Critical Discourse Analysis - Report Example

Critical Discourse Analysis Name Student Number Institution Course Code Instructor Date Discourse Analysis of Political Interviews on the Brexit Introduction The Critical Discourse Analysis involves the Brexit debate as conducted on BBC, 20th October 2016. This analysis looks into the ways in which participants establish their ideological positions within the context of the debate. The conversation is chaired by David Dimbleby (DD), with the participants being Ken Clarke (KC); a Conservative MP, Angela Rayner (AR); Labour Shadow Education Secretary, Lisa Duffy (LD); UKIP, Conrad Black (CB) formerly of Daily Telegraph, Yanis Varoufakis (YV) an economist and former Greek Finance Minister and the audience. The whole debate revolves around the great dilemma of Britain leaving the European Union (EU). By critically analysing the debate, various perceptions and meanings will be devised from the clauses used, participants’ process and their interactions. Critical Analysis The role of the participants in the debate varies from support of Brexit, critiquing the leaving process and the future of UK relations with other European nations. Brexit debate has gained increased prominence in the EU with a critical interest in Britain to understand the process of leaving EU. Looking at the debate on BBC, it is apparent that Brexit debate remains a hot issue in the region. For example, from the audience, Gary uses clauses to stress his point “Is it time for MPs, the media and the remoaners...” Ken Clarke (KC) is very cautious with his discussion, backed by the fact that he support remaining in the EU and faced by the current reality of leaving, his discussion borders clauses that are calculated strategically. KC goes further to assert that “Brexiteers in Parliament don’t agree with each other” indicating a negative conversation of a group of Parliamentarians expected to be championing the same ideological aspect. The debate about referendum and the will of the people creates a sense of experiential process with individuals having their own ideologies on leaving EU and lacking proper facts on the same. From the audience, one participant GY indicates that the public followed the media and listened to politicians forming the basis of their research on the Brexit phenomenon. Stress gives the intensity of the message being relayed. Yanis states that “...Theresa May has... a major major degree” illustrating stress with repetition and lexical pattern of clauses in the conversation presenting the degree of the message. Language is closely connected to the social and cognitive development in the human growth. It presents the ideas held inwards and the perceptions presented based on the outer view. Attitudes by participants in a debate are significant in the analysis. The theory of ideology as depicted by van Dijik (1993) indicates that analysis of a discourse analysis attempts to relate the structure of the discourse with those of the society. This is clearly articulated in the conceptual triangle connecting the society, discourse and social cognition in the critical discourse analysis framework. KC in his initial conversation indicates the pragmatic connections society and its changes with modernity. “We were in the right setting in this big single market” is a participant material process indicating the progress of the UK in the European Union. Without necessarily indicating his support of not leaving, he outlines the benefits the UK attained for being a member of the EU. The conversation in the debate revolves around issues from both sides of the ones who supported Brexit and the ones for remaining. The aspect of opposition is well depicted “parliament had a ballot, did it not” which presents a sense of opposition to the meaning of the phrase. Conrad asserts that Britain cannot be treated like a town council in Portugal or something (Line 55). The phrase targets to indicate the sovereignty of the UK and the capacity of the nation to stand along. Counter-agreements filled with emotions are present in the debate “the comment I find utterly insulting from Gary...” with the participant acting defensive on the attack of her profession by the narrator. The debates introduced in school are termed as platforms for students to analyse and understand the happenings. However, interpretations of such bring about conclusions like the one presented by Gary that students are being filled with anti-Brexit ideas in schools. Here we have two set of participant’s processes, one is verbal and the other is material. One is presented with debates on Brexit in schools as harmful to students whereas the presented as a course of understanding the happenings in the region. Yanis presents a perspective of other Europeans living in the UK. The idea of majority voting to leave the EU, gives the impression that people in UK want to regain their sovereignty and control of their state. The political conversations are interesting to follow with debaters articulating ideas in favour of their parties or coalition affiliation. Conversations are made with the mindset to impress the audience especially the ones with the same ideologies and influence those against to change their perceptions. CDA is obviously not a homogenous model, but involves a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotic or discourse analysis (van Dijik, 1993, p.131). Its objective as a concept involves the perceiving of language as a social practice. During speech, users of language work together with a set of cultural, social and psychological frameworks. In line with making crucial discourse in the conversation, the use of intonation, appealing phrases and stern expressions are common to assert given meanings. Interpretation of the clauses used in the conversation may be misinterpreted if not critically analysed. Political debates give clear dilemmas as with the case of leaving EU. The parliamentary process appears to be a dilemma to many and they are not aware of what is happening and the length it will take to leave EU and the actual state afterwards. Dilemmas cannot be solved easily and CDA researchers are supposed to be self-reflective in making clear assessments of the context under consideration. The debate is clear on the need to address the will of the majority; however, there are issues that appear to contrast the wishes of the majority. For example, in respect to access the EU single market, it is apparent many are in support of the concept. Nevertheless, none admits the fact that leaving the European