Assignment 49 for practical work in media lab: Critical Discourse Analysis: A Sample Study of Extremism For the Departments of Media Studies by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari
Critical Discourse Analysis: A
Sample Study of Extremism
John
P. O'Regan and Anne Betzel
O’Regan, J. P., and Betzel, A. (2016). Critical discourse analysis: a sample
study of extremism,
in Zhu Hua (ed.) Research Methods in Intercultural
Communication. Blackwell Guides to
Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Blackwell, 281-296.
Reviving
or follow the Prophet’s sunnahs is a great blessing of Allah. As Narrated by
Anas bin Malik,
"The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W) said to me: 'Whoever
revives my Sunnah then he has loved me. And whoever loved me, he shall be with
me in Paradise.'" (Tirmidhi: 2678) Going to Sleep:
1. Sleep after Isha prayer.
2. Apply Kuhl (Surma) thrice in each eye.
3. Recite 'Bismillah' (mention
Allah’s name), close the door of room/house, cover the utensils, put out the
lights/ extinguish any lamps and cover your food and drinks.
4. Sleep in the state of Wudhu (Ablution).
5. Whenever a person going to bed for
sleep, he should dust it off thrice with the edge of a cloth and say this dua:
بِاسْمِكَ رَبِّي
وَضَعْتُ جَنْبِي، وَبِكَ أَرْفَعُهُ، فَإِنْ أَمْسَكْتَ نَفْسِي فَارْحَمْهَا،
وَإِنْ أَرْسَلْتَهَا فَاحْفَظْهَا، بِمَا تَحْفَظُ بِهِ عِبَادَكَ الصَّالِحِينَ
Bismika
Rabbi Wada`tu janbi, wa bika arfa'hu. In amsakta nafsi faghfir laha, wa in arsaltaha
fahfazha bima tahfaz bihi 'ibadaka-s-salihin.
Translation: In
Your name my Lord, I lie down and in Your name I rise, so if You should take my
soul then have mercy upon it, and if You should return my soul then protect it
in the manner You do so with Your righteous servants.
6. Recite Ayat-ul-Kursi (2:255) before
sleeping.
7. Lie down on your right side, put hand
under the cheek and say this dua:
اللَّهُمَّ بِاسْـمِكَ أَمُوتُ وَأَحْيَا
Allaahumma
Bismika Amootu Wa Ahyaa
Translation: O
Allaah, in Your name I die and I live.
Hadith References:
[Bukhari: 568, 5010, 5623, 6293, 6294,
6295, 6296, 6311, 6314, 7393]
[Thirmidhi: 2048]
[An-Nasai: 259]
[Thirmidhi: 2048]
[An-Nasai: 259]
Critical Discourse Analysis: A
Sample Study of Extremism
Summary
Critical discourse analysis (CDA), or the critical analysis of discourse, refers to a collection of socio-theoretical perspectives on discourse in society, encompassing a range of applications and approaches in discourse analysis. This chapter takes a broad view of CDA which highlights how there are different avenues into the critical analysis of discourse, and not always with the same
understandings or objectives. With this purpose, this chapter begins by giving an overview of the theoretical rationale and dispositions which have often informed a critical approach to discourse and summarizes the principal issues at stake. Having outlined the main parameters of interest and debate, we select a particular model of CDA – the dialectical-relational approach –
and using an adapted version of this methodology apply it to a selection of discourse data derived from the (inter)cultural contexts of islamism, white supremicism, and multiculturalism.
Introduction
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) refers to a diverse collection of socio-theoretical perspectives on discourse in society, encompassing a wide range of applications and approaches in discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992, 2003, 2010a; Wodak & Meyer, 2009; Pennycook, 1994, 2001, 2007; Blommaert,
2005, 2010; Lazar, 2008; Graham & Luke, 2013; Slembrouck, 2001; Chilton, 2004; Wodak & Chilton, 2005; van Dijk, 1998, 2011) and drawing upon an equally broad range of perspectives in critical social theory, including for example Marx & Engels (1998/1845), Gramsci (1971), Althusser (1971),
Habermas (1984), Pêcheux (1982), Foucault (1972, 1980), and more recently Bhaskar (1986, 1998, 2008). It is the link to social theory and the critique of social formations which provides the impetus and rationale for describing this approach to discourse analysis as critical. For the purposes of this
overview we are including as part of this group a number of researchers working critically in discourse analysis who due to the poststructuralist orientations of their work, might not, or would not, describe themselves as practitioners of CDA, but whom we nevertheless consider to be critical
analysts of discourse (see, Pennycook, 1994, 2001, 2007; Blommaert, 2005, 2009, 2010; Blommaert & Omoniyi, 2010; Block, 2007; Luke, 2005; Rajagopalan, 2004, 2012). We have done this in order to highlight how there are different avenues into the critical analysis of discourse and not always with
the same understandings or objectives. With this purpose, this chapter begins by giving an overview of the theoretical rationale and dispositions which often inform a critical approach to discourse and summarizes the principal issues at stake. Having outlined the main parameters of interest and debate, we select a particular model of CDA, which we have adapted for our purpose, and offer an illustrative sample of analysis following this methodology.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) has attracted considerable attention over several years, usually as an approach to language which is concerned with the critique of relations of power and ideology in society at large. The objects which CDA has used for this critique have in the main consisted of texts, either spoken or written, where asymmetrical power relations are often in play,
e.g. police interviews, courtroom exchanges, political speeches, policy documents, and asylum interrogations and applications (cf. Fairclough, 2001, Ehrlich, 2001; Blommaert, 2009; Phipps, 2013).
Summary
Critical discourse analysis (CDA), or the critical analysis of discourse, refers to a collection of socio-theoretical perspectives on discourse in society, encompassing a range of applications and approaches in discourse analysis. This chapter takes a broad view of CDA which highlights how there are different avenues into the critical analysis of discourse, and not always with the same
understandings or objectives. With this purpose, this chapter begins by giving an overview of the theoretical rationale and dispositions which have often informed a critical approach to discourse and summarizes the principal issues at stake. Having outlined the main parameters of interest and debate, we select a particular model of CDA – the dialectical-relational approach –
and using an adapted version of this methodology apply it to a selection of discourse data derived from the (inter)cultural contexts of islamism, white supremicism, and multiculturalism.
Introduction
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) refers to a diverse collection of socio-theoretical perspectives on discourse in society, encompassing a wide range of applications and approaches in discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992, 2003, 2010a; Wodak & Meyer, 2009; Pennycook, 1994, 2001, 2007; Blommaert,
2005, 2010; Lazar, 2008; Graham & Luke, 2013; Slembrouck, 2001; Chilton, 2004; Wodak & Chilton, 2005; van Dijk, 1998, 2011) and drawing upon an equally broad range of perspectives in critical social theory, including for example Marx & Engels (1998/1845), Gramsci (1971), Althusser (1971),
Habermas (1984), Pêcheux (1982), Foucault (1972, 1980), and more recently Bhaskar (1986, 1998, 2008). It is the link to social theory and the critique of social formations which provides the impetus and rationale for describing this approach to discourse analysis as critical. For the purposes of this
overview we are including as part of this group a number of researchers working critically in discourse analysis who due to the poststructuralist orientations of their work, might not, or would not, describe themselves as practitioners of CDA, but whom we nevertheless consider to be critical
analysts of discourse (see, Pennycook, 1994, 2001, 2007; Blommaert, 2005, 2009, 2010; Blommaert & Omoniyi, 2010; Block, 2007; Luke, 2005; Rajagopalan, 2004, 2012). We have done this in order to highlight how there are different avenues into the critical analysis of discourse and not always with
the same understandings or objectives. With this purpose, this chapter begins by giving an overview of the theoretical rationale and dispositions which often inform a critical approach to discourse and summarizes the principal issues at stake. Having outlined the main parameters of interest and debate, we select a particular model of CDA, which we have adapted for our purpose, and offer an illustrative sample of analysis following this methodology.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) has attracted considerable attention over several years, usually as an approach to language which is concerned with the critique of relations of power and ideology in society at large. The objects which CDA has used for this critique have in the main consisted of texts, either spoken or written, where asymmetrical power relations are often in play,
e.g. police interviews, courtroom exchanges, political speeches, policy documents, and asylum interrogations and applications (cf. Fairclough, 2001, Ehrlich, 2001; Blommaert, 2009; Phipps, 2013).
