Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kind of power discourse analysis
Critical discourse analysis dissertation
Discourse analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kind of power discourse analysis
1. Introduction
Critical discourse analysis (CDA), according to Crystal (2008 p. 123) is “a perspective which studies the relationship between discourse events, and sociopolitical and cultural factors, especially the way discourse is ideologically influenced by and can itself influence power relations in society”. Thus, the primary aim of CDA seems to uncover hidden power relations and ideological processes at work in spoken or written texts.
2. What is CDA?
Fairclough (1995, p. 132) has described CDA as aiming 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.” CDA is now adopted and practiced by a huge posse of applied linguists, sociologists, political scientists, students of the media and cultural studies.
2.1. Principles of CDA
Locke (2004) summarizes the key tenets of CDA as:
• The existing social order stems in history, and is relative, socially created, and transitive.
• The social structure and processes are dependent more on certain aspects of reality dubbed as discourses than on individuals.
• Discourse has the potential of creating ideology.
• Power in society is exercised by presence of certain discursive configurations which establish the social strata and lends power and status to some over the others.
• Human subjectivity is the outcome of partial impact of discourse as well as of the diversity of social roles as seen in the discourse.
• Reality is a notion that mediates between textuality and intertextuality ...
... middle of paper ...
..., London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kress, G. (1985) Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice, Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press; 2nd edition 1989, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Locke, T. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Continuum.
Malmkjaer, K. (ed) (2002). The Linguistics Encyclopedia (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.
Threadgold, T. (1986) ‘Semiotics – ideology – language’, in T. Threadgold, E.A. Grosz, G. Kress and M.A.K. Halliday (eds) Semiotics, Ideology, Language (Sydney Studies in Society and Culture, no. 3), Sydney: Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture: 15–60.
van Dijk, T. (1993) Discourse and Elite Racism, London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (1996) Disorders of Discourse, London: Longman.
Wodak, R. (1997) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction, London: Sage.
Palmer, William. "Rhetorical Analysis." Discovering Arguments: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, Writing, and Style. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2012. 268-69. Print.
...e cited this as another major limitation of discourse analysis, stating that the array of options available through the various methods can create inconsistencies and render issues of methodology problematic. In terms of application, discourse analysis involves a re-design of the topic through the study of interactional order (Schiffrin, Tannen and Hamilton, 2008).
To examine various discourses, it is crucial that the idea of discourse and the way in which discourses operate is clear. A discourse is a language, or more precisely, a way of representation and expression. These "ways of talking, thinking, or representing a particular subject or topic produce meaningful knowledge about the subject" (Hall 205). Therefore, the importance of discourses lies in this "meaningful knowledge," which reflects a group’s ideolo...
Literature Review In “The Concept of Discourse Community,” Swales begins by introducing the discourse community. Speech communities share information and knowledge regarding speech. Swales described six main characteristics of a discourse community. It is important to understand these six characteristics because they are used to describe any discourse community that you are analyzing. In Erik Borg’s “Discourse Community” peer review journal, there are some similarities as well as key differences from Swales work.
Derrida uses the term ‘postcapitalist appropriation’ to denote the rubicon, and eventually the futility, of pretextual society. But the premise of subcultural discourse states that discourse is created by communication.
A discourse community is a group of individuals all with relatively the same ending goal or original interest that all have their own way of participation and have different motives, it is easier to feel more included in a discourse community once literacy achieved. Discourse communities can be found in many different places; it is just a matter of what is being looked for. These communities can come from the entire population, all of the people who speak the English language, any place of education, restaurants, any home, or even at the gym/ recreation center. In order to become literate in the fitness discourse community the differences in basic motives, the values that are important, and the places available to work out at must be understood.
Swales, Gee and Porter all give their understanding of how they believe a discourse community operates and contributes to society. It can be seen as a type of language used to connect between particular groups and integrate social identities into the world (Gee 484). The building of a discourse community starts with creating a type of communication plan. It is necessary that all members connect and confer alike in order to maintain a set of documented decisions and actions. A discourse community connects people to a lifestyle and provides a form of order that stretches the interconnections of words, writings, values, attitudes, and beliefs (Swales 220). Those interconnecting contacts though sometimes conflict with select purposes of other discourses, leading to confusion or even anarchy. When this occurs, awareness and a choice of acceptance or doubt sets into place (Porter 400). For a discourse community to continue all doubt and awareness have to be tracked and suppressed. The discourse community needs to insure that its values are well convinced and received by its members and potential new members, in order to remain accepted in a
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
Power. (2006). Bruce, S. & Yearley, S. (2006). The Sage Dictionary of Sociology (p.241). London: Sage Publications.
Within a society power serves a vital role of establishing and maintaining roles of dominance and submission (Bourdieu, 1977). This creates and maintains a social hierarchy of inequality that unconsciously determines the status, behavioural expectations and available resources for members of the community (Navarro, 2006). The meaning of power within a society is that it determines one’s social standing or relational position within the given community as well as the level of dominance or power they have available to exert onto others. Power, within a society is primarily created through the habitus, capital and culture of a
Discourse communities play a big role in life and how humans interact in general. A discourse community refers to a group of people who have language, life patterns, culture, and communication in common with each other. The idea of a discourse community has also been used to bring people of different orientations together, like family members, students, or committees. All of these types of people might have different standards of living, like their level of income, education, and work abilities. Discourse community can also refer to a speech community, because the main feature of a discourse community is communication. A discourse community can include groups of different regional areas that may or may not share norms and living patterns
Society is highly stratified when considering social classes i.e. - upper class, middle class, lower class, and working class citizens. That being said, not everyone has the same access to the superstructure; thus creating tension. The largest problem when considering structure and agency is the constant struggle and negotiation of power inequality. Among the asymmetry of power are two major disparities; class and gender. Thinking as a critical theorist, one must consider the individual’s participation in the public sphere; “The word means a false view of the world that is in the interests of the powerful citizens in order to keep the subordinate classes oppressed” (Habermas, 10). Though the public sphere is virtually a democratic sphere where ideas can circulate and opinions are formed there are certain restrictions when referring to lower classes and women and thus how their agencies as individuals are limited.
The theoretical framework used in this study was Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis framework CDA (2015). The three-dimensional framework examined the discursive relationship of text with society and culture. The first level tackled the textual level, then discourse practice (interpretation) social practice (explanation) levels are discussed. At the textual level, linguistic features such as vocabulary, syntax and grammatical features employed in advertisements were analyzed. Discourse practice analysis interpreted how power relations work, in order to attract consumers. This was done by analyzing how these influencers were using emotional words, intertextuality, code switching and celebrity names. Social practice analysis included the
Her approach is capable of identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that contribute to those disorders in discourse which are embedded in a particular context, at a specific moment, and inevitably affect communication. Wodak’s work on the discourse of anti-Semitism in 1990 led to the development of an approach she termed the Discourse-Historical Method. The term historical occupies a unique place in this approach. It denotes an attempt to systematically integrate all available background information in the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text. As a result, the study of Wodak and her colleagues’ showed that the context of the discourse had a significant impact on the structure, function, and context of the utterances. This method is based on the belief that language “manifests social processes and interaction” and generates those processes as well (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999, p. 12). This method analyses language from a three-fold perspective: first, the assumption that discourse involves power and ideologies. “No interaction exists where power relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant role” (p. 12). Secondly, “discourse … is always historical, that is, it is connected synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events which are happening at the same time or which have happened before” (p. 12). The third feature