Union will lead to negotiations to enjoy the ease of marketing with open borders. Yanis presents a statement of negativity in respect to being one of the people not being wanted in Britain (No. 21). However, he is quick to assert that he feels much loved in the UK and this presents the statement was meant to give a critical discourse with regard to the interests, realities and perceptions in the general populace. Lisa Dufy (LD) utilises speech presentation effectively by quoting GY on the issue of moaning and moving ahead. “When are they going to stop moaning,” this is followed by a stressing phrase made by Ken Clarke on not liking referendums giving a rather rhetoric and leading statement with hanging meaning. “Ken doesn’t like referendums, is it because people are making the decision...” which gives a clear emphasis of emotional approach to the verbal process. The emotional aspects is introduced to indicate those legislators hard on the leaving process in parliament portray as not respecting the will of the majority. However, KC is categorical in stating that there are constituents who opted to remain and thus, their task in parliament is to ensure everyone’s wishes are presented in the parliamentary process. The debate presents two scenarios, one is for individuals in support of Britain Leaving EU and the other of individuals who initially were for to remain but have to embrace the idea of leaving. This is due to the fact that the majority have spoken. The conversation gives participants who express their inner and outer worlds based on the Brexit topic. Conversation flow is classical and categorical with participants selectively using phrases to appropriately address their point of view (Cap, 2008). In as much as other debaters are talking of single market, Conrad interacts that they will deal with the EU via the World Trade Organisation. Amid the speculation of losing on the single market benefits, the Brexiters are optimistic trading will continue with the EU only that the parliamentary process have to take course to meet the needs of the people. Political discourses indicate emotions and ambitions taking centre stage. In the referendum campaigns, Ken indicates that scaremongering and self-assurances that are not apparent are clear. Statements like “nothing will change” “no no no they have to sell their cars to us” were heard during the campaigns, but currently the complications of the process and realising the arguments veracity is coming out clearly. Usage of verbs to intimate actions has been used in the debate, for example “We are not leaving Europe, we are leaving the European Union.” The alliteration used in the sentence brings out a clear lexical presentation, but with negative connotation. The aspect is that people are mixing issues in debates involving Brexit rather tackling facts. Democracy is following the will of the majority, and having the majority in UK vote for leaving the EU means honouring the same to promote democracy. However, Yanis argues that democracy is having a parliamentary process that even after an election; a mature decision is reached in the process through a full parliamentary term discussion. Whatever the course of action taken by parliament, consequences are imminent, but the manner of carrying out the leaving process should be handled with caution. Clause usage to give divergent meanings are clear in the conversation, a good example is “this country is one of the most business friendly places to invest in...” “But making it less attractive for investment is not going to much good...” The two phrases are made in one conversation showing the reality of two scenarios. The referendum question appeared to be one question, but there were a myriad of issues entangled in it. KC indicates that “... it was one question with 100 difficult question wrapped up...” The conversation appears coded pragmatically to indicate that the whole issue of Brexit had more than just the question presented. Subsequently, voters may have voted without the full context of the analysis of the referendum question and related issues to the leave process. The concept of CDA accepts the social context and studies connections existing between the textual structures and takes the social context into account to explore the connections between textual structures and their function in interaction within the society. Turns and overlaps are evident in the debate, participant AR clearly asserts the resolution by the majority to leave EU but favours a single market. However, upon being asked to clarify on the single market statement goes round to state that “I think people need to have clarity... for our economy.’ One key factor with politicians is their ability to try and impress their voters. With the magnitude of diversity in the Brexit debate, the political discussions on the issue embrace ideologically conscious and organised strategy to embrace sobriety. The turns and twists employed by the debaters are only for making the audience has a neutral impression of the critical being given by the debater. Generally, the debate brings out a complex issue facing the UK, but the people are not aware of the implications only relying on the legislators to make good their decision. Turns and counter arguments are apparent with lexical choices to appeal the audience. For example conversation 73 “I’m not saying and I’m not suggesting we ignore the vote” giving a clear mental process aimed impressing the target audience. However, the audience appears to conjecture and interject the speakers in their discussion when they appear elusive to elaborate their arguments. Conclusion Dilemmas cannot be resolved and thus, such a debate requires self-reflective participants in the conversation. Further, making clear assessment of the contexts made within the debate is critical not to raise other people’s emotions. From the debates, clauses have come out within the sentence to signify the roles of participants in the process. Supporters and the ones who voted against Brexit in the audience appear concerned on the parliamentary process involving leaving the EU. The key debaters on the other hand present arguments based on their best interests in the situation of their initial support in the referendum. Reference List Cap, P. (2008). Towards the Proximisation Model of the Analysis of Legitimisation in Political Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 17-41. Fairclough, N., 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Van Dijik, T. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Read More