Download Chapter Five : Conclusions and Suggestions

PANJAB UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
SYNOPSIS
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE WRITTEN
ELECTORAL MATERIALS FROM THE 7th
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN IRAN
ABSTRACT
The term discourse analysis has come to be used with a wide
range of meaning which cover a wide range of activities. There are
many existing approaches to the study of language. One of them
which this study is based upon, is critical discourse analysis (CDA).
This approach grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s
and early 1970s, including linguistics, semiotics, psychology,
anthropology and sociology. CDA analyses social interactions in a
way which focuses upon their linguistic elements, and which sets out
to show up their generally hidden determinants in the system of
social relationships, as well as hidden effects they may have upon
that system. Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it
does not have a unitary theoretical framework. Therefore, in this
research project, in order to overcome the potential weaknesses of
any single method, a critical linguistic analysis will be adopted from
some of the most influential linguists in the field to analyse the
formal linguistic features of the written electoral materials from the
7th presidential election in Iran, to explain discourse structures in
terms of properties of social interaction and especially social
structure, and to focus on the ways discourse structures enact,
conform, legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and
ideology in society.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
1.
To help correct a widespread underestimation of the
significance of language in the production, maintenance, and
change of social relations of power in Iran.
2.
To refer to the order of discourse of the society as a whole,
which structures the orders of discourse of the various social
institutions in a particular way.
3.
To show that orders of discourse are ideologically
harmonized internally or (at the societal level) with each
other.
4.
To stress both the determination of discourse by social
structure, and the effects of discourse upon society through
its reproduction of social structures.
1
5.
To examine the relationship between discourse and
sociocultural change.
So this research project aims to answer the following questions:
1.
What were the formal textual features of the conservatives’
and reformists’ discourses at the 7th presidential election?
2.
How did their discourses and strategies change and why?
3.
What were the ideologies behind the discourse of each
group?
4.
What was the relationship between language of each party
and power?
SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
There are many existing approaches to the study of language (e.g.
linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, cognitive psychology, etc.) but
while each of them has something to contribute to critical language study,
they all have major limitations from a critical point of view.
The critical discourse analysis upon which this study is based, does
not adhere to any particular approach. It is similar to a qualitative
research method in that it deals with non-numerical data and can only be
validated by other researchers examining the same data. However, its
similarity can only be detected to a certain point because a qualitative
research method is either synthetic or holistic, whereas critical linguistics
is analytic in nature. A qualitative method on content analysis is rejected
on the grounds of its inability to get beneath the textual surface where the
2
crucial meanings lie. So in this research a critical linguistic analysis will
be adopted from some of the most influential linguists in the field (in
order to overcome the potential weaknesses of any single method)
including Fairclaough (1989, 1992, 1995), Fowler (1991) and van Dijk
(1981, 1985) to :
1.
Study the theoretical aspects of the subject i.e. explanation
and definition of the concepts of ideology, power, discourse,
discourse analysis, order of discourse, critical discourse
analysis, etc.
2.
Study the descriptive aspects of the subject, i.e. giving a
systematic presentation of a procedure for critical discourse
analysis; setting out a view of interrelationship of language
and society; illustrating the place of language in society, and
showing that language connects with the social through
being the primary domain of ideology, and through being
both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power.
3.
Study the analytic aspects of the subject, i.e. analysing the
formal textual features of their statements, press interviews
and electoral speeches and manifestoes of the two main
candidates for presidency – Khatami and Nategh Noori and
their main supporters.
As the primary sources of the present study, the written electoral
materials such as the speeches and manifestoes published in newspapers
and the published interviews and debates of the candidates, and as the
secondary sources the speeches, statements and articles of other
3
politicians as well as the editorials of the newspapers regarding the
presidential election, from the 8th of May, 1997 when the Council of
Guardians announced the names of the eligible candidates upto the last
day of election (23rd of May, 1997) would be taken into consideration.
