Features of CA & CDA Analysis - Coursework Example

CA and CDA Analysis By Lecture’s al Affiliation CA and CDA Analysis Essay Introduction Dis Analysis Language is very important as it defines greatly the beliefs, values and ideologies of people as they speak. Language is also dependent on semiotic signs. These include facial expressions, gestures, and symbols and so on. These non-spoken signs in language are used to analyze discourse (Deborah, 2001). - There are many kinds of discourses; they all evolve from people’s writing and spoken word, which result in the explanation of social practices. Definitions, Purposes and Objectives Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a theoretical framework that Sunderland describes from Fairclough’s work (date), the “social relations of power and domination.” Fairclough (Sunderland 2002 pg. 51) also argues that CDA originates from the many difficulties within the social sphere. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a discipline of discourse analysis; Norman Fairclough has made a significant contribution towards this study of linguistics. Fairclough states that with the use of CDA there are three phases of the analysis itself, “description of text, interpretation of the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation of the relationship between interaction and social context.” Pg. 91 The set of textual features included is highly selective, containing only those which tend to be most significant for critical analysis. Pg. 92. CDA explains the relationship between power and language. It is a discipline that seeks to identify the intended meanings of texts, the discourses reinforced from the texts (Fairclough, 1995). Conversational Analysis (CA) is another theoretical framework, which derives from the sociological movement named ethnomethodology; this was then transformed into being used within language in practice. It is applied to language in use when individuals are conversing with one another with the use of transcription to interpret the spoken conversation. CA looks at: the structure of a conversation this includes: the turn taking organization, shape of the speakers turn or the microanalysis of dialogue in a conversation. CA consists of five areas (listed in order of use) theoretical assumptions, goals of analysis, data, preparation of data for analysis and analytic methods (Sidnell and Stivers, 2013). Analytical categories of the Frameworks 1. Conversation Analysis Conversation analysis (CA) is a discipline that focuses mainly on social interaction and how it occurs through non-verbal and verbal use. CA initially began with analyzing common casual conversations between people; later on it progressed to analyzing more task-oriented and institution-placed interactions in conversation. The objective of Conversational Analysis is to understand the interaction of people in social contexts. The analysis process can be completed through the collection of data being either visual or audio recorded, which is later transcribed through the use of the turn-taking system Jefferson. One use of CA can be to identify patterns within conversations, analysts are able to develop models to explain the interaction levels based on the patterns identified. The turn taking organization as described by (Sacks, 1974) depends on the idea of the power affiliations of participants whether it be an informal or formal setting. (Fairclough pg. 112) states that turn taking is controlled through a particular formula where everyone involved is given equal opportunity to make a decision to speak or not. The person speaking selects another to speak when they have spoken, if no acknowledgement is made for the next speaker to continue, the original speaker may continue to speak or the turn goes to the next speaker. This decision is made unconsciously for who speaks by being aware of where the conversation is leading in-between each turn. Turn constructional component The turn constructional component of interaction is a component of Conversational Analysis. CA is dissected through units that describe how turns are constructed; these are called turn constructional units (TCU). The units describe appropriately how people organize their conversational interaction through the use of turns. Interaction through acceptance is more promoted in conversation than the interaction that tends to decline (Schegloff 1974) Adjacency Pair Conversation Analysis has been developed through a structure of turn taking, the turn-taking process is used within social interaction. … gives an example of a scenario where an individual asks either a question or complains to another and the person conducting the action first selects the next speaker, this is also known as a ‘adjacency pair’. The examples may also include; and offer that is followed by acceptance or refusal, a complement followed by a response (Sacks 1974). Turn allocation component However, when more than two people are conversing at one time an individual can assign or allocate the next person to communicate accordingly, this is also dependent on the setting. However, in other multi-person conversations, turn taking may be well directed through the use of interjection sentences for example, phrases like ‘you know’. Preference organization CA contains a category known as ‘preference organisation’, this is an analysis which is described by Mazeland as “the