Critical Discourse Analysis - Essay Example

?Index 2 Table of Contents 3 Critical Dis Analysis 3 Methodology of CDA 3 Conversation Analysis 4 Methodology of CA 4 Application of CA and CDA4 Strength and Weakness of CA and CDA 8 Theoretical Framework 9 Relation between power and language 11 Professional and Institutional power 12 Conclusion 13 Critical Discourse Analysis Critical discourse analysis is a study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice and considers the means in which political and social domination are reproduced in languages in different contexts (Goffman, 2005). Critical discourse analysis is a method of multidisciplinary analysis with the consideration of humanities and social sciences (Jaworski et al., 2002). The term refers to language and power being interrelated; it is not only accepted as a methodology but it is also said to be an assumption to overview the link between language and power. There are so many researchers who have contributed to the study of critical discourse analysis. This approach has found disciplines that include humanity, social sciences, linguistics, power and language, and more. The discourse can be studied in three contexts, which are language texts, discourse practice and discursive events (Atkinson, 2003). The analysis of the above mentioned factors will lead to a better understanding of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis Methodology of CDA Critical discourse analysis is not only a method but also an assumption towards the understanding of discourse analysis. Additionally, it is generally accepted as an explicit method within the perspective of humanities and social sciences. As such, this critical discourse can be used for obtaining proper insight into the way discourse reproduces social and political inequality, power and domination (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, it can be said that critical discourse analysis is not limited to the specific structures of language but it is also responsible for relating all these concepts to the structure of sociopolitical context (Garfinkle, 2006). Methodology of CDA Conversation Analysis Conversation analysis may be described as an approach for the purpose of social interaction with the complete usage of verbal and non-verbal conduct in day-to-day situations (Harold, 2006). The terminology of conversation analysis itself indicates that the initial stage of conversation analysis consists of casual conversation and thereafter, the procedure of analysis begins. The methods of conversation analysis were subsequently adapted to embrace more task and institution centered interactions. Therefore, the term 'conversation analysis' has become important as a successful approach to conversation with the perspective of social interaction. Conversation Analysis Methodology of CA The conception of humanity, social sciences and interactions are important and therefore, the concept of critical discourse analysis and communication analysis has gained so much importance in recent years. Currently, the communication analysis is a proven method for sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech communication and psychology (Emanuel, 2000). Communication analysis is not designed for the purpose of examining the production of interaction from a perspective that is external to the social circle and understanding the communication in a better manner (Jefferson, 2007). But the actual purpose of communication analysis is to model the resources and methods from which the understanding of communication can be reproduced in a substantial manner (Lazar, 2005). Methodology of CA Application of CA and CDA In recent years, communication analysis and critical discourse analysis have expanded their application and scope. At the same time, their concepts and understandings have complemented various other theories, which have supported the application of critical discourse and communication analysis (Goffman, 2005). Many researchers have deployed communication analysis in different fields, such as feminist linguistics, Membership Categorization Analysis and related fields, which is very useful for the social culture and environment. Social life is very important for people and that can be easily maintained by the communication analysis and critical discourse analysis (Harold, 2006). Likewise, it is the application of different fields of discourse which has led to a greater understanding of the subject matter. The several properties of social life are taken for granted by people, but they play major roles in accomplishing the interactions in the social environment. Critical discourse analysis is allied with the humanities and social sciences, while communication analysis deals with the general social life in the social environment (Stivers, 2007). Example of Conversation Analysis: There is a common structure that has been identified for conversation analysis and it has an adjacency pair. The below mentioned example is an ordered pair of adjacent utterances which are spoken by two different speakers. It has been observed that whenever the first utterance is spoken, the second one is required (Clayman, 2010). The adjacency pairs in conversation analysis are indicated in the below study. Summons--answer Can I get some help here? On my way Offer--refusal Sales person: May I help you find something? Customer: No thank you, I'm just looking. Compliment--acceptance Your hair looks very lovely today. Thank you. I just had it cut. The above mentioned texts are used in conversation analysis with the usage of different types of texts and the application of conversation analysis is important for the research study. Example of critical discourse analysis: Language structure also plays a major role in critical discourse analysis and its application in language. The defined and delimited set of statements constitutes discourses which are self-explanatory. Likewise, these are not likely to appear in other ways as they almost always related to a form of discourse analysis (Levinson, 2008). The example mentioned below provides a better understanding of the application of critical discourse analysis. For instance, the authorized person has advised that he will occupy the first position and the emphasis conveyed by it. Likewise, in the equivalent passive clause, the focus shifts to ‘I’. Therefore, it can be said that the syntactic form signals not only the prior presence of a specific ideological selection but also expresses the meaning or content of that choice of ideology. The usage of a different type of text in critical discourse analysis with a specified manner may be seen in the following: The Wolf: You're Jimmie, right? This is your house? Jimmie: Sure is. The Wolf: I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems. Jimmie: Good, we got one. The Wolf: So I heard. May I come in? Jimmie: Uh, yeah, please do. Application of CA and CDA Basic Structure Communication analysis and critical discourse analysis have a basic structure, which is to be followed for the certain behavior of the social environment. The practices of analysis are concerned with the conversation, which is done through various turns (Paul, 2001). The turn taking is the fundamental organization of conversation. Communication analysis consists of major