Time period required to complete the research project:
Approximately two years.
Field work: No specific field work is required in this research
project.
Place/libraries where research work is to be carried out: In order
to establish a good, rich theoretical framework for the study, I have
to visit and search so many libraries and universities such s
American centre library, British council library, library of Delhi
University, library of JNU (all located in Delhi) as well as the library
of Panjab University, Changidarh.
Since this research project aims to analyse the texts from the
seventh presidential election in Iran, and as per the recommendation
of the committee I have co-opted a co-supervisor from Iran in my
research work, therefore for collecting the relevant materials as well
as visiting my co-supervisor I also have to visit Iran.
PROPOSAL
Background of the Study: The 1970s saw the emergence of a form of
discourse and text analysis that recognized the role of language in
structuring power relations in society.
4
At that time, much linguistic
research elsewhere was focused on formal aspects of language which
constituted the linguistic competence of speakers which could
theoretically be isolated from specific instances of language use
(Chomsky, 1957). Where the relation between language and context was
considered, as in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983), with a focus on speakers’
pragmatic / socio-linguistic competence, sentences and components of
sentences were still regarded as the basic units. Much socio-linguistic
research at the time was aimed at describing and explaining language
variation, language change and the structures of communicative
interaction, with limited attention to issues of social hierarchy and power
(Labov, 1972; Hymes, 1972). In such a context, attention to texts, their
production and interpretation and their relation to societal impulses and
structures, signalled a very different kind of interest (de Beugrande and
Dressler, 1981). The work of Kress and Hodge (1979) and Wodak (1989)
serve to explain and illustrate the main assumptions, principles and
procedures of what had then become known as critical linguistics.
Kress (1990 : 84-97) gives an account of the theoretical
foundations and sources of critical linguistics. By the 1990s the label
critical discourse analysis came to be used more consistently with this
particular approach to linguistic analysis. Kress (1990 : 94) shows how
critical discourse analysis by that time was ‘emerging as a distinct theory
of language, a radically different kind of linguistics’. Many of the basic
assumptions of critical discourse analysis that were salient in the early
stages, and were elaborated in later development of the theory, are
articulated in Kress’s (1989) work.
Fowler et al. (1979) has been referred to in order to ascertain the
5
early foundations of critical linguistics. Later work of Fowler (1991,
1996) shows how tools provided by standard linguistic theories (a 1965
version of Chomskyan grammar, and Halliday’s theory of systemic
functional grammar) can be used to uncover linguistic structures of power
in texts. Not only in news discourses, but also in literary criticism Fowler
illustrates that systematic grammatical devices function in establishing,
manipulating and naturalizing social hierarchies.
Fairclough (1989) sets out the social theories under planning
critical discourse analysis, and as in other early critical linguistic work, a
variety of textual examples are anlaysed to illustrate the field, its aims
and methods of analysis. Later Fairclough (1992, 1995) and Chouliariki
and Fairclough (1999) explain and elaborate some advances in critical
discourse analysis, showing not only how the analytical framework for
investigating language in relation to power and ideology developed, but
also how critical discourse analysis is useful in disclosing the discursive
nature of much contemporary social and cultural change. Particularly the
language of the mass media is scrutinized as a site of power, of struggle
and also as a site where language is apparently transparent.
Media
institutions often purport to be neutral in that they provide space for
public discourse, that they reflect states of affairs disinterestedly, and that
they give the perceptions and arguments of the newsmakers. Fiarclaugh
shows the fallacy of such assumptions, and illustrates the mediating and
constructing role of the media with a variety of examples.
Van Dijk’s earlier work in text linguistics and discourse analysis
(1977, 1981) already shows the interest he takes in texts and discourses as
basic units and social practices. Like other critical linguistic theorists, he
6
traces the origins of linguistic interest in units of language larger than
sentences and in text - and context-dependency of meanings. Van Dijk
and Kintsch (1983) considered the relevance of discourse to the study of
language processing. Their development of a cognitive model of
discourse understanding in individuals, gradually developed into
cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning on a societal
level. Van Dijk (1985) collected the work of a variety of scholars for
whom language and how it functions in discourse is variously the primary
object of research, or a tool in the investigation of other social
phenomena. This is in a way a documentation of the ‘state of the art’ of
critical linguistics in the mid 1980s.