Exercise
Critique
political speeches to examine power and ideology.
CDA, as it has been commonly understood, is thus concerned with the production, circulation and interpretation of texts in which relations of domination and control may be said to be at stake (van
Dijk, 1993, 2011; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Fairclough 2001; Fairclough 2010a).
Crucial to the critique which CDA presents is the perception that it is ideology in concert with power which provide the legitimation for relations of inequality and domination. Ideology can be described as referencing explicit and even vocal opinions which may then be aligned with an implicit, presupposed and often naturalized ‘world view’, or overarching perspective on the reality in
which we are participating. In the words of Fairclough (2010b),
CDA, as it has been commonly understood, is thus concerned with the production, circulation and interpretation of texts in which relations of domination and control may be said to be at stake (van
Dijk, 1993, 2011; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Fairclough 2001; Fairclough 2010a).
Crucial to the critique which CDA presents is the perception that it is ideology in concert with power which provide the legitimation for relations of inequality and domination. Ideology can be described as referencing explicit and even vocal opinions which may then be aligned with an implicit, presupposed and often naturalized ‘world view’, or overarching perspective on the reality in
which we are participating. In the words of Fairclough (2010b),
Exercise
Examine
different ideologies for their alignment with the implicit, presupposed world
view.
‘Ideologies are seen as one modality of power, a modality which constitutes and sustains relations of power through producing consent or at least acquiescence, power through hegemony, rather than power through violence or force’ (p.
73).
‘Ideologies are seen as one modality of power, a modality which constitutes and sustains relations of power through producing consent or at least acquiescence, power through hegemony, rather than power through violence or force’ (p.
73).
Exercise
Examine
ideologies emphasizing caste system or religious hierarchy.
It is a critical concept of ideology, which owes its
articulation to the Marxist philosophical thinking of Gramsci (1971) and
Althusser (1971), in addition to Marx himself (Marx & Engels, 1998/1845)
(see also, Hall et al, 1978; McLennan et al, 1978; Williams, 1977; Thompson,
1984;
Larrain, 1979; Eagleton, 1991; Bourdieu, 1984; 1991; van Dijk, 1998; Blommaert, 2005; Holborow, 2012). There are, however, a number of reservations about this concept of ideology, and critical analysts of discourse who take a more poststructuralist stance will often prefer to use the term discourse (as a count and non-count noun) in its place (see for example, Weedon, 1997; Pennycook,
2001; Blommaert, 2005; Block,2007). This is because of the implication, following Foucault (1980), that when the term ideology is used, it often, ‘stands in virtual opposition to something else that is supposed to count as truth’ (p. 118).
Larrain, 1979; Eagleton, 1991; Bourdieu, 1984; 1991; van Dijk, 1998; Blommaert, 2005; Holborow, 2012). There are, however, a number of reservations about this concept of ideology, and critical analysts of discourse who take a more poststructuralist stance will often prefer to use the term discourse (as a count and non-count noun) in its place (see for example, Weedon, 1997; Pennycook,
2001; Blommaert, 2005; Block,2007). This is because of the implication, following Foucault (1980), that when the term ideology is used, it often, ‘stands in virtual opposition to something else that is supposed to count as truth’ (p. 118).
Exercise
Examine
Marxist ideology or Islamic ideology standing in virtual opposition to
something regarded as truth.
In poststructuralism, veridical truth is
denied. The result is that
in CDA both terms are used, often interchangeably.
The dialectical–relational approach
As noted, there are a variety of approaches to critical discourse analysis. These include sociocognitive (Chilton, 2005; van Dijk, 2008), discourse-historical (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009), and multimodal perspectives (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2000; Kress, 2010). While there are overlaps between them, there is also a good deal of diversity and dispersion in the way in which they go about (critical) discourse analysis, as well as in the ways in which they define constructs such as ideology, power, discourse, and the term critical itself. As Wodak & Meyer (2009) note, ‘CDA has never been and has never attempted to be or to provide one single or specific theory’ (p. 8). For reasons of space we are not able to give an account of these individual perspectives and so we direct the reader to the literature to learn more about them (see, Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Pennycook, 2001, Wodak & Chilton, 2005; Wodak & Meyer 2009; Fairclough et al, 2011). Instead we will focus upon a particular model in the light of the foregoing discussion. This is the dialectical-relational approach, and is to be found in the recent work of Norman Fairclough (see,
Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2001, 2003; 2006; 2010a; 2012). We have chosen this approach in order 1) to highlight the dialectical-relational approach as a significant model of CDA, 2) to show how this approach may be adapted depending upon the epistemological position from which you as a researcher are working, and 3) to illustrate how the dialectical-relational approach can be applied to a sample body of discourse data.
The dialectical-relational approach is greatly influenced by the philosophy of critical realism (Bhaskar, 1986, 1998, 2008), and works according to a (critical) realist ontology in which it is argued that reality is distinct from our knowledge of it, and that our knowledge does not exhaust that reality (Collier, 1994; Sayer, 2000).
in CDA both terms are used, often interchangeably.
The dialectical–relational approach
As noted, there are a variety of approaches to critical discourse analysis. These include sociocognitive (Chilton, 2005; van Dijk, 2008), discourse-historical (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009), and multimodal perspectives (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2000; Kress, 2010). While there are overlaps between them, there is also a good deal of diversity and dispersion in the way in which they go about (critical) discourse analysis, as well as in the ways in which they define constructs such as ideology, power, discourse, and the term critical itself. As Wodak & Meyer (2009) note, ‘CDA has never been and has never attempted to be or to provide one single or specific theory’ (p. 8). For reasons of space we are not able to give an account of these individual perspectives and so we direct the reader to the literature to learn more about them (see, Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Pennycook, 2001, Wodak & Chilton, 2005; Wodak & Meyer 2009; Fairclough et al, 2011). Instead we will focus upon a particular model in the light of the foregoing discussion. This is the dialectical-relational approach, and is to be found in the recent work of Norman Fairclough (see,
Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2001, 2003; 2006; 2010a; 2012). We have chosen this approach in order 1) to highlight the dialectical-relational approach as a significant model of CDA, 2) to show how this approach may be adapted depending upon the epistemological position from which you as a researcher are working, and 3) to illustrate how the dialectical-relational approach can be applied to a sample body of discourse data.
The dialectical-relational approach is greatly influenced by the philosophy of critical realism (Bhaskar, 1986, 1998, 2008), and works according to a (critical) realist ontology in which it is argued that reality is distinct from our knowledge of it, and that our knowledge does not exhaust that reality (Collier, 1994; Sayer, 2000).
Exercise
How
reality is distinct from our knowledge and why our knowledge can exhaust it?
In
a critical realist ontology, and thus also in the dialectical-relational
approach, discourse construes reality,
in the sense that reality must be conceptually mediated if we are to have any
knowledge of it. It is discourse or semiosis which
is the mediating mechanism for our knowledge of reality. Discourse (as a
non-count noun) and semiosis are synonymous terms, and in the
dialectical-relational approach it is often the latter term which is preferred
because of the confusion which can arise with discourse as a count noun for
referring to a perspectival way of seeing and knowing. The fact that discourse
construes reality, and that there is no possibility of meaning creation in the
absence of it, entails that discourse itself is a powerful facet of social
life, and in the dialectical-relational approach, and in other iterations of
CDA (in addition to poststructuralist ones), discourse (or semiosis) as well as
the discourses which are part of it are viewed as having distinctive – albeit
contingent upon other social elements – causal powers and ‘liabilities’ (i.e.
effects) of their own (Fairclough et al, 2010). Reality in this sense is made
up of discursive and non-discursive dimensions of which discourse is one moment in a dialectical relationship with other moments of the
social process (Best & Kellner, 1991; Harvey, 1996; Fairclough et al,
2010). These other ‘moments’ may be economic, political, environmental, legal,
educational, religious, dispositional, concrete, and so on. Moments are
constituted within fields (Bourdieu
& Wacquant, 1992) – such as politics, education, and the legal system –
and are bound up with power, itself another moment within the social relations
of fields. In Fairclough’s words, ‘power is partly discourse, and discourse
is partly power – they are different but not discrete, they ‘flow into’ each
other’ (2010d, p.4). If power and discourse – and therefore knowledge too –
are intertwined, then it follows from a dialectical-relational perspective
that, ‘economic forces and
socio-political institutions are in part semiotic, and [so] analysis has to be in part semiotic analysis’ (Fairclough, 2010c, p.252).
socio-political institutions are in part semiotic, and [so] analysis has to be in part semiotic analysis’ (Fairclough, 2010c, p.252).
