Discourse Analysis of the Article - Essay Example

Dis Analysis Identify a text. I have chosen an article en d "Watch your language!" from the section "Personal" in the Magazine OneLife of BBC. It is a piece written as a sequence along many other articles with the theme of "Confidence". There is no name for the author, so the reader of the BBC website knows that it was produced by one of the staff writers. I chose this self-help article as it is an excellent piece for showing the importance of the Critical Discourse Analysis method when it comes to deal with power relationships as well as with language in the context of improving one's behavior according to the parameters of mass media. The article seems alright, but hidden within there is a serious contradiction, so I think that this article is a relevant example for showing language, power and society in an interactional context. OneLife is a magazine for the big masses, and it publishes light pieces of literature that the readers consume without any second thought. Most probably the audience is young and light-hearted. They don't want to complicate their lives, so they like self-help advice whenever they can find it for free. Let's see the article! "Watch Your Language! "Sometimes the way we ask for something, or our reasons for not doing something, are examples of faulty thinking and a 'victim' mentality. Eg: you want to return something to a shop, it's not right or it doesn't work. What type of language would work best "I was wondering...could you please let me return this" or "Hello, this CD is faulty, so I'd like a refund". "The first is a question, which is asking for a refusal. The second is a statement that demands good service. Whenever you need to ask or negotiate for something it is better to follow the 'Reason/Proposal' formula. Eg: "Reason: "This shirt has a fault on the seam which makes it wrinkle up." "Proposal: "So I would like a full refund." "This type of language is sometimes called being assertive and it doesn't have to be unpleasant or aggressive. If you go for a neutral, non pleading tone and a straightforward statement of fact, it's bound to work. "Tone it up or down "People will connect with you better if you try to match their tone of voice. If your tone is high pitched and fast while the other person's is slow and laid back, then the conversation will be out of synch. So pace your voice and tone to another person's and you will find that you will communicate better. "Victim of circumstance "It's so easy to fall into the trap of thinking life is 'out to get you' or that success is for other people. Even in the worst of situations some people manage to be victors rather than victims, so watch your language or your negative thoughts. Every time you say or think: "I can't do that" try asking yourself, "What would happen if I did" "That's not a good thing to do" try asking yourself, "Who says it's not good" "It could all go horribly wrong" try asking yourself, "What's the worst thing that could happen"" (BBC, OneLife). 2.- Apply an analytical method. I am using the Critical Discourse Analyisis (CDA) method. There are many different approaches to Discourse Analysis. In order to make an appropriate selection we have to keep in mind the multiple applications for any Discourse Analysis. Going to the roots of any Discourse Analysis in the present state of theory and practice is essential for making the appropriate choice. Martyn Hammersley gives us an idea of the wide spectrum of choices: "What exactly the 'application' of discourse analysis means can vary considerably. Some forms, notably conversation analysis, involve a radical 'respecification' of topic in terms of the study of local forms of interactional order; others direct attention to the discursive construction of the various social phenomena being studied; yet others tie this discursive construction into the operation of wider social processes that they take to be exploitative or in other ways oppressive."(Martyn Hammersley. Discourse Analysis: A Bibliographical Guide). This last theoretical approach is the well known Critical Discourse Analysis method. It is very conflictive due to the ideology behind any CDA and many researchers think that it goes too far in its sociopolitical statements. CDA is really a very flexible tool for the scholar and the researcher. Brett Dellinger states it this way with a minimum of words: "Critical discourse analysis has made the study of language into an interdisciplinary tool and can be used by scholars with various backgrounds, including media criticism. Most significantly, it offers the opportunity to adopt a social perspective in the cross-cultural study of media texts." (Brett Dellinger. Critical Discourse Analysis). CDA has many critics, but nobody can escape to the reality that language in contextual interaction of the subjects in society is a discursive mechanism for the materialization of power and knowledge. This is an unavoidable reality. CDA studies language in context, in its social habitat, in its interpersonal relationship where power, ideology and knowledge are the main characters in everyday life. That is why Dellinger says the following: "In most interactions, users of language bring with them different dispositions toward language, which are closely related to social positionings. History must also be taken into account, as ideologically and politically "inflected time."" (Brett Dellinger. Critical Discourse Analysis). As we can see, CDA is an excellent theoretical approach to the text under study, that is, "Watch your language!". On a simple reading, the article seems to be flawless. Looking closely we can see that there are some sentences out of place, without coherence with the