Critical Discourse Analysis - Literature review Example

RUNNING HEAD: PRINCIPLES OF ANALYSIS Principles of Analysis Name Institution Date Introduction Discourse analysis, which basically relates to studying language use in the context of communication, is generally a rapidly expanding field characterized not only by various proliferating analytical approaches but also by continually renewed tools. The scope of discourse analysis incorporates wide-ranging disciplines including anthropology, sociology, education and psychology. Equally, Georgakopoulou & Goutsos (2004) state that discourse analysis has established a strong foundation in linguistics, both theoretical linguistics, descriptive linguistics and applied linguistics.However,the proliferation of various discourse analysis approaches have prompted a careful reconsideration and reflections on the most effective approaches to discourse analysis as well as a careful future planning. It is therefore not by chance that, whereas many approaches appeared simultaneously, critical discourse analysis has received significant attention (Bloome & Talwalkar, 1997). Over the last decades, the approach has actually emerged to be an important multidisciplinary approach towards the study not only of texts but also contexts within the public sphere using various principles. These principles generally aim to unveil various hidden and out-of-sight positions, perspectives and values while also exploring the connections existing between language use and the context under which it occurs. A thorough analysis of this approach however indicates some strengths and weaknesses that develop from these principles. It is within this background that this particular paper intends to critique Critical Discourse Analysis focusing on such principles as connections between text properties and social/cultural structures, the discursive nature of power relations, the significance in ideological work and the interpretative and explanatory nature of analysis. The paper will first describe what it is, highlight the strengths and weaknesses within it and provide a synthesis of issues regarding its use. Critical Discourse Analysis According to Locke (2004),critical Discourse Analysis is basically an inter-disciplinary model of discourse study that generally regards language to be a social practice while also focusing on ways in which the political and the social domination are replicated in the texts and conversations. As Wodak & Meyer (2008) highlight, Critical Discourse Analysis was actually an idea that originated out of the contribution of various scholars who attended a symposium in the city of Amsterdam in 1991.While supported by the Amsterdam University, Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, van Dijk, Gunther Kress and van Leeuwen engaged on serious discussions regarding Discourse Analysis and especially Critical Discourse Analysis. The approach generally subsumes various approaches towards social discourse analysis which differ in terms of theory, the methodology involved and research issues given due prominence (Fairclough, 2013, Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).The ‘critical’ notion, as highlighted by the University of Strathclyde (2013), is mainly associated with power relation engagements that emanated from the critical theory accredited to the Germany’s Frankfurt School. In this therefore, it criticizes the view of world through a realist, rationalist as well as a neutral perspective and in place uncloaks the concealed power relations mainly formed through language while also demonstrates and challenges the social inequities that are promoted and reproduced. As indicated by Locke (2004), Critical Discourse Analysis generally perceives discourse to be influenced by ideologies, though ideology in this case is conceptualized. Similar, it considers the existing social order as well as social processes to be not only constituted but also less sustained by individual motivations/will more than by pervasiveness of given constructions or even forms of reality, which are in actual fact the discourses. In addition to this, Locke (2004) further highlights that Critical Discourse Analysis perceives human subjectivity to be partially inscribed/constructed through discourse whereby discourse itself is reflected through the numerous ways by which individuals are and behave according to who they are. In analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis emphasizes on texts being considered not only regarding what they entail but as well what the texts omit, which are actually other ways of conceptualizing and defining universe. According to Wodak & Meyer (2009) therefore, the role of critical discourse analysts is not merely reading social ideologies and political ideologies on texts but to comprehend the various ways through which the texts might have actually been written in addition to considering what such alternatives imply in the representation of the world and understanding of it. This is actually crucial since texts are where complexities within social meanings originate. The approach actually makes such texts meaningful for instance by considering how they are produced, disseminated, received and consumed. Besides, it also puts into question social actions determined by such manner of thinking. Overally, Critical Discourse Analysis, as a paradigm, is basically characterized by numerous principles, with one such principle holding that every approach is problem-oriented hence not only inter-disciplinary but also diverse. Critical Discourse Analysis is additionally characterized by common interests in the demystification of ideologies and influence by way of retroductable (transparent) as well as systematic investigation of the semiotic information, whether visual, written or even spoken (Wodak & Meyer, 2008).This means, for instance, that Critical Discourse Analysis is more focused on demystifying situations as well as perceptions