Exercise
How
economic forces and socio-political institutions are in part semiotic?
The discourse-theoretical complex which the dialectical-relational approach presents is augmented by a structural conception of the social process as consisting in, ‘an interplay between three levels of social reality: social structures, practices and events’ (ibid, p.232) to which correspond
three dimensions of semiosis: semiotic systems (language and other semiotic codes), orders of discourse (a specific configuration of genres, discourses and styles), and texts (written, spoken, and other semiotic modalities). If social structures conform with social reality in the broadest sense, then semiotic systems (of which one code is language) are the means by which social reality is mediated and comprehended.
The discourse-theoretical complex which the dialectical-relational approach presents is augmented by a structural conception of the social process as consisting in, ‘an interplay between three levels of social reality: social structures, practices and events’ (ibid, p.232) to which correspond
three dimensions of semiosis: semiotic systems (language and other semiotic codes), orders of discourse (a specific configuration of genres, discourses and styles), and texts (written, spoken, and other semiotic modalities). If social structures conform with social reality in the broadest sense, then semiotic systems (of which one code is language) are the means by which social reality is mediated and comprehended.
Exercise
How one
can mediate social reality through semiotic?
Social
reality – and the social structures of which it is comprised – are in turn made
up of a range of social practices, i.e. people doing things within diverse social spaces by
acting conventionally (genres), articulating beliefs (discourses), adopting identities
(styles), and generally performing their mode of being, or habitus (Bourdieu, 1984, 1991). These spaces are not randomly
made but can and do coalesce into discursive regularities, for example, as
social
institutions (political systems, legal systems, faith systems, security systems etc.), as workplaces (parliaments, universities, hospitals, banks, legal practices, police stations, registration centres etc.), and as ideologies (perspectival discourses and habitus).
institutions (political systems, legal systems, faith systems, security systems etc.), as workplaces (parliaments, universities, hospitals, banks, legal practices, police stations, registration centres etc.), and as ideologies (perspectival discourses and habitus).
Exercise
Explain ‘these spaces are not randomly made but can and do coalesce
into discursive regularities’
Fairclough
(1992) has taken from Foucault (1972, 1981) the term order of discourse to describe these discursive
regularities. Orders of discourse are the semiotic dimension of social
practices and represent different configurations of discourses, genres and
styles. These are each ways of acting and interacting semiotically. Discourses are
ways of representing (and therefore also ways of believing); genres are ways of acting conventionally (e.g. in
writing, and in spoken and non-verbal communication): ‘they are ways of regulating
(inter)action’ (Fairclough et al, 2010, p.213); and styles are ways of taking
up identities in their semiotic aspect – i.e. of enacting one’s being as part of
a subject position or ‘role’ (e.g. father, mother, policeman, asylum seeker,
receptionist, CEO). As a result of changes in the economic, social
and political fields, new discourses (i.e. ideological ways of seeing and knowing) can be enacted, which lead to the inculcation of new ways of (inter)acting, which in turn produce new ways of being (identities).
and political fields, new discourses (i.e. ideological ways of seeing and knowing) can be enacted, which lead to the inculcation of new ways of (inter)acting, which in turn produce new ways of being (identities).
Exercise
Examine the pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Arabia for the difference in
discourse Since
9/11 for example, the discourses around counter-terrorism globally have led, amongst
other things, to radical changes in airport security procedures, leading to
changed ways of acting and interacting (new genres and styles) on the part of
passengers and airport staff in airports in response to the perceived threat.
Such social events always have a semiotic dimension. These
are texts (in the broadest sense) in multiple semiotic modalities, of which language as either writing or talk is one. We can illustrate these different levels and their relations as follows:
Social processes Semiotic fields Semiotic codes
Social structures Semiotic systems Language, image, sound, space, gaze, shape etc.
Social practices Orders of discourse Discourses, genres, styles.
Social events. Texts Writing, talk, and other semiotic modes.
As usual in this model, between the levels of structures, practices and events and their respective fields and codes a dialectic is in play so that no level is discrete, but is in a constant process of flowing into and between the other elements in each of the levels. Fairclough (2010c) refers to the dialectical relation of discourses, genres and styles as one of interdiscursivity and as a
component in the analysis of texts: ‘textual analysis includes both linguistic analysis (and if relevant, analysis of other semiotic forms, such as visual images) and interdiscursive analysis (analysis of which genres, discourses and styles are drawn upon, and how they are articulated together)’ (p. 238). An important issue here is that Fairclough sees interdiscursivity as a mediating ‘interlevel’
between the micro-level linguistic analysis of the text (in conjunction with relevant social analysis) and the analysis of social structures. In other words, relations of interdiscursivity via orders of discourse are what connect the analysis of the text with an analysis of social structures.
Methodology
The dialectical-relational approach is a methodology and not just a method. Methodology is understood as theory in combination with method in the construction and analysis of an object of research (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Fairclough, 2010c). In this sense it is not simply a matter of
taking a method and applying it to an object of research. The object first has to be theorized itself drawing upon relevant social theories in a ‘transdisciplinary way’, ‘either in research teams which bring together specialists in relevant disciplines, or by engaging with literature in such disciplines’(Fairclough, 2010c, p.236).
are texts (in the broadest sense) in multiple semiotic modalities, of which language as either writing or talk is one. We can illustrate these different levels and their relations as follows:
Social processes Semiotic fields Semiotic codes
Social structures Semiotic systems Language, image, sound, space, gaze, shape etc.
Social practices Orders of discourse Discourses, genres, styles.
Social events. Texts Writing, talk, and other semiotic modes.
As usual in this model, between the levels of structures, practices and events and their respective fields and codes a dialectic is in play so that no level is discrete, but is in a constant process of flowing into and between the other elements in each of the levels. Fairclough (2010c) refers to the dialectical relation of discourses, genres and styles as one of interdiscursivity and as a
component in the analysis of texts: ‘textual analysis includes both linguistic analysis (and if relevant, analysis of other semiotic forms, such as visual images) and interdiscursive analysis (analysis of which genres, discourses and styles are drawn upon, and how they are articulated together)’ (p. 238). An important issue here is that Fairclough sees interdiscursivity as a mediating ‘interlevel’
between the micro-level linguistic analysis of the text (in conjunction with relevant social analysis) and the analysis of social structures. In other words, relations of interdiscursivity via orders of discourse are what connect the analysis of the text with an analysis of social structures.
Methodology
The dialectical-relational approach is a methodology and not just a method. Methodology is understood as theory in combination with method in the construction and analysis of an object of research (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Fairclough, 2010c). In this sense it is not simply a matter of
taking a method and applying it to an object of research. The object first has to be theorized itself drawing upon relevant social theories in a ‘transdisciplinary way’, ‘either in research teams which bring together specialists in relevant disciplines, or by engaging with literature in such disciplines’(Fairclough, 2010c, p.236).
Exercise
What is difference between method and methodology and how object can
be theorized?
In this process the
object of research is constructed. Having done this,
the task is to seek a ‘semiotic point of entry’ into it (ibid). The point of
entry in most iterations of CDA
is usually written or spoken texts which circulate as social practices within
the order of discourse that
corresponds to them, and which act as interdiscursive cues.
As far as texts based on language
are concerned, in this approach, a principal purpose is to identify and discuss
the linguisticfeatures of texts which appear to act as cues to interdiscursive
relations.
Exercise
What is semiotic point of entry?
The methodology of the dialectical-relational approach is derived from Bhaskar’s explanatory critique (Bhaskar, 1986; Chouliariaki & Fairclough, 1999) and consists in four stages. The dialectical-relational approach as formulated by Fairclough (2010c) is consistent with critical realism in having a normative (i.e. emancipatory) agenda. This leads to the stages to be followed being
articulated so that a principal concern is the righting of social ‘wrongs’:
1. Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspect.
2. Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong.
3. Consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong.
4. Identify possible ways past the obstacles.
This kind of normative focus can have the effect of circumscribing to some extent the kind of critical discourse analysis that it is possible to do, because by taking such a defined epistemological stance, the prospective CDA researcher within this frame is obliged to commit to a form of analysis
whose objective is the creation of a better world. Such a transformational agenda, while no bad thing in itself, is in conflict with epistemological positions, such as poststructuralism, which do not accept such grand narrative approaches to reality and social life, and where the concept of truth itself is problematic and provisional.
The methodology of the dialectical-relational approach is derived from Bhaskar’s explanatory critique (Bhaskar, 1986; Chouliariaki & Fairclough, 1999) and consists in four stages. The dialectical-relational approach as formulated by Fairclough (2010c) is consistent with critical realism in having a normative (i.e. emancipatory) agenda. This leads to the stages to be followed being
articulated so that a principal concern is the righting of social ‘wrongs’:
1. Focus upon a social wrong, in its semiotic aspect.
2. Identify obstacles to addressing the social wrong.
3. Consider whether the social order ‘needs’ the social wrong.
4. Identify possible ways past the obstacles.
This kind of normative focus can have the effect of circumscribing to some extent the kind of critical discourse analysis that it is possible to do, because by taking such a defined epistemological stance, the prospective CDA researcher within this frame is obliged to commit to a form of analysis
whose objective is the creation of a better world. Such a transformational agenda, while no bad thing in itself, is in conflict with epistemological positions, such as poststructuralism, which do not accept such grand narrative approaches to reality and social life, and where the concept of truth itself is problematic and provisional.
Exercise
What is grand narrative and problematic concept of truth?
Despite
this difference, we agree with Fairclough, that the research of topics which
have significant implications for human well-being, such as immigration,
terrorism, globalization and security, are necessary activities in any critical analysis of discourse (Fairclough, 2010c). To accommodate these concerns and interests, we have adapted the four stages of the dialectical-relational approach in the following way:
1. Focus upon a social phenomenon in its semiotic aspect (Draw upon relevant theories about the phenomenon and look for a semiotic point of entry)
a. Step 1 Identify the phenomenon you want to research
b. Step 2 Theorize the phenomenon in a transdisciplinary way (Use relevant theory).
Once you have the theory, you can then look for a semiotic point of entry
2. Identify the causes of the phenomenon and (if relevant) the obstacles to changing it (Why is the phenomenon like this?)
Select texts in the light of the object of research and adopt an analytical
framework for categorizing and interpreting their features
b. Step 2 Analyze texts by linking linguistic analysis to interdiscursive and social analysis
3. Does the social order require the phenomenon to be the way that it is? Who benefits most from the phenomenon remaining unchanged?
4. Identify ways past the obstacles. Can the dominant discourse be contested?
Case in point: Discourses of extremism and multiculturalism
1. Focus upon a social phenomenon in its semiotic aspect
The social phenomenon we focus upon is the discursive construction of identities in discourses of extremism and multiculturalism, on the part of islamists and white supremacists on the one hand and UK politicians on the other, and the way in which cultural essentialism and outsiderness may be
seen to dominate the lenses of both discourses.
terrorism, globalization and security, are necessary activities in any critical analysis of discourse (Fairclough, 2010c). To accommodate these concerns and interests, we have adapted the four stages of the dialectical-relational approach in the following way:
1. Focus upon a social phenomenon in its semiotic aspect (Draw upon relevant theories about the phenomenon and look for a semiotic point of entry)
a. Step 1 Identify the phenomenon you want to research
b. Step 2 Theorize the phenomenon in a transdisciplinary way (Use relevant theory).
Once you have the theory, you can then look for a semiotic point of entry
2. Identify the causes of the phenomenon and (if relevant) the obstacles to changing it (Why is the phenomenon like this?)
Select texts in the light of the object of research and adopt an analytical
framework for categorizing and interpreting their features
b. Step 2 Analyze texts by linking linguistic analysis to interdiscursive and social analysis
3. Does the social order require the phenomenon to be the way that it is? Who benefits most from the phenomenon remaining unchanged?
4. Identify ways past the obstacles. Can the dominant discourse be contested?
Case in point: Discourses of extremism and multiculturalism
1. Focus upon a social phenomenon in its semiotic aspect
The social phenomenon we focus upon is the discursive construction of identities in discourses of extremism and multiculturalism, on the part of islamists and white supremacists on the one hand and UK politicians on the other, and the way in which cultural essentialism and outsiderness may be
seen to dominate the lenses of both discourses.
Exercise
Give examples of some other lenses.
We
have selected these examples because of their relevance to key issues in
Intercultural Communication and because CDA often concerns itself with
the analysis of discourses and texts of social import and consequence. In addition, we have selected them because we see similarities between the way in which these discourses are articulated by their distinctive protagonists. More precisely, we wish to show how in discourses of extremism and
multiculturalism, a distinct division between Us and Them serves as an organizing principle which isolates certain cultural elements and identity markers within an essentialist view that reduces and
‘others’ the Other, and which closes off – intentionally in the case of islamists and white supremacists, and at least consequentially in the case of politicians – any possibility of a dialogic understanding of culture and intercultural relations which might alter the (inter)cultural status quo.
the analysis of discourses and texts of social import and consequence. In addition, we have selected them because we see similarities between the way in which these discourses are articulated by their distinctive protagonists. More precisely, we wish to show how in discourses of extremism and
multiculturalism, a distinct division between Us and Them serves as an organizing principle which isolates certain cultural elements and identity markers within an essentialist view that reduces and
‘others’ the Other, and which closes off – intentionally in the case of islamists and white supremacists, and at least consequentially in the case of politicians – any possibility of a dialogic understanding of culture and intercultural relations which might alter the (inter)cultural status quo.
Exercise
Examine discourse of extremism for a division between Us and Them.
In
this manner, ‘the dominant group justifies its power with stories – stock
explanations – that construct reality in ways to maintain their privilege’
(Ladson-Billngs & Tate, 1995, p. 58).
Exercise
Examine
stories circulate in your culture for the justification of the power of
dominant group.
We locate the discussion of discourses of extremism and multiculturalism within an ‘interdiscourse approach’ to Intercultural Communication which, ‘set(s) aside any a priori notions of group membership and identity and […] ask(s) instead how and under what circumstances concepts such as culture are produced by participants as relevant categories for interpersonal ideological
negotiation’ (Scollon & Scollon, 2000, p. 544). Whereas a good deal of Intercultural Communication studies have adhered, often implicitly, to a predominant essentialism and have been inclined to take
membership categorization as a given, interdiscourse approaches emphasize the social and linguistic practices which bring identity and culture into being (Blommaert, 2005; Holliday, 1999; Piller, 2007), and so complement interdiscursivity in the dialectical-relational approach. In addition, we also draw
upon critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Delgado, 2001; Cole, 2009) as a wider theoretical frame. Critical race theory operates from the perspective that racism is deeply ingrained in social life both institutionally and structurally (Delgado, ibid) and that in discussions of race, ‘social
reality is constructed by the formulation and the exchange of stories about individual situations.
These stories serve as interpretive structures by which we impose order on experience and it on us’
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 57).
Exercise
We locate the discussion of discourses of extremism and multiculturalism within an ‘interdiscourse approach’ to Intercultural Communication which, ‘set(s) aside any a priori notions of group membership and identity and […] ask(s) instead how and under what circumstances concepts such as culture are produced by participants as relevant categories for interpersonal ideological
negotiation’ (Scollon & Scollon, 2000, p. 544). Whereas a good deal of Intercultural Communication studies have adhered, often implicitly, to a predominant essentialism and have been inclined to take
membership categorization as a given, interdiscourse approaches emphasize the social and linguistic practices which bring identity and culture into being (Blommaert, 2005; Holliday, 1999; Piller, 2007), and so complement interdiscursivity in the dialectical-relational approach. In addition, we also draw
upon critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Delgado, 2001; Cole, 2009) as a wider theoretical frame. Critical race theory operates from the perspective that racism is deeply ingrained in social life both institutionally and structurally (Delgado, ibid) and that in discussions of race, ‘social
reality is constructed by the formulation and the exchange of stories about individual situations.
These stories serve as interpretive structures by which we impose order on experience and it on us’
(Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, p. 57).