rest of the discourse. Let's see: "our reasons for not doing something." "Even in the worst of situations some people manage to be victors rather than victims." "That's not a good thing to do" try asking yourself, "Who says it's not good" If we try to match these chunks of text with the rest of the article, we will notice that there is a slight lack of coherence at the level of topic and presuppositions. The theme of the article is having a high self-esteem thanks to a healthy control of our language. The topic is not really about good and evil in the ethical sense of the word, but when we take a closer look at those suspicious sentences we can see that the reader could make certain inferences about what the writer is talking about. Most probably the author has in mind certain behaviors considered to be bad according to the traditional standards of society. The young reader, most of the consumers of the magazine OneLife, will immediately catch the message hidden behind a self-help advice like this, published in a respectable medium. So we can see that there could be a subliminal message hidden in this article, and it is tolerated because it is not really harmful at first sight. It is important to notice the fact that there is a lack of coherence in this piece of literature. The topic gets into a different ground, the ground of Ethics. Instead of victors and victims, why does not the writer talk about volunteers Yes, we are not victors. We are not victims in this world of volition, cognition and affection. We are volunteers! That would be a better message for the whole article, but the author would had to assume a different writing strategy as the context would change as well as the language used. So the Critical Discourse Analysis method that we are using to dissect this text in its ideological epistemological ground is a flexible approach with a solid history behind it. CDA is growing due to the fact that we can combine any other tools from other different methods and it would still keep its identity when focusing language, society and subject in their natural contexts producers of meaning. Even though there is a lack of coherence in the article, on the other hand, we can read it lightly, without second thoughts, and we will find that the message behind it is just fine for anybody as negative thinking and negative talk is logically not right. So we can read it according with a different presupposition, considering a different intentionality on the part of the writer. In this case the situation would be different. One thing is the intentionality, and other thing is the interpretation as a good Discourse theory can show us. So we can consider that the writer didn't mean to break any code of Ethics, or to send a subliminal message. In this case we would give a different reading to the article. 3.- Critique the method. Doing a critique to the method is a metarepresentational, metalinguistic, metasymbolic activity. CDA is not perfect. It is in a constant growing process. Its major weakness is the unstable theoretical backbone. Most of the researchers and scholars who adhere themselves to CDA use different approaches and theories for almost the same problems, so this is a serious weakness. At the same time, its strength is undeniable. The ideological approach to the phenomenon of language and society is an identity signal for CDA that these new times need. This strength can take us to a new paradigm as Teun A. Van Dijk clearly states: "Our cultural programme would assess how discourse can help consolidate cultural groups and encourage mutual respect, and can demonstrate how multiculturalism is the highest opportunity for realising the whole spectrum of human potential. Our social programme would address the relations between discourse and the processes of socialisation in such arenas as the home, the school, and the workplace." (Teun A. van Dijk. Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Quoted by Robert de Beaugrande in "The Story of Discourse Analysis"). A difficult test for CDA is the common problem of Discourse Analysis as a whole as stated by a group of scholars worried about certain negative aspects of the Discourse Research in general. They stated the following: "A number of ways of treating talk and textual data are identified which fall short of discourse analysis. They are: (1) under-analysis through summary; (2) under-analysis through taking sides; (3) under-analysis through over-quotation or through isolated quotation; (4) the circular identification of discourses and mental constructs; (5) false survey; and (6) analysis that consists in simply spotting features." (Charles Antaki, Michael Billig, Derek Edwards, Jonathan Potter. Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis: A Critique Of Six Analytic Shortcomings.). By using CDA a few questions came to my mind. I wanted to use the Discursive Psychology approach, because in this method language is considered to be an act, action. I wonder if I could link the theme of the article with this fact. I had that doubt for a while, but then I realised that CDA is a better method for this case as BBC is powerful mass media in England. Besides that, Discursive Psychology was not giving me some answers. CDA fitted OK as this is a problem of elite power, dominance (in a sense), of influence among the young people who read the magazine OneLife, etc. There was no doubt, CDA was the right method. The results of the analysis were unexpected in a way, because at first I didn't noticed certain things in the article, but on further readings I had a new insight thanks to the CDA perspective. With CDA we learn to think twice, to see hidden contexts, hidden relationships. An example of this is the fact that