Van Dijk turns specifically to media discourse, giving not only his
own reflection on communication in the mass media (van Dijk, 1986), but
also bringing together the theories and applications of a variety of
scholars interested in the production, uses and functions of media
discourses (van Dijk, 1985). In critically analysing various kinds of
discourses that encode prejudice, van Dijk’s interest is in developing a
theoretical model that will explain cognitive discourse processing
mechanisms. Most recently van Dijk has focused on issues of racism
and ideology (van Dijk, 1998).
By the end of the 1980s critical linguistics was able to describe its
aims, research interests, chosen perspective and methods of analysis
much more specifically and rigidly than hitherto. Wodak (1989) lists,
explains and illustrates the most important characteristics of critical
7
linguistic research as they had become established in continued research.
The relevance of investigating language use in institutional settings is
reiterated, and a new focus on the necessity of a historical perspective is
introduced (the discourse – historical approach). This was followed by a
variety of research projects into discursive practices in institutional
contexts that would assist in developing an integrated theory of critical
discourse analysis.
Statement of the Subject: The fruitless study of language in isolation
has led linguists to acknowledge the importance of considering social
context in discourse analysis. Deacon et al. (1999 : 147-8) propose :
“Discourse conjoins language use as text and practices. What we identify
as ‘discourse’ and what we identify as ‘social’ are deeply intervened ... .
All talks, all texts, are social in nature. Language is not some transparent
medium through which we see the world”. They make the point that “the
moving to discourse analysis enabled linguistics to tackle the structures of
whole texts, rather than just the sentences, words and parts of words taken
in isolation which it had to a great extent concentrated on previously”
(Deacon et al., 1999 : 179). So, the analysis of discourse is, necessarily,
the analysis of language in use and as such, it cannot be restricted to the
description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions
which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs.
Critical discourse analysis which this research work is based upon,
analyses social interactions in a way which sets out to show up their
generally hidden determinants in the system of social relationship as well
as hidden effects they may have upon that system. Critically study of
language would place a broad conception of the social study of language
8
at the core of language study.
Critical discourse analysis regards
‘language as social practice’ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997), and takes
consideration of the context of language use to be crucial (Wodak, 2000;
Benke, 2000). Moreover, critical discourse analysis takes a particular
interest in the relation between language and power.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997) have put forward an eight-point
programme to define critical discourse analysis as follows :
1.
Critical discourse analysis addresses social problems.
2.
Power relations are discursive.
3.
Discourse constitutes society and culture.
4.
Discourse does ideological work.
5.
Discourse is historical.
6.
The link between text and society is mediated.
7.
Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory.
8.
Discourse is a form of social action.
Interpretation of text and discourse is, therefore, interpretation of
socially determined language, and this means being involved in
understanding the processes, functions and meanings of social interaction,
and as Birch (1989 : 153) claims, this means being involved in “politics
of interaction”. In this way the links between people and society are not
arbitrary and accidental, but one institutionally determined.
Critical
language study aims to select and deconstruct these links and to
9
understand the nature of language and society and their mutual effect on
each other. Critical discourse analysis sees discourses as parts of social
struggles, and contextualizes them in terms of broader (non-discoursal)
struggles, and the effects of these struggles on structures.
It puts
emphasis not only on the formal textual features of discourse but also on
the social effects of discourse, on creativity, and on future. On the other
hand, through critical discourse analysis the analyst can show what power
relationships determine discourses; these relationships are themselves the
outcome of struggles, and are established (and, ideally, naturalized) by
those with power.
It lays emphasis on the social determination of
discourse, and on the past – on the results of past struggles.