Exercise
How stories can serve as interpretive structures?
Within these theoretical frames, and in keeping with the dialectical-relational approach of CDA, we seek a semiotic point of entry into extremism and multiculturalism as social phenomena through discursively mapping how references to polarized collective identities in the discourse of
islamists, white supremacists and political leaders lead to the discursive construction and maintenance of an essentialized difference. To this end, and for the purposes of this illustration, we have chosen to analyze discourses of extremism and multiculturalism as they are constructed in
statements made by the following individuals:
Within these theoretical frames, and in keeping with the dialectical-relational approach of CDA, we seek a semiotic point of entry into extremism and multiculturalism as social phenomena through discursively mapping how references to polarized collective identities in the discourse of
islamists, white supremacists and political leaders lead to the discursive construction and maintenance of an essentialized difference. To this end, and for the purposes of this illustration, we have chosen to analyze discourses of extremism and multiculturalism as they are constructed in
statements made by the following individuals:
(1) Mohammad Siddique Khan, a suicide bomber believed
to be the leader responsible for the London ‘7/7’ bombings of 7 July 2005. Khan
recorded a
suicide video message before his murder of six civilians on the Edgware Road Circle underground
line;
suicide video message before his murder of six civilians on the Edgware Road Circle underground
line;
(2)
Michael Adebolajo, one of two islamist converts who attacked and killed soldier
Lee Rigby on the afternoon of 22 May 2013 near the Royal Artillery Barracks in
Woolwich, London. Adebolajo was recorded on the phone of an eyewitness making a
statement justifying the killing;
(3)
Anders Behring Breivik, a white supremacist responsible for the bombing of
government buildings in Oslo and a mass shooting at a Workers' Youth League
(AUF) camp on the island of Utøya on 22 July 2011 which left a total of 85
people dead. Breivik gave notice of his right-wing militant leanings in an
online compendium entitled ‘2083: A European Declaration of Independence’ (Breivik, 2011);
online compendium entitled ‘2083: A European Declaration of Independence’ (Breivik, 2011);
(4)
British prime minister David Cameron’s speech at the Munich Security Conference
in February 2011 in which he sets out his view on radicalization and Islamic
extremism (sic) (Cameron, 2011).
The
selected text excerpts are indicative of contemporary discourses of extremism
and multiculturalism on the part of islamists, white supremacists and
conservative British politicians.
Both discourses are contained within a wide range of texts, including speeches, interviews, press releases, radio and television addresses and policy documents. Furthermore, discourses of extremism and multiculturalism are constructed in other semiotic modes in the form of symbolic and emblematic representations such as flags, insignia, iconic images or memorials. These texts are
interdiscursively related as they are constituted by a combination of elements in orders of discourse, on the one hand configuring extremism and on the other configuring conceptions of multiculturalism, and set out relevant parameters and categories which consequently influence social practices and structures. For example, discourses about multiculturalism in a speech by David
Cameron may find their way into policy initiatives, which through implementation and inculcation are reproduced and amplified as generally accepted genres and styles in response to the perceived
terrorist threat.
In our analysis we primarily focus upon the process of Othering, i.e. ‘the process whereby the ‘foreign’ is reduced to a simplistic, easily digestible, exotic or degrading stereotype’ (Holliday, 1999, p. 245). The analytical categories are identity and the discursive construal of identities which we understand to be dialectically related to social practices and structures. We consider the process
of Othering and the categorization of collective identities as both deliberate and deriving from ‘common sense’, i.e. they originate from our ideological conceptualizations of reality and social groups, and a shared set of beliefs in relation to them.
Both discourses are contained within a wide range of texts, including speeches, interviews, press releases, radio and television addresses and policy documents. Furthermore, discourses of extremism and multiculturalism are constructed in other semiotic modes in the form of symbolic and emblematic representations such as flags, insignia, iconic images or memorials. These texts are
interdiscursively related as they are constituted by a combination of elements in orders of discourse, on the one hand configuring extremism and on the other configuring conceptions of multiculturalism, and set out relevant parameters and categories which consequently influence social practices and structures. For example, discourses about multiculturalism in a speech by David
Cameron may find their way into policy initiatives, which through implementation and inculcation are reproduced and amplified as generally accepted genres and styles in response to the perceived
terrorist threat.
In our analysis we primarily focus upon the process of Othering, i.e. ‘the process whereby the ‘foreign’ is reduced to a simplistic, easily digestible, exotic or degrading stereotype’ (Holliday, 1999, p. 245). The analytical categories are identity and the discursive construal of identities which we understand to be dialectically related to social practices and structures. We consider the process
of Othering and the categorization of collective identities as both deliberate and deriving from ‘common sense’, i.e. they originate from our ideological conceptualizations of reality and social groups, and a shared set of beliefs in relation to them.
Exercise
What are ideological conceptualizations of reality?
Identify the causes of the phenomenon and the
obstacles to changing it
The discourses of Khan, Adebolajo, Breivik and Cameron display shared features which consist of an appeal to a legitimating authority, reference to unifying ideological constructs which are either religious, political, or philosophical, or a combination of these, and pervasive Self/Other dichotomies. They can be described as generic as they are based upon, ‘a common structure of
functional units (obligatory and optional) that is repeated again and again from text to text’ (Lemke, 1998, pp.1182-1183).
The discourses of Khan, Adebolajo, Breivik and Cameron display shared features which consist of an appeal to a legitimating authority, reference to unifying ideological constructs which are either religious, political, or philosophical, or a combination of these, and pervasive Self/Other dichotomies. They can be described as generic as they are based upon, ‘a common structure of
functional units (obligatory and optional) that is repeated again and again from text to text’ (Lemke, 1998, pp.1182-1183).
Exercise
Examine speeches or texts for Self/Other dichotomies.
Appeals
to a legitimating authority in islamist discourse include religious references,
for example, to ‘the one true God, Allah’, to ‘the final messenger and prophet Muhammad’ (Khan,
2005), and to religious verses: ‘we are
forced by the Quran in Sura at-Tawba, through many, many ayah
throughout the Quran that we must fight them as they fight us’ (Adebolajo, 2013).
throughout the Quran that we must fight them as they fight us’ (Adebolajo, 2013).
Exercise
Examine speeches of Islamists Jhadists for appeals to a legitimating
authority
The
white supremacist Breivik, for his part, makes references to supposed
resistance organizations such as the ‘Western
European Resistance’ and ‘the Knights Templar’ (Breivik,
2011). Cameron’s references to a
legitimating authority include ‘my country, the United Kingdom’, ‘Western values’ and most frequently the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ to refer to the British nation (Cameron, 2011).
legitimating authority include ‘my country, the United Kingdom’, ‘Western values’ and most frequently the inclusive pronoun ‘we’ to refer to the British nation (Cameron, 2011).
Exercise
Examine American president speeches for appeals to a legitimating
authority
Khan
and Adebolajo mention Islam as the unifying construct legitimizing their
actions, whereas Breivik (2011) construes these forces in a negative way, by
reference to, ‘the name of the devil:
cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, globalism, feminism, emotionalism, suicidal
humanism, egalitarianism - a recipe for disaster’.
Cameron (2011) in his speech appeals to a conception of the UK as a liberal
country which believes in certain essential British values, such as, ‘freedom of speech, freedom of worship ,democracy, the rule of
law, equal right regardless of race, sex or sexuality’.
These values are identity
markers essential for Cameron’s ideological rendering of the British nation and his construction of an idealized sense of British community and identity. They represent an unequivocal appeal to reassert ‘British’ values in the face of radicalization and extremism. They furthermore constitute a key
element in a politico-national discourse according to which Britain is a good society because of the values it holds, and which constitute the imperatives driving British foreign policy. The statements about values can be understood as a product or artefact of ideology, rather than a direct description
of actual British values.
The most ubiquitous features of the discourses of extremism and multiculturalism are the appeal to identity and pervasive Self/Other dichotomies.
markers essential for Cameron’s ideological rendering of the British nation and his construction of an idealized sense of British community and identity. They represent an unequivocal appeal to reassert ‘British’ values in the face of radicalization and extremism. They furthermore constitute a key
element in a politico-national discourse according to which Britain is a good society because of the values it holds, and which constitute the imperatives driving British foreign policy. The statements about values can be understood as a product or artefact of ideology, rather than a direct description
of actual British values.
