The notions of "ideology", "power", hierarchy, and gender together with sociological variables were all seen as relevant for an interpretation or explanation of text and the subjects under investigation may differ according to different approaches and scholars who apply CDA.
However, CDA does not primarily aim to contribute to a specific discipline, paradigm, school or discourse theory van Dijk,; Fairclough, ; Weiss and Wodak, It is also a changeable system and it never provides one single or specific theory, nor is it considered a specific methodological characteristic of research.
It is a multidisciplinary approach to discourse, derived from quite different theoretical backgrounds, oriented towards very different data and methodologies Wodak, It is founded on the insight that text and talk play a key role in maintaining and legitimating inequality, injustice, and oppression in society. It uses variable methods of discourse analysis to show how this is done, and it seeks to spread awareness of this aspect of language use in society, and to argue explicitly for change on the basis of its findings Leeuwen, It is primarily interested and motivated by pressing social issues, which it hopes to better understand through discourse analysis.
Theories, descriptions, methods and empirical work are chosen or elaborated as a function of their relevance for the realization of such a sociopolitical goal. Because of the complexity of social problems, a multidisciplinary approach to discourse and highly sophisticated theories are required to make understanding of such problems is possible.
After introducing the historical background that CDA based and derived from, in the following sections some issues about discourse and CDA should be clarified and answered. It is defined differently in terms of two main paradigms: structural and functional.
Structurally, It is a particular unit of language above the sentence , and functionally, a particular focus, e. Structuralists are concerned mostly with the language form, e. Differences in paradigms influence definitions of discourse: a definition based on the structuralist paradigm views discourse as language above the sentence e.
However, some linguists e. Defining discourse as utterances seems to balance both the functional emphasis on how language is used in context and formal emphasis on extended patterns. The functional approach fills the gap that the structural approach left in the linguistic theory. The utterance is the realized meaning s to the abstract meaning of a sentence Lyons, b; Schiffrin, This means that utterances are the sentences in different contexts, and defining discourse as utterances is to analyze discourse in terms of language in context.
It is obvious that structural definition focuses on text structure, whereas functional definition focuses on context, and defining discourse in terms of utterances seems to balance the two sides. Accordingly, discourse is different from text because it includes other linguistic processes speaking forms, interactions, etc. In this respect, text is defined as "the instances of linguistic interaction in which people actually engage: whatever said, or written, in an operational context, as distinct from a citational context like that of words listed in a dictionary" Halliday, , pp.
To Halliday , a spoken text is simply what is said in a piece of written discourse and a spoken discourse can be encoded in written text. In other words, written text is an abstract theoretical construct realized by spoken discourse and vice versa Brown and Yule, ; van Dijk, Then, text is not only the written forms e. However, Stubbs differentiates between written and spoken languages in terms of text and discourse respectively.
Whereas text is written and non-spoken monologue, discourse is spoken and interactive dialogue. Foucault introduces a different view of discourse in terms of his concept of knowledge or 'episteme'; he does not think of discourse as a piece of text, but as "practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak" p.
By discourse, Foucault means "a group of statements which provide a language for talking about — a way of representing the knowledge about — a particular topic at a particular historical moment" Hall, , p. Discourse, Foucault argues, constructs the topic.
It governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about. It also influences how ideas are put into practice and used to regulate the conduct of others. This in turn means that discourse or discourses in the social theoretical sense can limit and restrict other ways of talking and producing knowledge about it e.
CDA develops discourse socially in such a way that it involves social conditions of production e. It is the linguistic form of social interaction that is either embedded in social context of situation or that it interprets the social system that constitutes the culture of institutions or society as a whole. It is a product of its environment and it functions in that environment through the process of interaction and semantic choice.
Text is the realization of such environment. It treats discourse as a type of social practice including visual images, music, gestures, and the like that represent and endorse it.
On the other hand, texts are produced by socially situated speakers and writers. For participants in discourse, their relations in producing texts are not always equal: there will be a range from complete solidarity to complete inequality. Meanings come about through interaction between readers and receivers and linguistic features come about as a result of social processes, which are never arbitrary.
In most interactions, users of language bring with them different dispositions toward language, which are closely related to social status Fairclough, In CDA, discourse is defined in terms of social practice. In CDA, discourse is defined as a type of social practice and the context of language is crucial Fairclough, , , ; van Dijk , , ; Gee, ; van Leeuwen, ; Wodak, , , ; Scollon ; and Wodak, Discourse involves both written and spoken language as a form of social practice Fairclough and Wodak, , p.
Following Fairclough , Reisigl and Wodak consider discourse as "a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective". In seeing discourse as a social practice, Fairclough shows that a critical analyst is not only concerned with analyzing texts, but with analyzing the relationships between texts, processes, and their social conditions.