The 7th presidential election in Iran took place following a series of
happenings which in fact was the aftermath of social forces in a broader
competition between ideology and culture.
This event was a turning
point in the history of Iran because, for the first time two different
discourse types, based on two different ideologies, faced and challenged
with each other. For the first time some slogans such as “civil society”,
“liberalism”, “human rights”, “freedom of expression” etc. were brought
up by the reformist party and these new concepts entered the current
discourse of the society and somehow changed the social structure. So in
this research project critical discourse analysis will be used to describe
the formal properties and features of these two discourses in Iran; to
interpret the relationship between texts and interaction; to explain the
relationship between interaction and social context and their social
effects; to explore the relationship between language and ideology; and to
illustrate the relationship between language and society and discourse and
10
social structure in Iran.
11
TENTATIVE CHAPTER DIVISION
Chapter one: Introduction contains the background of the
study, statement of the subject, aims and objectives of the study,
research methodology, data collection, primary and secondary
sources of the study, significance of the study as well as limitations
of the study.
Chapter two : Review of Literature provides detailed
definition of the concepts such as discourse, discourse analysis,
critical discourse analysis, etc. and gives a brief overview to the
approaches to discourse analysis. Then it proposes a systematic
presentation of a procedure for critical discourse analysis. This
chapter also sets out a view of the interrelationship of language and
society, with the emphasis upon power and ideology.
Chapter three : Discourse Analysis of the Reformist Party.
In this chapter a critical linguistic analysis will be adopted to analyse
linguistic features of the electoral speeches, debates and interviews
as well as electoral statements of the reformist party, and to
investigate the ideology behind the discourse of this party, and to
explore the relationship between their language and power.
Chapter four : Discourse Analysis of the Conservative
Party brings into focus the formal textual features of the electoral
statements, debates and speeches of the conservative party during
the seventh presidential election in Iran and explores their
ideological structures.
Chapter five : Conclusions and Suggestions summarizes that
language connects with the social through being the primary domain
of ideology, and shows the links between linguistic features of
electoral written texts and social, political and ideological structures,
relations and processes they belong to.
12
SCHEME OF CHAPTERIZATION
Chapter One
:
Introduction
Chapter Two
:
Review of Literature
1.
Definition of the concepts
2.
History of discourse analysis
3.
Approaches to discourse analysis
4.
The
relationship
between
language,
power and ideology
Chapter Three
:
Discourse Analysis of the Reformist Party
1.
Critical discourse analysis of electoral
speeches
2.
Critical discourse analysis of the electoral
debates and interviews
3.
Critical discourse analysis of the electoral
statements
Chapter Four
:
Discourse Analysis of the Conservative Party
1.
Critical discourse analysis of electoral
speeches
2.
Critical discourse analysis of the electoral
debates and interviews
3.
Critical discourse analysis of the electoral
statements
Chapter Five
:
Conclusions and Suggestions
13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ansari-Lari, E. (1997) Seventh Selection. Tehran: Hamshahri.
Bashiriyeh, H. (1999) State and Civil Society : Discourse of Political
Sociology. Tehran : Naghd-o-Nazar.
Bazerman, C. (1990) “Discourse Analysis and Social Construction”.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 11 : 77-83.
Benke,
G.
(2000)
“Diskursanalyse
als
sozialwissenschaftliche
Untersuchungsmethode”. SWS Rundschau. 2 : 140-62.
Birch, D. (1989) Language, Literature and Critical Practice. London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1999) “Language and Symbolic Power”. In A. Jaworski &
K. Coupland (eds.) The Discourse Reader. London : Routledge.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R., Goddard, A., Reah, D., Sanger, K. & Bowring, M. (1997)
Working with Texts : A Core Book for Language Analysis. New
York: Routledge.
Chomsky, N (1957) Syntactic Structures. Gravenhage : Mouton.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity:
Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh : Edinburgh
University Press.
Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P. & Murdock, G. (1999)
Researching Communications: A practical Guide to Methods in
Media and Cultural Analysis. London: Arnold.
14
de Beaugrande, R. A. & Dressler, W.U (1981)
Einfuhrung in die
Textlinguistik. Tubingen : Niemeyer.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997) “Critical Discourse Analysis”. In T.
van Dijk (ed.) Discourse studies : A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
Vol. 2. London : Sage.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London : Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis : the Critical Study of
Language. London : Longman.
Fowler, R. (1985) “Power”. In T. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Vol. 4. New York : Academic Press.
Fowler, R. (1991) Language in News : Discourse and Ideology in Press.
London : Routledge.
Fowler, R., Hodge, G., Kress, G & Trew, T. (1979) (eds.) Language and
Control. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gee, J. P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and
Method. London : Routledge.
Gholamrezakashi, M. J. (2000) The Magic of Speech. Tehran : Ayande
Pooyan.
Gibbons, M. (1987) (ed.) Interpreting Politics. Oxford : Basil Blackwell.
Hoey, M. (2001)
Textual Interaction : An Introduction to Written
Discourse Analysis. London : Routledge.
15
Hymes, D. (1972) “Models of Interaction of Language and Social Life”.
In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.) Directions in Socioloingustics
– The Ethnography of Communication. New York : Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (1999)
“Perspectives on Discourses
Analysis”. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (eds.) The Discourse
Reader. London : Routledge.
Kress, G. & Hodge, B. (1979)
Language and Ideology.
London :
Routledge.
Kress, G. (1989) “History and Language : Towards a Social Account of
Linguistic Change”. Journal of Pragmatics. 13 (3) : 445-66.
Kress, G. (1990) “Critical Discourse Analysis”. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics. 11 : 84-97.
Labov, W. (1972) Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia : University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford : Blackwell.
Scollon, R. (2001)
“Action and Text : Towards an Integrated
Understanding of Text in Social (Inter) Action, Mediated
Discourse Analysis and the Problem of Social Action”.
Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.)
Analysis. London : Sage.
16
In R.
Methods of Critical Discourse
Seidel, G. (1985) “Political Discourse Analysis”. In T. van Dijk (ed.)
Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 4. London : Academic
Press.
Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London :
Routledge.
van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of Discourse
Comprehension. New York : Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. (1977) Text and Context : Exploration in the semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse. London : Longman.
van Dijk, T. (1981) Studies in Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague /
Berlin : Mauton.
van Dijk, T. (1985) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 4 vols. New York:
Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. (1986) Racism in the Press. London : Arnold.
van Dijk, T. (1998) Ideology : A Multidisciplinary Approach. London:
Sage.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001) (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London : Sage.
Wodak, R. (1989) “Introduction”. In R. Wodak (ed.) Language, Power
and Ideology. Amesterdam : Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (2000) “Does Sociolinguistics Need Social Theory? New
Perspective on Critical Discourse Analysis”. Discourse & Society,
2 (3) : 123-147.
17
PERSONAL STATEMENT
During the final year of M.A. in linguistics at the Department of
Linguistics, the University of Delhi, we had fruitful discussions, under
the supervision of Professor Agnihotri in our sociolinguistics classes, on
how language in its everyday as well as professional usage enables us to
understand issues of social concern. These discussions made me
conscious to the relationship between language and power. Meanwhile I
had the wonderful opportunity to attend in a course work chaired by
Professor John Gumperz at the Department of Linguistics, the University
of Delhi about theories and methods of discourse analysis. These
provided an important stimulus for me to plan to work on the role of
language in social life and since in the 7 th presidential election in Iran two
different discourses based on two different ideologies faced and
challenged each other, I decided to work on the discourse analysis of this
presidential election to show how language is theorized in relation to
power and ideology?. How do powerful groups control public discourse?
How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful
groups, and what are the social consequences of such control? and I hope
at the end of this research project by answering at least to some of these
questions, I could contribute to the development of this field.