The most ubiquitous features of the discourses of extremism and multiculturalism are the appeal to identity and pervasive Self/Other dichotomies.
Breivik
(2011) emphasizes ‘our moral inheritance’ and ‘our Judea-Christian values’, which necessarily
entails, like Cameron’s speech, an act
of differentiation and exclusion. He explains, ‘It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing islamisation’.
of differentiation and exclusion. He explains, ‘It is not only our right but also our duty to contribute to preserve our identity, our culture and our national sovereignty by preventing the ongoing islamisation’.
Self/Other
dichotomies also appear in Khan’s suicide video statement (2005),
although they are appropriated according to his political and historical positioning, i.e. he reclaims himself as a victim: ‘And our words have no impact upon you, therefore I'm going to talk to you in a language that you understand. Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood’.
although they are appropriated according to his political and historical positioning, i.e. he reclaims himself as a victim: ‘And our words have no impact upon you, therefore I'm going to talk to you in a language that you understand. Our words are dead until we give them life with our blood’.
Exercise
Examine Self/Other dichotomies appear in Khan’s suicide
Self/Other
dichotomies lock social groups into a particular form of identity and
effectively immobilize the relationship between them. In order to establish
where the moral responsibility and blame for his actions lie, he engages in a
concerted effort to present the identities of ‘my
Muslim brothers and sisters’ as victims and to emphasize the
responsibility of ‘your democratically
elected
governments’:
And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly
responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at warand I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation. (Khan, 2005)
A similar justification is provided by Michael Adebolajo. After the killing of Lee Rigby, Adebolajo makes a statement recorded on a witness’s phone in which he justifies violence as a reaction to theviolence of others: ‘The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily
by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’(Adebolajo, 2013).
In Cameron’s speech (2011), the construction of polarized identities, or Othering, is evident in the emphasis on Britishness and a call for unity constructed around a choice of being either with ‘Us’ or with the ‘Other’: ‘At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge
we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome’. The emphasis on ‘our way of life’ reduces diversity into a binary logic which simplifies intercultural relations according to an idealized conception of Britishness while also dismissing alternative viewpoints. Cameron considers Britishness to be endangered due to ‘a weakening of our collective identity’:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different
cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the
mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they
want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values. (Cameron, 2011)
Cameron’s discourse is defensive as it intends to counteract forces from ‘without’ through presenting ‘Britishness’ as an uncontested, given category; and it is antagonistic as it seeks to (re)structure membership and ‘Britishness’ via the common endeavour of providing ‘a vision of society’ and overcoming ‘a challenge we cannot avoid’. The discourse furthermore functions to
discipline domestic society by marginalizing dissent or protest, and enforces national unity by reifying a particular conception of community. Accordingly, Cameron emphasizes the need for others to integrate with an essentialized and idealized ‘British’ Self, and a culture which is conceived and constructed as a static and homogenous entity (Faulks, 2006).
Does the social order require the phenomenon to be the way that it is?
The Other cast as alien is not only a feature of islamist and white supremacist discourse, but as we have seen is also a feature of political discourse, such as that of Cameron, and others on the European right (Fekete, 2012). All the protagonists in this analysis employ concepts of culture and belonging in fundamentalist and absolutist ways which entail a perception of the Other as a separate and completely other counterpart to an essentialized pure Self. The unity of the Self and the unity of the Other are simplistic categorizations which allow the different protagonists to overcome any cognitive dissonance concerning their actions and to construct Self-affirming ways of thinking about
difference, while also reinforcing a preconceived (inter)cultural status quo.
governments’:
And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly
responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at warand I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation. (Khan, 2005)
A similar justification is provided by Michael Adebolajo. After the killing of Lee Rigby, Adebolajo makes a statement recorded on a witness’s phone in which he justifies violence as a reaction to theviolence of others: ‘The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily
by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’(Adebolajo, 2013).
In Cameron’s speech (2011), the construction of polarized identities, or Othering, is evident in the emphasis on Britishness and a call for unity constructed around a choice of being either with ‘Us’ or with the ‘Other’: ‘At stake are not just lives, it is our way of life. That is why this is a challenge
we cannot avoid; it is one we must rise to and overcome’. The emphasis on ‘our way of life’ reduces diversity into a binary logic which simplifies intercultural relations according to an idealized conception of Britishness while also dismissing alternative viewpoints. Cameron considers Britishness to be endangered due to ‘a weakening of our collective identity’:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different
cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the
mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they
want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values. (Cameron, 2011)
Cameron’s discourse is defensive as it intends to counteract forces from ‘without’ through presenting ‘Britishness’ as an uncontested, given category; and it is antagonistic as it seeks to (re)structure membership and ‘Britishness’ via the common endeavour of providing ‘a vision of society’ and overcoming ‘a challenge we cannot avoid’. The discourse furthermore functions to
discipline domestic society by marginalizing dissent or protest, and enforces national unity by reifying a particular conception of community. Accordingly, Cameron emphasizes the need for others to integrate with an essentialized and idealized ‘British’ Self, and a culture which is conceived and constructed as a static and homogenous entity (Faulks, 2006).
Does the social order require the phenomenon to be the way that it is?
The Other cast as alien is not only a feature of islamist and white supremacist discourse, but as we have seen is also a feature of political discourse, such as that of Cameron, and others on the European right (Fekete, 2012). All the protagonists in this analysis employ concepts of culture and belonging in fundamentalist and absolutist ways which entail a perception of the Other as a separate and completely other counterpart to an essentialized pure Self. The unity of the Self and the unity of the Other are simplistic categorizations which allow the different protagonists to overcome any cognitive dissonance concerning their actions and to construct Self-affirming ways of thinking about
difference, while also reinforcing a preconceived (inter)cultural status quo.
Exercise
How simplistic categorization help to overcome cognitive dissonance
and construct self-affirming ways of thinking about difference?
The
focus on difference in discourses of multiculturalism allows for the
implementation of a political and (inter)cultural agenda which is centred upon
a principally ‘white’ nation, as well as the inculcation of new ways of
acting (genres) and new ways of being (styles) in response to a particular construal of the terrorist threat (e.g. via security protocols, border restrictions, and surveillance practices). The political implications of the discourse of multiculturalism show how new genres and styles have become
ideologically accepted across societal structures as networks of social practices within orders of discourse. However, through employing pervasive Self/Other dichotomies, the alienation and continued ostracism of the Other is perpetually renewed. In the case of extremists such as Khan, Adebolajo and Breivik, the Self/Other dichotomy legitimizes their indifference to the suffering of the
Other. In the case of Cameron it works in tragic mimicry of those he wishes to condemn.
acting (genres) and new ways of being (styles) in response to a particular construal of the terrorist threat (e.g. via security protocols, border restrictions, and surveillance practices). The political implications of the discourse of multiculturalism show how new genres and styles have become
ideologically accepted across societal structures as networks of social practices within orders of discourse. However, through employing pervasive Self/Other dichotomies, the alienation and continued ostracism of the Other is perpetually renewed. In the case of extremists such as Khan, Adebolajo and Breivik, the Self/Other dichotomy legitimizes their indifference to the suffering of the
Other. In the case of Cameron it works in tragic mimicry of those he wishes to condemn.
Exercise
Do you think writer is right to say: “In the case of extremists such
as Khan, Adebolajo and Breivik, the Self/Other dichotomy legitimizes their
indifference to the suffering of the Other”.
By
adopting the same cultural binaries which are to be found in the discourse of
extremists, Cameron excludes from ‘Britishness’ everyone who does not share the
values of his ‘British’ Self. Attention is thus focused onto perceptions of
cultural difference in such a way which relegates ethnic minority
communities, many of whom are British citizens and consider themselves British, to a secondary relationship with an idealized ethno-cultural British Self. In the absence of an intercultural consciousness which acknowledges the presence of the Other in the Self, the prospect of a dialogue
which might facilitate structural and institutional change is thereby rendered intentionally remote
(Jackson, 2005; Shaw, 2012; Phipps, 2014).
communities, many of whom are British citizens and consider themselves British, to a secondary relationship with an idealized ethno-cultural British Self. In the absence of an intercultural consciousness which acknowledges the presence of the Other in the Self, the prospect of a dialogue
which might facilitate structural and institutional change is thereby rendered intentionally remote
(Jackson, 2005; Shaw, 2012; Phipps, 2014).
