Pda and pfda summary


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Pda and pfda summary

  1. 1. UNIVERSIDAD SANTO TOMÁS VICERRECTORIA DE UNIVERSIDAD ABIERTA Y A DISTANCIA FACULTAD DE EDUCACION LICENCIATURA EN LENGUA EXTRANJERA INGLÉS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (DA) Prepared by Edgar LuceroAPPROACHES TO DATowards an analysis of discoursePost-structuralist Discourse (PDA) and Post-feminist Discourse Analysis (PFDA) PDA PFDAFirstly, it is pertinent to distinguish PDA from In this type of analysis of discourse, there areCA and CDA. Remember that CA focuses two bases: a vision of feminism, and a visionprimarily on the patterns of communication in of post-structuralism, both connectedlanguage in use to unveil the social acts that conceptually and pragmatically up againstthose patterns enact, while CDA studies the other visions of discourse analysis. Thus,social phenomena in terms of the ritual and PFDA has a different facet from liberalinstitutional practices by revealing structures discourse, essentialist discourse, and social-of power and unmaking ideologies. PDA then radical discourse. In other words, PFDA is thedescribes and illuminates, by analyzing and counter discourse of the discourse of elitesinterpreting discourse, how participants of a established in CDA. Its main goal is todiscursive event are positioned as powerful or analyze the discourse in the need to resist andpowerless by competing in the social or subvert the structures of power from threeinstitutional discourse. In other words, PDA principles: 1) the functional belief in aseeks for unveiling how an individual is universal cause, 2) the notion that the personalpositioned or reposition as powerful by the is political, and 3) the search for a commonother(s) in certain moments and as powerless, voice expressing a cause.by the others as well, in other momentsthroughout a discursive event. The analysis 1) A universal cause: the analysis of discoursethen focuses on how individuals in a following this principle seeks for signifying adiscursive event negotiate and shape their liberatory knowledge which means makingsubject positions by multiple subjectivities people aware of their subjugation bythrough and within discourse. PDA is outlined consciousness raising and equipping freedomby three principles: from all forms of oppression. The objective is then, from analysis of discourse, to make1) Scepticism towards universal causes: it people be part of consciousness towardsrefers to the “will to truth” is also a “will to human equality, authenticity, self-power.” In other terms, the superior improvement, democracy, freedom, and socialknowledge of an individual about the world (a progress.regime of knowledge) enables him/her to holdpower over (an) other people (person) and 2) The personal is political: this principletheir inferior knowledge. However, the centers on people (mostly female) experiencesanalysis under this principle challenges the to gain self-knowledge and give expression topositive view of a unique type of knowledge, people (mostly female) subjectivity.since in discourse there can be multiple and Therefore, as people gain more knowledge ofcompeting knowledgeable positions in which themselves and their position in a determinedone piece of knowledge enriches, context, their power to transform socialcomplements, challenges, and contests any relations in that context should increaseother knowledge. accordingly. This has been more evident in the feminist discourse about the differences2) The contestation of meaning: this principle between men and women which have
  2. 2. clarifies that there is not a fixed meaning in constructed varied forms of femalethe competing forms of knowledge since the consciousness and identity. The mainsocial/cultural practices are constituted by the objective of discourse analysis under thisstruggle to produce, stabilize, regulate, principle is to construct a protest against howchallenge, and resist superior meanings. trivial, irrelevant, sensitive, and threatening aTherefore, meanings are continuously marginalized group is been seen by the power.negotiated and contested through languageand discourse. It happens because there is not 3) A common voice: the results of the analysisa meaning by itself, but by its relation with of discourse under this principle seeks forand difference from other meanings. unifying a group to confront power structures of oppression by making evident its voices,3) The discursive construction of subjectivity: arguments, and demands for change with athis principle establishes that in the common voice. This protest is constructed toconstruction of discourse, human identities are penetrate power but to compete with it. Theconstructed. Therefore, the formation and protest is to make power realize what it is toreformation of identities is a continuous be a subjugated.process, accomplished through actions andwords and not through some fundamentalessence of character. It happens becauseindividuals are always inside cultural andsocial forces with discursive practices, thus,their identities are determined by them. Itmeans that individuals can have differentsubject positions in different discursivecontexts. In sum, different subject positions ina context create identities that are thenrevealed through different subjectivities.Comparative tableApproach Objective ConceptsCA To reveal interactional patterns in communication Interactional patters, social in context to unveil social acts. acts. (Neutral view of subjectivities)CDA To reveal the discourse of power over submission. Position, identities.PDA To reveal how an individual is positioned as Position, subjectivities, powerful or powerless by the others through and identities, voices. within discourse (multiple subjectivities).PFDA To reveal the discourse of submission to confront Sex, gender, identities, power. position, voices.