ranking of sequential alternatives.” P. 160 Additionally, it is used as the second pairing part of an adjacency pair which, in relation to the first pair part pairing means for instance dealing with a complaint or gaining a response back from a question asked (Mazeland, 2006, p. 161). It is noted that, acceptance is more preferred than refusal. Pre-sequencing These occurs when in a conversation, certain phrases are started in order to begin a conversation or a discussion. For example; what are you up to? / Nothing. This could be seen as a preliminary to an invitation. Certain factors occur in the turn taking process such as preliminaries. Preliminaries are the kind whose response is definite and natural. For example; guess what? What. The response is rather fast and not thought of. This could be a preliminary to news or an announcement. Repairing This occurs when there is a misunderstanding or a problem in communication of the parties. The repairing process is a self-correction mechanism. It is dependent on who initiates repair. Cut-offs in repairing organization are what define false starts. This is because the turn taking is disconnected by another party taking a turn before their turn (Schegloff 2007). On the other hand, in repairing organization, or when a problem in communication occurs, there are different ways in which participants respond. For example, the participants may use the same turn to express themselves, they may also use cut-offs when the other party is speaking or word stretches to indicate disagreement or a problem. These are non-lexical speech attributes identified in repairing organization (Markee 2000). CA is mainly focused on naturally occurring interactions that include talk and it has been established that every conversation has an order or systematic way in which it is conducted. Unlike critical discourse analysis, CA mainly focuses on the interaction based conversations. CDA on the other hand goes into more phenomena than just talk. It evaluates texts and their power and meaning in sociocultural settings (Have 2007). CA aims to identify the methods of interaction used and the resources that participants rely on to make their interaction successful. CDA on the other hand looks into the meanings of texts both said and written. It evaluates the meaning intended, the unsaid and the meaning that could be drawn from a text that has been pushed off or sidelined through dominant discourse. 2. Critical Discourse Analysis According to Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis (CDA) has three dimensions to its framework. In analyzing a text, one has to go through the first exterior box; analyzing the text as spoken or written. In this first dimension, the analysis seeks to go through the text against it and for it. This enables the analyst to identify what the text is trying to show and what it is omitting. It is important in CDA to note that there is nothing like naturally occurred speech. All speech that is considered natural is part of the dominant and accepted discourse. Thus, analysts maintain texts as they are and understand the different ways in which social context can be defined using the same text except the “natural” (Simpson 2010). On the second dimension, the process involves analyzing the process of the production and distribution of the text. Here, CDA aims to understand the source of the text. The sources of texts are mostly institutions and political platforms. In this dimension, analysis seeks to identify the target audience. CDA mostly focuses on the political and power contexts. It is important when analyzing text to understand the intended audience. This way, analysts can understand the production of the text and its impact (Speer, 2011). After analyzing the source and target audience, the most interior box or dimension involves analysis of the societal currents and the discursive events affecting audience. Each text occurs in a context. When it involves politics for example, the production and reproduction of certain texts always affect the audience. The intended audience may take it naturally. The power of the text is gauged here through the effect it causes. This way, the discourse level can be identified and it becomes easier to differentiate the ideologies of the speaker from the discourse itself (Deborah 2001). In analyzing texts, CDA analysts also go through linguistic approaches in identifying what the text could mean. These may include use of active or passive voice. The use of active voice identifies and gives a clearer view of the doer of an action. Passive voice however focuses on the action done rather than acknowledging who did it. Analysts also review modifiers of nouns. For example; pre-school children is different from children. They also identify with direct quotations versus indirect quotations among other linguistic analyses (Fairclough 1995). Examples of how CDA and CA can be used Example of a CDA: A magazine article title reads, “More than half of women are discriminated against at work.” In this text, certain linguistics are identified. Naming is one of them. The title of the article does not state people, it states women to bring more emphasis on the object of the action. The text also uses a pre-modifier “more than half”. These pre-modifiers are adjectives that show exactly how many women are discriminated against. Without the pre-modifier, we cannot tell