Exercise
Explain: ‘In the absence of an
intercultural consciousness which acknowledges the presence of the Other in the
Self, the prospect of a dialogue
which might facilitate structural and institutional change is thereby rendered intentionally remote’
Identify ways past the obstacles
When identifying ways past the obstacles, your route will depend upon your epistemological and/or political stance. For example, through taking a more emancipatory or critical realist stance you may engage in a normative project and a discussion of how societal ‘wrongs’ might be ‘righted’. For this
purpose, you might refer to models of intercultural dialogue which focus on openness, difference creation, difference management, and difference training as solutions to the practice of Othering (Lederach, 2003).
which might facilitate structural and institutional change is thereby rendered intentionally remote’
Identify ways past the obstacles
When identifying ways past the obstacles, your route will depend upon your epistemological and/or political stance. For example, through taking a more emancipatory or critical realist stance you may engage in a normative project and a discussion of how societal ‘wrongs’ might be ‘righted’. For this
purpose, you might refer to models of intercultural dialogue which focus on openness, difference creation, difference management, and difference training as solutions to the practice of Othering (Lederach, 2003).
Alternatively,
you might understand such a transformative agenda as problematic due to the
claims it makes regarding truth and knowledge (Kramsch, 2009; MacDonald &
O’Regan, 2012; Nair-Venugopal, 2012). This may lead you to adopt a more
poststructuralist or problematizing stance, which means understanding the act
of analysis and the destabilization of rigid dominant interpretations as a form
of contestation. Your objective may then be to engage in a discourse politics
through mapping discourses and problematizing givens which present themselves
as truths.
In either approach, it is extremely doubtful that critique of itself can overcome or destabilize the dominant discourse, but by subjecting the dominant discourse to criticism, critical approaches to discourse analysis may be said to ‘underlabour’ (Bhaskar, 1998, p. 179) for activities whose interests lie in that direction.
Exercise
In either approach, it is extremely doubtful that critique of itself can overcome or destabilize the dominant discourse, but by subjecting the dominant discourse to criticism, critical approaches to discourse analysis may be said to ‘underlabour’ (Bhaskar, 1998, p. 179) for activities whose interests lie in that direction.
Exercise
Map discourse and problematize givens presented as truths to
destabilize dominant discourse.
Concluding remarks on CDA
For researchers new to CDA, there are a number of pointers to bear in mind.
For researchers new to CDA, there are a number of pointers to bear in mind.
First,
there is the issue of having some familiarity with social theory, particularly
with concepts such as discourse, ideology, and power, and a considered view on
what these mean.
Second, is the need to have some understanding
of language in order to be able to analyze texts – CDA is not just commentary.
Third, it is important to provide a reasoned
account of the interpretation which is placed upon the discourse that is
analyzed, which is to say that the analysis should seek to be faithful to the
internal workings of the text rather than, for example, simply in disagreement
with it.
Finally,
and closely related to the previous point, is that simply applying the
linguistic analytical categories of CDA to a text is insufficient. Not all
features of a text are going to be discoursally significant, so identifying
which are and which are not requires careful judgement and argument as well as reference to wider theoretical and empirical frames within which the analysis should be located.
Key Terms
Critical: An attitude or stance which questions given assumptions or propositions. The term is also used to refer to research approaches which have been informed by social theory, particularly from the perspectives of Marxism, critical realism, or poststructuralism.
Dialectic/ Dialectical. This term refers to a relationship between two or more elements which is not simply one way, but is multiple and dynamic. In a CDA perspective, the relation between discourse and the social context for discourse is dialectical in that discourse and context are both mutually constituted as well as mutually conditioned.
Discourse(s) The non-count noun ‘discourse’ refers to language on its own, and to semiosis, i.e. all forms of meaning construction in their social context, and of which language is one instance.
Discourse as a count noun refers to perspectival ways of seeing and knowing as they are constituted through semiosis. Discourses and ideologies can in this respect be viewed as synonymous although ideology is often dispreferred in favour of discourse in poststructuralist perspectives. In CDA both
terms are used, often interchangeably.
Poststructuralism: An epistemological perspective which questions the grounds for knowledge and veridical truth. Poststructuralism is the subset of postmodernism which is devoted to the study of discourse, and is closely associated with continental, particularly French, philosophy.
Poststructuralists tend to prioritize discourse over other material factors such as the economy in explaining social reality and change.
Order of discourse Orders of discourse are the semiotic dimension of social practices and represent different configurations of discourses, genres and styles. Discourses are ways of representing (and therefore also ways of believing); genres are ways of acting conventionally (e.g. in writing, and in spoken and non-verbal communication); and styles are ways of taking up identities in their semiotic aspect – i.e. of enacting one’s being as part of a subject position or ‘role’ (e.g. father, mother, policeman, asylum seeker, receptionist, CEO). The relationship between these three dimensions is known as interdiscursivity.
References
Adebolajo, M. (2013). Woolwich attack: Terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack.
[Online]. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-theuk/10073910/Woolwich-attack-terrorist-proclaimed-an-eye-for-an-eye-after-attack.html.
[Last accessed 18.02.2014].
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. London: MacMillan.
Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.
14
Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human
sciences (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2009). Language, asylum and the national order. Current Anthropology, 50(4), 415-
441.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29,
447-466.
Blommaert, J., & Omoniyi, T. (2010). Email Fraud: Language, Technology, and the Indexicals of
Globalisation. Social Semiotics, 16(4), 573-605.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Oxford: Polity.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Breivik, A. B. (2011). 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.deism.com/images/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf. [Last accessed 24.02.2014].
Cameron, D. (2011). PM's speech at Munich Security Conference. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference.
[Last accessed 24.02.2014].
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R.
Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis (pp. 18-51).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. . (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse
Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Collier, A. (1994). An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London: Verso.
Cole, M. (2009). Critial race theory and education: A marxist perspective. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Delgado, R. (2001). Two ways to think about race: Reflections on the id, the ego, and other reformist
theories of equal protection. Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 2279-2296.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2010a). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010b). Language and ideology. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: The
critical study of language (pp. 56-83). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010c). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social
research. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (pp.
230-254). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010d). General introduction. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: The
critical study of language (pp. 1-21). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9-20). London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2010). Critical realism and semiosis. In N. Fairclough (Ed.),
Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (pp. 202-222). London: Longman.
15
Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357-378). London: Sage.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social
interaction (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Faulks, K. (2006). Education for citizenship in England’s secondary schools: A critique of current
principle and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 21 (1), 59-74.
Fekete, L. (2012). The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre. Race & Class, 53(3), 30-47.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Brighton: Harvester.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text (pp. 48-78). London:
Routledge.
Graham, P. W., & Luke, A. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and political economy of
communication: Understanding the new corporate order. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Critical
discourse analysis: Concepts, history, theory (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalisation of society:
Volume 1. London Heinemann.
Hall, S., Lumley, B., & McLennan, G. (1978). Politics and ideology: Gramsci. In B. Schwarz (Ed.), On
ideology (pp. 45-76). London: Hutchinson.
Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holborow, M. (2012). What is neoliberalism? Discourse, ideology and the real world. In D. Block, J.
Gray & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 33-55). London:
Routledge.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small Cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 237-264.
Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Khan, M. S. (2005). London bomber: Text in full. [Online]. Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm. [Last accessed 24.02.2012].
Kramsch, C. (2009). The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2000). Multimodal discourse. London: Arnold.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teacher's College
Record, 97(1), 47-68.
Larrain, J. (1979). The concept of ideology. London: Hutchinson Education.
Lazar, M. M. (2008). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Studies in gender, power and ideology.
London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lederach, J. P. (2003). Conflict transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Analysing Verbal Data: Principles, Methods and Problems. In K. Tobin and B.
Fraser (Eds), International handbook of science education (pp. 1175-1189). New York: Kluwer.
Luke, A. (2005). Normativity and the material effects of discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2),
198-202.
MacDonald, M. N., & O'Regan, J. P. (2012). The ethics of Intercultural Communication. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 45(10), 1005-1017.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998/1845). The german ideology. New York: Prometheus Books.