  3. 3. Examples for PDA and PFDA [Whole class discussion] In this extract from a real discursive event, T: Anne? Anne and Rebecca struggle to complete ANNE: If you don’t go to habitat, their participations or develop a point of you can’t survive with just the water view with girls’ support. It happens and overcoat because… [Joe because they experience a series of interrupts] interruptions and distractions from some JOE: but you can still go there! boys. When Anne has just got her point, REBECCA: Yes she is interrupted by Joe challenging her. ANNE: not if you don’t have a Rebecca signals Joe’s point while he compass succeeds to make it clear. Though Anne JOE: yes… but if you travel in the agrees too, she is unable to finish her point day [Some boys reinforce Joe by just until Joe has presented his and now speaking loudly, the girls have their has to follow the conversation from Joe’s hands up] point. Again, Joe challenges and defeats T: Rebecca her when he receives boys’ support to his REBECCA: but you can’t be in one point. During this, girls keep their hands place [Boys hubbed Rebecca] up. Teacher supports the girls’ conformity T: Hands up, please and nominates Rebecca. She then tries to REBECCA: you need to move and state her point although boys’ lack of without a compass you can support. Damian interrupts and challenges lost…[Damian interrupts] her. Situation that is accepted by the T: Damian teacher when nominating him. Damian’s PDA DAMIAN: yes yes but you can wait point is supported by boys’ speaking but for rescue there [Boys reinforces partially challenged by girls’ laughs only. Damian by speaking aloud but girls laughed at him] Conclusions: - Boys are assigned more power in this class by the teacher, other boys, and the submissive role of girls. - Girls are powerless in the right of expressing their points. - Boys are assigned by the teacher and the girls’ acceptance of more knowledge. - Girls fail in competing knowledge to the boys’ since girls’ knowledge is usually challenged more drastically. - Though boy’s points are more accepted, theirs is not fixed since they are partially challenge by the girls’. - Identities: Teacher as mediator and giver of power. Boys as knowledgeable, defeaters, challengers, powerful. Girls as accepters, pointers, and powerless. Subjectivities: Voices:
  4. 4. [Teacher working with flashcards for In this extract the teacher shows a professions and occupations] flashcard of a female bus driver. S1, who T: who is she? [showing a female bus is a girl, answers based on the picture of driver] the flashcard. It denotes affinity to the S1: she? Bus driver! picture. However, S2, who is a boy, S2: pero no, es un hombre! disagrees with this picture and answers by S1: pero una mujer también, mira el inferring that bus driving is a male dibujo. profession. The girl immediately restates S2: esta mal! her perspective affirming that it is not a profession exclusively for men. The boy does not agree either, by affirming now that the mistake is in the picture as well. Conclusions - The girl takes a stand against male position of dominance in the action of bus driving as an exclusive profession for males. PFDA - The girl, though doubting at the beginning, liberates women by standing that they can also perform that profession of bus driving as perfectly well as men. - The girl makes clear to the boy that it is completely suitable for a woman to drive a bus, and she makes it clear by the affirmation that the picture in the flashcard displays. - The girl’s defiant sentence makes clear her position of protest against boy’s comment. - Though the girl defies the boy, she is not stating that that profession cannot be done by a man, as the boy does, but also by a woman. Identities: Voices: Gender acts:ReferencesBaxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: a post-structuralist discourseanalysis of girls’ and boys’ speech in public contexts, in Discourse and Society 13 (6):827-842.Baxter, J. (2003). Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist methodology.Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.Castañeda-Peña, H. (2008). Interwoven and competing gendered discourses in a Pre-school EFL lesson, in Harrington, K. et al (eds.). Gender and Language ResearchMethodologies. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, pp. 256-268.Creese, A. (2005). Teacher Collaboration and Talk in Multilingual classrooms.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.