components, which are turn constructional component and turn allocation component. The turn taking is not claimed to be universal. The common basis for a claim in language has to be universal and the turn-taking model for conversation has been arrived with the support of empirical investigation of field recordings of conversation (Levinson, 2008). The components are explained below for a better understating of analysis and observations. Turn constructional component The turn constructional component is the basic unit for the turns which are fashioned. These basic units are known as turn constructional units, which include lexical, clausal, phrasal, and sentential. Turn allocation component The turn allocation component is the organization that is done by the participants for the interaction and selection of speakers within the conversation. There are certain ordered options for the conversation, including Current Speaker and Next Speaker. The Current Speaker continues for the further process (Clayman, 2010). Basic Structure Strength and Weakness of CA and CDA Methodological Considerations of CA The constructs of communication analysis includes human interaction, social relationships and other related factors of social life. In communication analysis, the methodology is not limited to turn taking, turn constructional units, and sequence organization but it has been expanded to various other measures of social constructs (Paul, 2001). The methodology of communication analysis also includes meticulous transcription of audio or video recordings with the notation of communication analysis. And the analysis also involves concurrent use of the audio/video data as the primary sources for analysis (Stivers, 2007). Strengths Communication analysis is considered to be an essential tool for such analysis; likewise, by its very nature, language itself can be used to identify the nuances within the analysis. Accordingly, the analysis has to be done specifically at the conversational level, and cannot be done in any other method in a general manner. Weaknesses The process of communication analysis is costly and time consuming. Specialized training has to be given for the methods of communication analysis for a good procedure of communication analysis (Lerner, 2004). The analytic process is sensitive and the misinterpretation can be wrought at the time of analysis. Therefore, the crucial activity is involved within the process. The phenomenon has to be essentialized for the fulfillment of observation and the initial process has to be triangulated before arriving at conclusions. Strength and weaknesses of CDA The strength of the critical discourse analysis has to be valid for the proper identification of discourse in texts and language. This, therefore, is a general academic exercise and the interpretation thereof is also valid for the discourse analysts. Likewise, discourse analysis can be promoted for the various versions in the psychological phenomena presented (Atkinson, 2003). The interpretations are more real and genuine for the identification of discourses and it is assumed that the existence of an independent language has to be done by critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis has been criticized for the difficulty of 'getting to grips' with it because of the less guidelines for the working procedure (Stokoe, 2006). Therefore, the tool has less potential for the analysis and has a type of value-free technology. Thus, the criticality and transparency of research can be lost due to discourse analysis (Malcolm, 2006). The procedure can be problematic as it may form various kinds of manipulations within the analysis. In addition, critical discourse analysis is quite unclear about the philosophical foundations and therefore, lacks the basic foundation for the analysis. Also, the practical implications of the sociological theory are avoided at the time of critical discourse analysis (Weiss, 2003). Strength and Weakness of CA and CDA Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework of the critical discourse and communication analysis has been explained for the verbal interaction and communication at the micro level of social order (Rogers, 2003). The micro and macro approaches have a considerable gap between them and the critical discourse analysis has to bridge the gap in order to achieve better results of the discourse study. The sociological construct has to be developed in a proper manner for the overall development of the interaction and experience of the macro and micro levels of analysis (Nikolas, 2002). The micro level discourse of social interaction has to be dealt with in a specific situation but at the same time, the reproduction has also to be done at the macro level. There are several ways to analyze and resolve these above mentioned issues as the bridging between the micro and macro level analysis can be done so as to arrive at a unified critical analysis. This can be most helpful for the overall analysis. These measures are explained below. Members groups: The members have to be engaged in discourse within the particular social group; furthermore, the groups may act as the members of the organization so as to accomplish the actual goals of the discourse. Process of action: The group actions have to be performed as individual actors so as to continue with the social group actions and processes, which are an integral part of the social environment (Harold, 2006). Social structure: There are some exceptional situations which are indulged with discursive interaction and part of the overall structure of social life and therefore, the typical practice of organizations have to be followed in a proper manner for removing the various constraints on discourse. Personal and social cognition: Social actors have cognition of their involvement for both personal and social factors. Likewise, shared members or culture of the social group must be maintained for the proper interaction and discourse of the group members, thereby allowing a collective action for the betterment of the discourse and group as well (Karen, 2003). Power as control Power and language are interrelated as power is considered as the critical notion for the discourse, specifically, the social power of groups or institutions. There are several social and philosophical analyses which are related to the control of power. The summary of complexity of the social analysis has to be done for the completion of power so as to control the social environment in a better manner (Weiss, 2003). The power has to be maintained to control the activities of group of members and individuals related to the social group within the environment. This ability presupposes a power base of privileged access to scarce social resources. These social resources are money, position, fame, culture, and information of the various sets of people of the public discourse and communication. There are different sets of powers for which sources are employed for the purpose of corrective analysis. The specific group members can also control the other groups in specific situations or social domains. There are some groups which are dominated to resist and accept the situation with the strong legitimate power. Therefore, the power of dominated groups may be integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits, and even a quite general consensus (Maxwell, 2004). It is also considered that the powerful group members are more powerful than the dominated group members as a whole. Therefore, the power is defined for the better understanding of relation between the power and discourse. The actions of power is controlled by the minds of groups and also, it can be indirectly controlled by their actions and the actions of the group as a whole (Sachs, 2007). Research framework Relation between power and language It is undeniable that power and language are interrelated and intertwined with each other. This is demonstrated by the way that speaking, writing and the power of an individual can be determined in a certain manner (Rogers, 2003). The identity of people is also affected by the language. Therefore, there are many researchers that believe language and power are intertwined with each other and the requirement of language can be fulfilled by this power in a better manner. The language affects the overall identity, personality, and behavior of the individual – a considerable point to be considered for the relation between power and language. This arrangement leads individuals to desire to learn the process of reading, writing and speaking so as to know, appreciate, and use the power of language (Levinson, 2008). Many researchers have found that the power can be generated by the good skills of language, and the ability to read, write and speak. Therefore, these are considerable skills for the accomplishment of goals and freedom. The communication gap can be bridged and therefore, various problems related to the communication can be resolved at the same time (Hutchby et al., 2009). To further ensure that power would not materialize, the members of groups have to speak in the common languages and communicate in a common manner so as to justify the relation between power and language (Talbot et al., 2003). Language is related to power as well as identity and it is being considered as the greatest power from which there are so many things related to social life which can be achieved for the people. It is also observed that there are so many factors of power which influence language and vice versa (Goffman, 2005). The power can be gained by proficiency in language which, in turn, can shape the identity of an individual. The importance of power can be determined in an easy manner by the learning of language and consecutively, the power can be increased for the correlation of power and language. Relation between power and language Professional and Institutional power Professional and institutional power has been studied in a critical manner in the context of the role of discourse and inequality in reproduction (Toolan, 2002). Likewise, critical discourse analysis has a considerable dominance by certain social groups. Furthermore, it has been examined that there are various genres of institutional and professional discourse which are to be considered at the time of critical discourse and communication analysis (Young, 2004). The power and dominance are associated with specific social domains such as politics, media, law, education and science that are allied with the studies of professional and institutional power. The background of the reproduction of power in various domains of social group is an important factor for the analysis in a corrective manner. This power has certain targets for such powers; these are usually catered to by public clients and other social groups that depend on the institutional and organizational power. Professional and Institutional Power Conclusion The study has discussed various topics of critical discourse analysis and communication analysis in relation to the application of power and language. The theoretical framework has also been analyzed for the purpose of understanding the concepts of discourse and power with the understanding of domination groups and powerful groups within the analysis. The methodology, strengths and weaknesses of critical discourse analysis and communication analysis have been explained in the study so as to recognize the relevance of study (Harrison, 2004). The basic structure of discourse and interface between the power and discourse has been performed at the same time. The relation of discourse and action in the context of social groups, and society at large, is the major subject study for the integration of various approaches of discourse. In this way the study will work to accomplish the objectives of the prior studies as well as to understand the multidisciplinary approach of critical discourse analysis and communication analysis in a better and more complete manner. References Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. eds., 2004. Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Coulthard, M. Eds., 2006. Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Drew, P. and Heritage, J., 2001. Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Enfield, N. J. and Stivers, T., 2007. Ferson reference in interaction: linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Garfinkel, H., 2006. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Goffman, E., 2005. The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, pp. 1–17. Heritage, J. and Steven, E. C., 2010. Talk in action: interactions, identities and institutions. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Hutchby, I. and Woffitt, R., 2009. Conversation analysis. Polity Press. Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. eds., 2002. The discourse reader. New York: Routledge. Lazar, M. ed., 2005. Feminist critical discourse analysis: gender, power and ideology in discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Lerner, G. H. ed., 2004. Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Levinson, S. C., 2008. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–370. Rogers, R., 2003. A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices: power in and out of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G., 2007. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, pp. 696–735. Schegloff, E., 2000. Introduction. In: H. Sacks. Lectures on conversation (vol.1: Fall 1964-Spring 1968). Oxford, Blackwell: ix-lxii. Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. eds., 2012. Handbook of conversation analysis. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Stivers, T., 2007. Prescribing under pressure: parent-physician conversations and antibiotics (oxford studies in sociolinguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stokoe, E., 2006. On the methodology, feminism, and the analysis of categorial reference to gender in talk-in-interaction. Sociological Review, 54, pp. 467–94. Talbot, M., Atkinson, K. and Atkinson, D., 2003. Language and power in the modern world. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Toolan, M. ed., 2002. Critical discourse analysis: critical concepts in linguistics (vol. I: precursors and inspirations). London: Routledge. Weiss, G. and Wodak, R. eds., 2003. Critical discourse analysis: theory and interdisciplinarity in critical discourse analysis. London: Palgrave. Young, L. and Harrison, C. eds., 2004. Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: studies in social change. London: Continuum. Read More