Chapter Two
Conceptual Framework of Discourse
The concept of discourse plays an increasingly significant role in
contemporary social science. Although originating in disciplines such as
linguistics and semiotics, it has been extended to many branches of the human
and social sciences. Scholars in academic disciplines as diverse as anthropology,
18
history and sociology psychoanalysis and social psychology; cultural, gender and
post-colonial studies political science, public policy analysis, political theory and
international relations, not to mention linguistics and literary theory, have used
the concept of discourse to define and explain problems in their respective fields
of study (Howarth 2002:1). Therefore, discourse is a difficult concept, largely
because there are so many conflicting and overlapping definitions formulated
from various theoretical and disciplinary standpoints (see van Dijk 1985a and
Mcdonell 1986 for some range).
Discourse is used across the social sciences in a variety of ways , often
under the influence of Foucault. Discourse is used in a general sense for language
(as well as , for instance , visual images) as an element of social life which is
dialectically related to other elements. Discourse is also used more specifically :
different discourses are different ways of representing aspects of the world.
Fairclough (2003: 124) views discourses as a way of
representing aspects of the world – the processes, relations and
structures of the material word , the ‘mental world’ of thoughts,
feelings beliefs and so forth, and the social world”. Particular aspects
of the world may be represented differently, so we are generally in
the position of having to consider the relationship between different
discourses. Different discourses are different perspectives on the
world, and they are associated with the different relations people
have to the world , which in turn depends on their positions in the
world, their social and personal identities , and the social
relationships in which they stand to other people. Discourses not
only represent the world as it is (or rather is seen to be) , they are
also projective , imaginaries , representing possible worlds which are
19
different from the actual world, and tied in to projects to change the
world in particular directions. The relationships between different
discourses are one element of the relationships between different
people – they may complement one another, compete with one
another, one can dominate others , and so forth. Discourses
constitute part of the resources which people deploy in relating to
one another–keeping separate from one another, cooperating,
competing, dominating–and in seeking to change the ways in which
they relate to one another.
Coupland and Jaworski (2001: 148) combine two fundamental approaches
to discourse : “as language–in- use and language use relative to social, political
and cultural formulations - it is language reflecting social order but also language
shaping social order, and shaping individuals' interaction with society". This is
the key factor explaining why so many academic disciplines entertain the notion
of discourse with such commitment. Discourse falls squarely within the interests
not only of linguists, literary critics, critical theorists and communication
scientists, but also of geographers, philosophers, political scientists, sociologists,
anthropologists, social psychologists, and many others. Despite important
differences of emphasis, discourse is an inescapably important concept for
understanding society and human responses to it, as well as for understanding
language itself.
2.1.1. DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF DISCOURSE:
Originally, the term discourse came from Latin, discursus, meaning ‘to
run', `to run on', ‘to run to and fro'. Historically, it has been applied more to
rehearsed forms of spoken language – like speeches, where people ‘run on' about
a topic – than to spontaneous speech. The modern meaning of discourse as
20
encompassing all forms of talk has evolved because conversations, like formal
speeches, `run'. This means that speakers make an effort to give their interactions
shape and coherence – not consciously, but as an integral part of co-operating
with another speaker to make meaning. So when people refer to talk as discourse
they are drawing attention to the way talk is crafted medium (Carter et al. 1997:
165-6).
Twenty years ago, discourse had its traditional meaning: the ordered
exposition in writing or speech of a particular subject, a practice familiarly
associated with writers such as Descartes and Machiavelli. Recently the term has
been used with increasing frequency and with new kinds of meaning, reflecting in
part the effect on critical vocabulary of work done within and across the
boundaries of various disciplines: linguistics, philosophy, literary criticism,
history, psychoanalysis and sociology (Fowler 2001: 62). So much so that it is
frequently left undefined, as if its usage are simply common knowledge. It is used
widely in analysing literary and non-literary texts and it is often employed to
signal a certain theoretical sophistication in ways that are vague and sometimes
obfuscatory. It has perhaps the widest range of possible significations of any term
in literary and cultural theory, and yet it is often the term within theoretical texts
which is least defined. It is interesting therefore to trace the ways in which we try
to make sense of the term. The most obvious way to track down its range of
meanings is through consulting a dictionary1, but here the more general meanings
of the term and its more theoretical usages seem to have become enmeshed, since
the theoretical meanings always have an overlaying of the more general meanings
(Mills, 1997: 1).
