• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Critical discourse analysis
 

Critical discourse analysis

on

  • 2,758 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,758
Views on SlideShare
2,742
Embed Views
16

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
172
Comments
0

3 Embeds 16

http://apling2010.blogspot.com 7
http://www.apling2010.blogspot.com 6
http://www.slideshare.net 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis Presentation Transcript

    • Critical Discourse Analysis. Henceforth: CDA
    • The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) (February, 2003) reported a study on student violence in Nova Scotia schools
    • This way of presenting data leads the reader to think that violence in schools is quite a relevant issue, even alarming issue. 26 had either been threatened or assaulted by a student with a weapon 116 had been shoved  59 had been kicked  94 had been hit by a student The researchers asked 1,800 teachers to take part. About 600 responded:
    • This view wouldn’t be transmitted if the results had been exposed in a statistical way. Consequently we would have that 4% had been threatened or assaulted with a weapon 19% had been shoved 9.8% had been kicked 15% said a student had hit them
    • Even more, if the scope of the results wouldn’t be on giving agency to the conclusion “alarming violence in schools”. The results could have been presented in the following way: 96% had not been threatened or assaulted 81% had not been shoved 90% had not been kicked 85% of the teachers said they had not been hit by a student
    • Words…., Harmless?....., naa!!! “ Words are the source of misunderstandings ” The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupèry
    • Critical Discourse Analysis sees language as a system of interactionally stimulated signs that help human beings to construct and construe reality. Faircough (2003), Wodak (2006) [both online]
    • The construction of reality is achieved through cognitive processes subsuming or that are subsumed by language; scaffolding in this way, a dynamic dialectical relationship between language and social ontology. (ibid.)
      • “ Los códigos fundamentales de una cultura- los que rigen su lenguaje, sus esquemas perceptivos, sus cambios, sus técnicas, sus valores, la jerarquía de sus practicas- fijan de antemano para cada hombre los ordenes empíricos con los cuales tendrá algo que ver y dentro de los que se reconocerá.”
      • (Foucault 1966: pp. 5)
      • Individuals build the notion of the “self-being” through the “ experience of us ” , in this way, people unravel and construe reality by the idea they have got of a given real/abstract issue, combined and judged with the analysis of the rest’s perspectives, getting to create a personal view ( see Armijo, online).
    • RE COGNITION PIECE OF REALITY PIECE OF REALITY INTERACTION THROUGH LANGUAGE FAMILY FRIENDS ENVIRONMENT WORK SELF-VIEW ABSTRACTION REALITY NEW KNOWLEDGE
    • In CDA, Discourse is: “ a category which designates the broadly semiotic elements […] of social life (language, but also visual semiosis, ‘body language’ etc.)” . (Fairclough 2006 [online])
    • CONTEXT SOCIETY LANGUAGE DISCOURSE Discourse, in this way, subsumes language, social practices and social beliefs or ideologies and context.
      • As Pilleux ( See Mansilla, 2005) has asserted, CDA is focused on the study of language in social relationships. It intends to comprehensibly investigate the connection of the different linguistic features of texts/oral dicourses and the reflection they produce regarding cultural and social structures; Strongly bearing in mind the relations and processes to which this kind of discourses belong to.
      • To this Extent Ruth Wodak ( see Dellinger, 1995) asserts that Critical Discourse Analysis must have the purpose of studying language in natural environments within situations of social relevancy.
      • Consequently, CDA, as a discipline, has focused its work on texts/discourses that are widely spread and known by communities, opening up new perspectives for a further analysis of the way social realities are (re)constructed in a variety of discourses like the discourses in Mass Media (Dellinger, 1995), Politics, Organizational Studies (Fairclough, 2006)
      • To be more concise, CDA analyses texts that are fully embedded with Culture and that (could) modify social ontology, materialising the movement of power (political/non-political), stimulating dominance and hegemony of some groups over the others. In this way, through the analysis of discourses/texts of the mentioned type, CDA gives researches a fruitful opportunity to understand the machinery that arouses and excites change in societies.
    • The objective of this discipline is to uncover the ideological beliefs that are concealed in the words of our texts or oral speech, so as to resist and prevail over the diverse forms of power (control) or to obtain an appreciation of the power control we are performing without a proper realization. (Fairclough, 1989)
    • “ Yo espero que estas páginas puedan ser útiles a quien crea en la necesidad de que la imaginación ocupe un lugar en la educación; a quien tiene confianza en la creatividad […]; a quien conoce el valor liberador que puede tener la palabra. El uso total de la palabra para todos me parece un buen lema, de bello sonido democrático. No para que todos sean artistas, sino para que nadie sea esclavo.” (Rodari, 1973. En Lomas, Carlos 2002 (pp. 172).