at first I was planning to study the article from another angle, but then I became aware of the lack of coherence in the discourse. As it is BBC, then, that's power. So everything fitted together in place with CDA. As an alternative to CDA, I think that Semiotics is a good choice for doing Discourse Analysis. The works of C. S. Peirce are remarkable. He had a brilliant mind. His monism is superior than Saussure's dualism. That's what I think. So I think that Semiotics has a fair chance to expand and to get known in other scientific circles. As we can see in the following excerpt from Wikipedia, Semiotics has a great future ahead: "The importance of signs and signification has been recognised throughout much of the history of philosophy, and in psychology as well. Plato and Aristotle both explored the relationship between signs and the world, and Augustine considered the nature of the sign within a conventional system, creating a body of theories that had a lasting effect in Western philosophy, especially through the works of the Scholastic philosophers. More recently, Umberto Eco, in his "Semiotics and philosophy of language" has argued the necessity to uncover the implicit semiotic theories in all the history of thought." (Wikipedia). But the applications of Semiotics are much more fascinating, and they make a lot of sense. Semiotics can provide a lot of theoretical background to any science of language as we can see from the following: "Semiotics has two primary applications: it represents a methodology for the analysis of texts regardless of modality. For these purposes, "text" is any message preserved in a form that has an existence independent of either its sender or receiver; and it is a methodology that can be used by any other major discipline whether it be biology, anthropology, computing, engineering, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, or psychology. The concepts and methods are highly portable and may enrich understanding, for example, for improving ergonomic design in any situation where it is important to ensure that human beings can interact more effectively with their environments, whether it be on a large scale, as in architecture, or on a small scale in the configuration of instrumentation for human use." (Wikipedia). Another serious effort in Discourse Analysis is presented by Integrational Discourse Analysis. It tries to integrate all the Discourse theory and methods into one system. Its proponent, Iatsko, says the following: "Within IDA discourse is considered as a multidimensional structure comprising four main planes: semantic, communicative, modal, and relational Integrational discourse analysis comprises four procedures: interpretation, reduction, normalization, and canonization." (V.A.Iatsko, Ph.D. Integrational Discourse Analysis). As we see it, there are many good options that can stand the test of time. CDA, on its part, has a solid ethical background. Its multidisciplinary spirit can make it grow. No matter what, the power of CDA it's its compromise, its solidarity, its Ethics. This silent aspect of CDA can be a producer of new meanings in society as Slembrouck states remembering some of the pioneers of CDA: "Through the formation of a 'critical ontology of the self' it is possible to formulate an alternative ethical standpoint from which individuals can begin to resist the normalising force of the 'government of individualisation'. The idea of an ethics of the self redefines Foucault's relation with a tradition of Enlightenment thought which he rereads through the figures of Kant and Baudelaire. From his reinterpretation, Foucault is able to deploy the concepts of autonomy, reflexivity and critique and, thereby, overcome some of what have been regarded as the nihilistic implications of his earlier work on discipline." (Prof. S. Slembrouck. What is meant by "discourse analysis"). This ethical sense is a powerful force that nobody can stop. Because it is also a warranty of scientific integrity. The methods and theories of CDA can be wrong in the long wrong, but its compromise with the minorities is a sign of honesty in times of dominance, of discrimination, of inequalities. This ethical approach to Science is extremely valuable, even though many scholars and researchers do not value it now and think of CDA as a political party. It is not. It is a scientific approach to a construct of language and society called power. Works Cited Page Brett Dellinger. 1995. http://users.utu.fi/bredelli/cda.html Charles Antaki. Loughborough University http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/ssca1/ttlecture10DA1.htm Charles Antaki, Michael Billig, Derek Edwards, Jonathan Potter Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis: A Critique Of Six Analytic Shortcomings. Loughborough University http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-paper.html Loughborough University. Department of Social Studies. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/resources/links/da.html Martyn Hammersley. Discourse Analysis:A Bibliographical Guide. April 2002 http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/capacity/Activities/Themes/In-depth/guide.pdf. Prof. S. Slembrouck, What is meant by "discourse analysis" Department of English, University of Gent. http://bank.rug.ac.be/da/da.htm Robert de Beaugrande. The Story of Discourse Analysis. http://beaugrande.bizland.com/StoryDiscAnal.htm Semiotics. Wikipedia. 11:34, 17 September 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics Teun A. van Dijk From Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun.html Watch your language! BBC. OneLife. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onelife/personal/confidence/lang.shtml Read More