This sense of the general usage of discourse as having to do with
conversation and holding forth on a subject, or giving a speech, has been partly
due to the etymology of the word. However, it has also been due to the fact that
this is the core meaning of the term discours in French, and since the 1960s it is a
word which has been associated with French philosophical thought, even though
21
the terms discours and discourse do not correspond to one another exactly.
During the 1960s the general meaning of the term, its philosophical meaning and
a new set of more theoretical meanings began to diverge slightly, but these more
general meanings have always been kept in play, inflecting the theoretical
meanings in particular ways.
Within the theoretical range of meanings, it is difficult to know where or
how to track down the meaning of discourse. Glossaries of theoretical terms are
sometimes of help, but very often the disciplinary context in which the term
occurs is more important in trying to determine which of these meanings is being
brought into play. This research will try to map out the contexts within which the
term discourse is used, in order to narrow down the range of possible meanings.
In linguistics, as Fairclough (1992b) indicates, discourse is used to refer to
extended samples of either spoken or written language. This sense of `discourse'
emphasizes interaction between speaker and addressee or between writer and
reader, and therefore processes of producing and interpreting speech and writing,
as well as the situational context of language use. Discourse is also used for
different types of language used in different sorts of social situation (e.g.
newspaper discourse, advertising discourse, classroom discourse, the discourse of
medical consultations).
On the other hand, discourse is widely used in social theory
and analysis, for example in the work of Michel Foucault, to refer to
different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice.
Foucault (1984) treats discourse sometimes as the general domain of
all statements, sometimes as an individualizable group of statements,
and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of
statements. Discourses in this sense are manifested in particular
ways of using language and other symbolic forms such as visual
22
images (see Thompson 1990). Discourses do not just reflect or
represent social entities and relations, they construct or `constitute'
them (Fairclough 1992b: 3).
Kress (1985b: 6-7) provides a very useful definition of the concept:
"Institutions
and social groupings have specific meanings and values which are
articulated in language in systematic ways. Discourses are systematicallyorganized sets of statements which give expression to the meanings and values
of an institution. Beyond that, they define, describe and delimit what it is
possible to say and not possible to say (and by extension - what it is possible to
do or not to do) with respect to the area of concern of that institution, whether
marginally or centrally. A discourse provides a set of possible statements about a
given area, and organizes and gives structure to the manner in which a particular
topic, object, process is to be talked about. In that it provides descriptions, rules,
permissions and prohibitions of social and individual actions".
In McCarthy’s view point (2001: 48) ‘the study of discourse is the study of
language independently of the notion of the sentence’. This usually involves
studying longer (spoken and written) texts but, above all, it involves examining
the relationship between a text and the situation in which it occurs.
From another point of view Schiffrin (1994) categorizes the definition of
discourse in three groups:
1. Discourse as language above the sentence: The classic definition of
discourse as derived from formalist (in Hymes's 1974b terms, "structural")
assumptions is that discourse is "language above the sentence or above the
clause" (Stubbs 1983: 1). Van Dijk (1985c: 4) suggests : "Structural descriptions
characterize discourse at several levels or dimensions of analysis and in terms of
many different units, categories, schematic patterns, or relations". Despite the
diversity of structural approaches noted by van Dijk, there is a common core:
structural analyses focus on the way different units function in relation to each
23
other (a focus shared with structuralism in general (e.g. Levi-Strauss 1967; Piaget
1970), but they disregard "the functional relations with the context of which
discourse is a part" (van Dijk 1985c: 4). Since it is precisely this relationship –
between discourse and the context of which discourse is a part – that
characterizes functional analyses, it might seem that the two approaches have
little in common.