In doing so, three dimensions of critical discourse analysis arise accordingly: description that concerns the formal properties of the text that concerns with what a text says, interpretation that concerns the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation that concerns the relationship between interaction and social context, Fairclough, There is a dialectical relationship between particular discursive practices and the specific fields of action including situations, institutional frames and social structures in which they are embedded.
Social settings affect and are affected by discourse. In other words, discourse shape social settings and it is shaped by them Wodak, In this sense, discourse is a particular type of social structure which creates social practices within the social network. Following Focault b , Faiclough , , calls this social network "orders of discourse", the semiotic specific system of every field i.
In social network, the relationship between discourse and society is interdependent: it is socially shaped and also socially shaping. The task of CDA is to explore the tension between these two sides of practice, the socially shaped and socially shaping. It has the role to make those involved in the discourse who may not be aware of the intertwined relations of certain discourse understand its hidden meanings and relations.
Social practice is a part of discourse that shapes matters of meaning that depend on matters of social relationship. Matters of meaning and matters of social relationships are interdependent as well, so we must understand both to understand either. CDA is characterized by a realist social ontology; it regards both abstract social structures and concrete social events as parts of social reality Fairclough, Similarly, Michael Meyer , p. The first concerns general social theories, often called 'grand theories', which conceptualize relations between social structure and social action, providing top-down explanations i.
The second concerns bottom-up explanation i. However, van Dijk , p. To him, this will often be effective and adequate, because it is easy to assume that directive speech acts such as commands or orders may be used to enact power, and hence also to exercise and to reproduce dominance.
Similarly, it is easy to examine the style, rhetoric, or meaning of texts for strategies that aim at the concealment of social power relations, for instance by playing down, leaving implicit or understating responsible agency of powerful social actors in the events represented in the text.
CDA, hence, studies the relation between society, discourse and social cognition, which is the necessary theoretical and empirical interface that should be examined in detail. Social cognition is the missing link between discourse and dominance, a feature that distinguishes CDA from other non-critical approaches.
In CDA, discourse involves social conditions of production e. CDA treats discourse as a type of social practice including visual images, music, gestures, and the like that represent and endorse it. Texts are produced by socially situated speakers and writers. Fairclough uses text in a generalized sense for the discoursal element of social events i. Texts are understood in the light of their relation to other elements of social events and social structures, as well as of their relation to social practices, the mediating forms between social events and social structures and the forms of social activity, which include social relations, social identities, and social subjects.
Faiclough defined text as a product rather than a process; and discourse in the whole is the process of social interaction. It is a particular way of representing certain parts or aspects of the physical, social, psychological world; for instance, there are different political discourses liberal, conservative, social-democratic etc which represent social groups and relations between social groups in a society in different ways.
He also differentiates between discourse, genre, and style. A genre is a particular way of acting socially, which means acting together, i. A style is a particular way of being, i. For Fairclough, the social world consists of abstract social structure and concrete social events.
An obvious example would be the government or legal codes which prescribe the boundaries of operation in everyday life. There are however more subtle domineering discourses which function to maintain perceptions and attitudes. These may operate on a subtle level; van Dijk for instance examined the racist discourses which operated within the British press.
By practising certain modes of exclusionary discourse, particularly the use of pronouns, 'we', 'us', 'them', newspapers in Britain were shown to participate and propagate in a discourse of a dominating, white, overwhelming middle-class Britain. The mode of reporting was shown to be less subtle as the, 'dominant definition of ethnic affairs has consistently been a negative and stereotypical one: minorities or immigrants are seen as a problem or a threat, and are portrayed preferably in association with crime, violence, conflict, unacceptable cultural differences, or other forms of deviance van Dijk This discourse is certainly opposed and disputed by alternative discourses, but the power of the position the Press hold ensures that it is the former discourse which is heard.
Bakhtin referred to this variety of discourse as 'heteroglossia', a term which recognises the multitude of forms of discourse and the means in which some succeed in their dominance.
Critical discourse analysis therefore examines the form, structure and content of discourse, from the grammar and wording employed in its creation to its reception and interpretation by a wider audience. The employment of verbs, pronouns and nouns within discourse is as much part of this analysis as the assessment of the content and tone of the discourse.
The methodology facilitates an assessment based upon more than simple quotations but upon what the discourse is doing and what it is being asked to do in its production, dissemination and consumption.
Skip to content Skip to Commentary section menu The abolition of the slave trade contact us about this site. Home Discussion Interviews Reports Resources.
Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis is a methodology that enables a vigorous assessment of what is meant when language is used to describe and explain.
There is however a broadly agreed agenda in these studies; 'to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between a discursive practices, events and texts, and b wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power' Fairclough Bibliography Bakhtin, M. Edited and translated by C.
Manchester University Press. Bakhtin, M. University of Texas Press. Fairclough, N. Polity Press. New York and London.
Foucault, M. Edited by C.
0コメント