McLennan, G., Molina, V., & Peters, R. (1978). Althusser's Theory of Ideology. In B. Schwarz (Ed.), On
ideology (pp. 77-105). London: Hutchison.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2012). The gaze of the West and framings of the East. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pêcheux, M. . (1982). Language, semantics and ideology: Stating the obvious. London: MacMillan.
Pennycook, A. (1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 115-138.
16
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A Critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.
Phipps, A. (2013). Unmoored: language pain, porosity, and poisonwood. Critical Multilingualism,
1(2), 96-118.
Phipps, A. (2014). 'They are bombing now': 'Intercultural Dialogue' in times of conflict. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 14 (1), 108-124.
Piller, I. (2007). Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1
(3), 208-226.
Rajagoplan, K. (2004). On being critical. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 261-263.
Rajagoplan, K. (2012). 'World English' or 'World Englishes'? Does it make any difference?
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 374-391.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87-121). London: Sage.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2000). Intercultural Communication: A discourse approach. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Shaw, I. S. (2012). Stereotypical representations of Muslims and Islam following the 7/7 London
terror attacks: Implications for Intercultural Communication and terrorism prevention. The
International Communication Gazette, 74(6), 509-524.
Slembrouck, S. (2001). Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique
of Anthropology, 21(33), 34-57.
Thompson, J. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249-283.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: An interdisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Wiley.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.
Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Further Reading and Resources
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow: Longman.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London:
Longman.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
which are and which are not requires careful judgement and argument as well as reference to wider theoretical and empirical frames within which the analysis should be located.
Key Terms
Critical: An attitude or stance which questions given assumptions or propositions. The term is also used to refer to research approaches which have been informed by social theory, particularly from the perspectives of Marxism, critical realism, or poststructuralism.
Dialectic/ Dialectical. This term refers to a relationship between two or more elements which is not simply one way, but is multiple and dynamic. In a CDA perspective, the relation between discourse and the social context for discourse is dialectical in that discourse and context are both mutually constituted as well as mutually conditioned.
Discourse(s) The non-count noun ‘discourse’ refers to language on its own, and to semiosis, i.e. all forms of meaning construction in their social context, and of which language is one instance.
Discourse as a count noun refers to perspectival ways of seeing and knowing as they are constituted through semiosis. Discourses and ideologies can in this respect be viewed as synonymous although ideology is often dispreferred in favour of discourse in poststructuralist perspectives. In CDA both
terms are used, often interchangeably.
Poststructuralism: An epistemological perspective which questions the grounds for knowledge and veridical truth. Poststructuralism is the subset of postmodernism which is devoted to the study of discourse, and is closely associated with continental, particularly French, philosophy.
Poststructuralists tend to prioritize discourse over other material factors such as the economy in explaining social reality and change.
Order of discourse Orders of discourse are the semiotic dimension of social practices and represent different configurations of discourses, genres and styles. Discourses are ways of representing (and therefore also ways of believing); genres are ways of acting conventionally (e.g. in writing, and in spoken and non-verbal communication); and styles are ways of taking up identities in their semiotic aspect – i.e. of enacting one’s being as part of a subject position or ‘role’ (e.g. father, mother, policeman, asylum seeker, receptionist, CEO). The relationship between these three dimensions is known as interdiscursivity.
References
Adebolajo, M. (2013). Woolwich attack: Terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack.
[Online]. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-theuk/10073910/Woolwich-attack-terrorist-proclaimed-an-eye-for-an-eye-after-attack.html.
[Last accessed 18.02.2014].
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. London: MacMillan.
Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. London: Verso.
14
Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human
sciences (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A realist theory of science. London: Verso.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2009). Language, asylum and the national order. Current Anthropology, 50(4), 415-
441.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29,
447-466.
Blommaert, J., & Omoniyi, T. (2010). Email Fraud: Language, Technology, and the Indexicals of
Globalisation. Social Semiotics, 16(4), 573-605.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Oxford: Polity.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Breivik, A. B. (2011). 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.deism.com/images/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf. [Last accessed 24.02.2014].
Cameron, D. (2011). PM's speech at Munich Security Conference. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference.
[Last accessed 24.02.2014].
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R.
Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis (pp. 18-51).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. . (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse
Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Collier, A. (1994). An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's philosophy. London: Verso.
Cole, M. (2009). Critial race theory and education: A marxist perspective. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Delgado, R. (2001). Two ways to think about race: Reflections on the id, the ego, and other reformist
theories of equal protection. Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 2279-2296.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. New York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2010a). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010b). Language and ideology. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: The
critical study of language (pp. 56-83). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010c). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social
research. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (pp.
230-254). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010d). General introduction. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis: The
critical study of language (pp. 1-21). London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9-20). London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., Jessop, B., & Sayer, A. (2010). Critical realism and semiosis. In N. Fairclough (Ed.),
Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (pp. 202-222). London: Longman.
15
Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357-378). London: Sage.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social
interaction (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Faulks, K. (2006). Education for citizenship in England’s secondary schools: A critique of current
principle and practice. Journal of Education Policy, 21 (1), 59-74.
Fekete, L. (2012). The Muslim conspiracy theory and the Oslo massacre. Race & Class, 53(3), 30-47.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Brighton: Harvester.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text (pp. 48-78). London:
Routledge.
Graham, P. W., & Luke, A. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and political economy of
communication: Understanding the new corporate order. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Critical
discourse analysis: Concepts, history, theory (Volume 1). London: Sage.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalisation of society:
Volume 1. London Heinemann.
Hall, S., Lumley, B., & McLennan, G. (1978). Politics and ideology: Gramsci. In B. Schwarz (Ed.), On
ideology (pp. 45-76). London: Hutchinson.
Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Holborow, M. (2012). What is neoliberalism? Discourse, ideology and the real world. In D. Block, J.
Gray & M. Holborow (Eds.), Neoliberalism and applied linguistics (pp. 33-55). London:
Routledge.
Holliday, A. (1999). Small Cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 237-264.
Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Khan, M. S. (2005). London bomber: Text in full. [Online]. Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4206800.stm. [Last accessed 24.02.2012].
Kramsch, C. (2009). The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2000). Multimodal discourse. London: Arnold.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teacher's College
Record, 97(1), 47-68.
Larrain, J. (1979). The concept of ideology. London: Hutchinson Education.
Lazar, M. M. (2008). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Studies in gender, power and ideology.
London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Lederach, J. P. (2003). Conflict transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Analysing Verbal Data: Principles, Methods and Problems. In K. Tobin and B.
Fraser (Eds), International handbook of science education (pp. 1175-1189). New York: Kluwer.
Luke, A. (2005). Normativity and the material effects of discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2),
198-202.
MacDonald, M. N., & O'Regan, J. P. (2012). The ethics of Intercultural Communication. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 45(10), 1005-1017.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998/1845). The german ideology. New York: Prometheus Books.
McLennan, G., Molina, V., & Peters, R. (1978). Althusser's Theory of Ideology. In B. Schwarz (Ed.), On
ideology (pp. 77-105). London: Hutchison.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2012). The gaze of the West and framings of the East. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pêcheux, M. . (1982). Language, semantics and ideology: Stating the obvious. London: MacMillan.
Pennycook, A. (1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 115-138.
16
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A Critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.
Phipps, A. (2013). Unmoored: language pain, porosity, and poisonwood. Critical Multilingualism,
1(2), 96-118.
Phipps, A. (2014). 'They are bombing now': 'Intercultural Dialogue' in times of conflict. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 14 (1), 108-124.
Piller, I. (2007). Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1
(3), 208-226.
Rajagoplan, K. (2004). On being critical. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 261-263.
Rajagoplan, K. (2012). 'World English' or 'World Englishes'? Does it make any difference?
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 374-391.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer
(Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87-121). London: Sage.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2000). Intercultural Communication: A discourse approach. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Shaw, I. S. (2012). Stereotypical representations of Muslims and Islam following the 7/7 London
terror attacks: Implications for Intercultural Communication and terrorism prevention. The
International Communication Gazette, 74(6), 509-524.
Slembrouck, S. (2001). Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique
of Anthropology, 21(33), 34-57.
Thompson, J. (1984). Studies in the theory of ideology. Cambridge: Polity.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249-283.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: An interdisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Wiley.
Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.
Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Further Reading and Resources
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow: Longman.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London:
Longman.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Comments
Post a Comment