any statistic of the action. The statement is in active voice thus it places emphasis on the action performed, to whom and where. In the analysis of the dimensions: Micro analysis: The text places much emphasis on active voice. This means that it most likely aims to emphasize on the action of discrimination to the women at work. The use of pre-modifiers also places emphasis and explanation on the word women. The text seems to be of reported speech; showing that the text is from a witness or a source i.e. the writer of the article. In the meso analysis: The text is mostly a socio-political statement that aims to provoke responses from the target audience. It also aims to bring to light the discrimination and to address the issue. In the macro analysis: Facts are from the recent past. It would be of great benefit if the discrimination against women was handled by the employers at all work places. This would ensure the political and social interests are handled correctly. Example of the CA: In a driving school Radio advert: A: How was Yana driving school today? B: I enjoyed the practical lessons. The trainers are patient and practical. A: Wow! Glad you enjoyed yourself. How are the charges? B: (laughing) very affordable. There are different packages, dependent on how long you want to take, and how much you have. You can also pay in installments! A: That is very great! I will be sure to join next month. In this conversation, the patterns show that the two parties are friends and they are discussing a driving school. They take turns to talk and they laugh showing a degree of friendliness. Party B participates well in advertising Yana driving school. The question is a TCU and the pauses indicate turn taking. It is a natural well- structured conversation (Sidnell 2013). Critical accounts of CDA and CA In my opinion, the two frameworks are quite important in analysis of linguistics. The main disadvantage in my opinion is that one has to have an education and knowledge on the subject matter in order to analyze. From the examples above, one will not know that active voice places emphasis. The Fairclough model also requires knowledge in order to use it. On the other hand, for the CA analysis, one must have knowledge on turn constructional component in order to correctly analyze the conversation in the example above. According to other scholars, the CA analysis is tedious to carry out. This is because analysis involves data collection and then analysis of the video or audio to detect pattern. Where the setting is in an institution or task-centered context, it may take longer to analyze. This means that, transcription takes longer. The whole natural conversation process is so easy yet to analyze it requires more time and it becomes cumbersome (Rogers 2004). Another limitation of the Ca analysis is that, it is costly. In order to collect data, one has to have material to record the video or audio. On the other hand, there should be the devices to listen in through and to analyze even the semiotic signs. This means that, CA analysts have to invest in the analysis before engaging (Sidnell 2013). The main weakness of the CDA analysis is that, although there are more meanings that could be drawn from a text and spread throughout the world, the dominant discourses are still existent and will not go away. Thus, CDA becomes more about the dominant discourses that the isolated ones. The power and ideologies involved mostly involve discourses that are already in place and have origins that have made them appear natural. The greatest strength of the CA is that, it allows analysis to occur at the natural conversation level. This makes it a very wide scope. This is because analysts can acquire data anywhere. On the other hand, it is precise. The analysis gives detail that could have otherwise been ignored; this is also true for CDA. Another strength of the CDA is that, it exposes people’s ideologies and beliefs very easily. Especially on the sociopolitical level, it is easy to understand people’s beliefs and meanings of language. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear the CA and CDA analysis frameworks play an important role in explaining social context and in social interaction. They are an important part in the linguistics discipline and they shed more light on the discourse analysis and on communication and interaction. Bibliography Deborah, C. (2001). Working with spoken Discourse. Sage Publications Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. London, Longman. Have, P. (2007). Doing Conversation Analysis. London: Sage Publications. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Simpson, P. and Mayr, A. (2010). Language and power. London: Routledge. Speer, S. and Stokoe, E. (2011). Conversation and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Litosseliti, L., & Sunderland, J. (2002). Gender identity and discourse analysis. Philadelphia, PA, John Benjamins Pub. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10022338. Mazeland, H. (2006). Conversation Analysis. Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mahwah, N.J., L. Erlbaum Associates. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10227275. Schegloff A., Jefferson G., Harvey Sacks. (Dec 1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Vol. 50, No. 4, pp 696-735. Linguistics Society of America. http://www.jstor.org/stable/412243 Read More