often perceived as natural but have actually been discursively created/constructed over a period by groups or individuals in power attempting to distort social reality as well as institutional arrangements for their own benefit. Furthermore, Critical Discourse Analysis researchers as well endavour to be explicit in terms of their viewpoints and interests while at the same time maintaining the scientific methodologies and maintaining self-reflection on their individual research process Strengths of the Approach As highlighted by Fairclough & Wodak (1997), strengths of the Critical Discourse Analysis are generally reflected in the making of connections between text properties on one hand and social/cultural structures and process on the other hand. Critical Discourse Analysis is actually a better way of understanding how particular words form subconscious associations in an individual’s mind with very minimal, if not completely no effort. For instance, the use of motive words such as “terrorist” or “abuser” within any kind of media would presumably rely on the covert bias to make individuals in order to inject the relevant ideologies hence making the audience have a particular viewpoint without making this obvious. One of the major strengths of the Critical Discourse Analysis, as argued by Ng’ambi (2008), is based on the way in which it richly analyzes texts. Critical Discourse Analysis actually considers texts to be artefacts that are not in isolation whereby contexts such as socio-political and socio-historic, for instance, contribute significantly to the production as well as the interpretation of texts in addition to being important aspects of analysis. Operating on three analysis levels, it engages with texts, discursive practices and the larger socio-historic as well as socio-political context. Ng’ambi (2008), states that discourse practices under which texts are generated and interpreted are actually considered as significant social practice forms significantly contributing to how social world is constituted, including the social identities involved and the social relations therein. Critical discourse analysis actually begins with an assumption that the use of language is social and discourse not only reflects but also constructs our social world. Therefore critical analysis may explore matters/issues relating to identity, gender and ideology and they are reflected within particular texts. On the other hand, according to Hart (2010), Critical Discourse Analysis goes beyond purely describing texts to providing cognitive insights as regards the manner in which and the possible reasons for the possibility of manipulating and communicating ideologies in discourse. It thus provides a potential paradigm for the identification as well as the interpretation of the manner in which ideology functions not only within but also through discourse. Hart (2010) similarly argues that a particular strength within it relates to its role of bridging the gap existing between the actual language phenomenon and the manner in which power works within societies. Dillon (2010) similarly asserts that a major Critical Discourse analysis’ strength lies in the fact it is applicable to all subjects where certain wordings can also enable individuals to link with various representations as well as ideologies already adopted. According to Talbot (2010), for instance, critical discourse analysis can be used by feminists to explore social constructions in terms of gender since there are many areas of critical enquiry regarding discourse issues as well as language issues which are actually explicitly feminist. Weaknesses of the Approach Despite the above strengths, Critical Discourse Analysis has also been cited as having a number of weaknesses. A particular argument against it highlighted by Widdowson (2005) is that it is actually not that different from the earlier/previous stylistic analyses such as stylistics conducted within literary criticism. Widdowson (2005) actually contends that critical analyses ought to integrate discussions/consultations with text producers as well as text consumers, and not merely being based on an analyst’s perspective of what texts imply alone. Van Noppen (2004) has also cited how critical discourse analysis excludes the reader’s role not only in text consumption but also text interpretation, sometimes creating confusion by assuming the position of audience members to whom the text is intended or aimed at. Paltridge (2006) thus suggests that the analyses ought to draw more on the consumers’ interpretations of texts and the interpretation of discourse as a means of countering this particular weakness. Shegloff (1997) has also indicated criticisms of Critical Discourse Analysis in relation to its contents and analysis. According to Shegloff (1997), Critical Discourse Analysis does not as often as required provide adequately detailed, systematic text analyses under its examination. Similarly, critical discourse analysts have been called upon to be very critical and more demanding in terms of the analysis tools they employ in addition to being more thorough and focusing on the strong evidence relating to claims made. According to Paltridge (2006), there is hardly any hard data indicating that this particular approach to discourse analysis is actually reliable, apart from considering that this particular approach uses research whose strength is completely dependent on an argument’s logic. Even more, this particular approach does not offer different answers, is not a hard science and provides findings that are entirely interpretational. Due to this; Paltridge (2006) suggests that in order to provide better results, the research method employed ought to be used alongside another methodology. Frantz (2003) argues that the limitations leveled against Critical Discourse Analysis lend credence to criticisms on the predictability of the research outcomes as well as its lack of methodological rigour, which