critical Comments on Critical Discourse Analysis. In Ryan, A. & Wray, A. (Eds.), Evolving Models of Language: British Studies in Applied Linguistics 12, Clevedon: BAAL/Multilingual Matters.
  • Blommaert, Jan & Bulcaen, Chris (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447-466.
  • Threadgold, Terry (2003). Cultural Studies, Critical Theory and Critical Discourse Analysis: Histories, Remembering and Futures. Linguistik Online 14(2). [Online]. Available: http://www.linguistik-online.de/14_03/index.html.
  • Tyrwhitt-Drake, Hugh (1999). Resisting the Discourse of Critical Discourse Analysis: Reopening a Hong Kong Case Study. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1081-1088.

[[category:sociolinguistics]] [[Category:Critical theory]] [[Category:Interdisciplinary fields]] [[Category:Discourse analysis]] [[pl:Krytyczna Analiza Dyskursu]] [[pt:Análise crítica do discurso]] [[es:Análisis crítico del discurso]]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User%7EThe_JPS_CDA_8ab0.html"