are actually its major criticisms. Synthesis of Issues Increasingly, Critical Discourse Analysis plays a significant role in analyzing discourses, for instance, the political and social discourses. On the other hand, some skepticism regarding its role not only as a theoretically-founded analytical but also methodological approach still remains with various issues surrounding it. One of the major issues in Critical Discourse Analysis as highlighted by Fairclough (2002) is related to analytical issues, especially the way in which texts are analyzed (textual analysis).Even though Fairclough (2002) has focused on the practical analytic issues to address what he considers as increased uncertainty on how texts can be analyzed, it actually does not imply that the theoretical issues have lost their significance. Theoretical issues are also raised within Critical Discourse Analysis. The proposition that ideological text critique is capable of uncovering the hidden content thereby revealing truth concerning the suppressive power relations actually contradicts the understanding concerning the very constructed reality nature within texts. As Patterson (1997) highlights the notion that something is in texts and only waiting for revelation or even extraction by applying correct interpretation method is actually an assumption that post-structuralism embarks on problematizing. These contradictions are clearly evident in the Faircloughian approaches. For instance, in his work, Fairclough (2001) encouraged the uncovering and demystification of the ideological assumptions of language and power through Critical Discourse Analysis, while contending that power and ideology is not connected to any particular individuals, linguistic forms or permanent attributes of social groups or individuals. In other works on Critical Discourse Analysis, ideologies are linked to discourses as well as other social practice moments where ideologies are considered as practice constructions within given perspectives that iron out contradictions and antagonisms in manners that accord with interests and projects of focus. The changing positions with regards to ideology are just but an instance of morphing occurring in terms of understanding the theoretical issues involved. Conclusion Discourse Analysis has undoubtedly and increasingly become a popular and preferred methodology of qualitative research among researchers. The highlighted approach has been regarded as providing a potential paradigm for the identification as well as the interpretation of the manner in which ideology functions not only within but also through discourse. With this, a number of strengths within the approach have been highlighted and especially regarding the way in which the benefits are reflected in the making of connections between text properties on one hand and social/cultural structures and process on the other hand. On the other hand, it is clearly obvious that with all the strengths coming along with the use of this approach, there are as well many shortfalls, whereby among the significant criticisms, its research methodologies have been faulted by some critics. It would however be quite unfortunate if its important objective is undermined by its methodological flaws as well as its theoretical shortcomings. In this particular case it appears that the main argument revolves around the absence of definitive answers whereby even though the methodologies suggest things concerning texts, they lack definitive answers. In order to give satisfactory results therefore, its research methodology ought to be highly critical and demanding of text linguistics used, more thorough and focusing on the strong evidence relating to claims made, maintain simplicity in presentations and embrace corrections of given hegemonizing discourses. Generally, the open debates regarding Critical Discourse Analysis together with its research, in as much as they are healthy ought to contribute to improving this approach. References Bloome, D & Talwalkar, S. (1997).Critical Discourse Analysis and the Study of Reading and Writing, Reading Research Quarterly, Vol.32, Iss.No.1, Pp.104–112 Dillon, A. (2012).Critical Discourse Analysis and Content Analysis Fairclough, N. (2013).Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge Frantz, R. (2003).In Defense of Critical Discourse Analysis Fairclough, N & Wodak, R. (1997).Critical Discourse Analysis. In: T. Van Dijk: Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Sage, Vol.2, Pp. 258-284. Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power. Longman: London Fairclough, N. (2002).Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge: London Georgakopoulou, A & Goutsos, D. (2004). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press Hart, C. (2010).Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan: London Locke, T. (2004).Critical Discourse Analysis: Continuum Research Methods. Continuum Ng’ambi, D. (2008).A Critical Discourse Analysis of Students’ Anonymous Online Postings. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, Vol.4, Iss.3 Paltridge, B. (2006).Discourse Analysis: An Introduction: Bloomsbury Discourse. Continuum Publishers Patterson, A. (1997).Critical Discourse Analysis: A Condition of Doubt. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3):Pp.425-35 Schegloff, E. (1997).Whose text? Whose context? Journal of Discourse and Society 8(2): Pp.165-187. Talbot, M. (2010).Language and Gender. Polity University of Strathclyde. (2013).What is Critical Discourse Analysis? Retrieved on October 17th, 2013 from Van Noppen, J. (2004).CDA: A Discipline Come of Age? Journal of Sociolinguistics, Vol.8, Iss.1, Pp.107–126 Wodak, R & Meyer, M. (2009).Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis: Introducing Qualitative Methods series, SAGE Wodak, R & Meyer, M. (2008).Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology Widdowson, H. (2005).Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Read More

In analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis emphasizes on texts being considered not only regarding what they entail but as well what the texts omit, which are actually other ways of conceptualizing and defining universe. According to Wodak & Meyer (2009) therefore, the role of critical discourse analysts is not merely reading social ideologies and political ideologies on texts but to comprehend the various ways through which the texts might have actually been written in addition to considering what such alternatives imply in the representation of the world and understanding of it.

This is actually crucial since texts are where complexities within social meanings originate. The approach actually makes such texts meaningful for instance by considering how they are produced, disseminated, received and consumed. Besides, it also puts into question social actions determined by such manner of thinking. Overally, Critical Discourse Analysis, as a paradigm, is basically characterized by numerous principles, with one such principle holding that every approach is problem-oriented hence not only inter-disciplinary but also diverse.

Critical Discourse Analysis is additionally characterized by common interests in the demystification of ideologies and influence by way of retroductable (transparent) as well as systematic investigation of the semiotic information, whether visual, written or even spoken (Wodak & Meyer, 2008).This means, for instance, that Critical Discourse Analysis is more focused on demystifying situations as well as perceptions often perceived as natural but have actually been discursively created/constructed over a period by groups or individuals in power attempting to distort social reality as well as institutional arrangements for their own benefit.

Furthermore, Critical Discourse Analysis researchers as well endavour to be explicit in terms of their viewpoints and interests while at the same time maintaining the scientific methodologies and maintaining self-reflection on their individual research process Strengths of the Approach As highlighted by Fairclough & Wodak (1997), strengths of the Critical Discourse Analysis are generally reflected in the making of connections between text properties on one hand and social/cultural structures and process on the other hand.

Critical Discourse Analysis is actually a better way of understanding how particular words form subconscious associations in an individual’s mind with very minimal, if not completely no effort. For instance, the use of motive words such as “terrorist” or “abuser” within any kind of media would presumably rely on the covert bias to make individuals in order to inject the relevant ideologies hence making the audience have a particular viewpoint without making this obvious. One of the major strengths of the Critical Discourse Analysis, as argued by Ng’ambi (2008), is based on the way in which it richly analyzes texts.

Critical Discourse Analysis actually considers texts to be artefacts that are not in isolation whereby contexts such as socio-political and socio-historic, for instance, contribute significantly to the production as well as the interpretation of texts in addition to being important aspects of analysis. Operating on three analysis levels, it engages with texts, discursive practices and the larger socio-historic as well as socio-political context. Ng’ambi (2008), states that discourse practices under which texts are generated and interpreted are actually considered as significant social practice forms significantly contributing to how social world is constituted, including the social identities involved and the social relations therein.

Critical discourse analysis actually begins with an assumption that the use of language is social and discourse not only reflects but also constructs our social world. Therefore critical analysis may explore matters/issues relating to identity, gender and ideology and they are reflected within particular texts.

Read More