Structurally based analyses of discourse find ‘constituents’ (smaller
linguistic units) that have particular ‘relationships’ with one another and that can
occur in a restricted number of (often rule-governed) ‘arrangements’ (see Grimes
1975, Stubbs 1983, Chap. 5). In many structural approaches, discourse is viewed
as a level of structure higher than the sentence, or higher than another unit of text.
Harris (1952) - the first linguist to refer to "discourse analysis"– claimed
explicitly that discourse is the next level in a hierarchy of morphemes, clauses,
and sentences. Harris viewed discourse analysis procedurally as a formal
methodology, derived from structural methods of linguistic analysis: such a
methodology could break a text down into relationships (such as equivalence,
substitution) among its lower-level constituents. Structure was so central to
Harris's view of discourse that he also argued that what opposes discourse to a
random sequence of sentences is precisely the fact that it has structure: a pattern
by which segments of the discourse occur (and recur) relative to each other
(Schiffrin 1994: 23-4).
2. Discourse as language use: According to Fasold (1990: 65) the study of
discourse is "the study of any aspect of language use". Another statement of this
view of discourse is Wodak's (2001b: 66): "Discourse can be understood as a
complex bundle of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts, which
manifest themselves within and across the social fields of action as thematically
interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very often as texts, that belong to
specific semiotic types, that is genres.... Discourses are open and hybrid and not
closed systems at all".
24
As these views make clear, the analysis of language use (see Saussure's
parole, 1959) cannot be independent of the analysis of the purposes and functions
of language in human life. This view reaches an extreme in the work of critical
language scholarship, i.e. the study of language, power, and ideology. Fairclough
, for example, advocates a dialectical conception of language and society whereby
"language is a part of society; linguistic phenomena are social phenomena of a
special sort, and social phenomena are (in part) linguistic phenomena"(1989: 23).
In Fairclough's view, language and society partially constitute one another - such
that the analysis of language as an independent (autonomous) system would be a
contradiction in terms2 (see also Foucault 1982, Grimshaw 1981). Even in less
extreme functionalist views, however, discourse is assumed to be interdependent
with social life, such that its analysis necessarily intersects with meanings,
activities, and systems outside of itself.3
A definition of discourse as language use is consistent with functionalism
in general: discourse is viewed as a system (a socially and culturally organized
way of speaking) through which particular functions are realized. Although
formal regularities may very well be examined, a functionalist definition of
discourse leads analysts away from the structural basis of such regularities to
focus, instead, on the way patterns of talk are put to use for certain purposes in
particular contexts and/or how they result from the application of communicative
strategies. Functionally based approaches tend to draw upon a variety of methods
of analysis, often including not just quantitative methods drawn from social
scientific approaches, but also more humanistically based interpretive efforts to
replicate actors' own purposes or goals. Not surprisingly, they rely less upon the
strictly grammatical characteristics of utterances as sentences, than upon the way
utterances are situated in contexts.4
3. Discourse as utterances: This view captures the idea that discourse is above
(larger than) other units of language; however, by saying that utterance (rather
than sentence) is the smaller unit of which discourse is comprised, we can suggest
25
that discourse arises not as a collection of decontextualized units of language
structure, but as a collection of inherently contextualized units of language use.
A definition of utterances implies several goals of discourse analysis. First
is what we might call syntactic goals, or more appropriately for discourse
analysis, sequential goals: are there principles underlying the order in which one
utterance, or one type of utterance, follows another? Second is what might be
called semantic and pragmatic goals: how does the organization of discourse, and
the meaning and use of particular expressions and constructions within certain
contexts, allow people to convey and interpret the communicative content of what
is said? How does one utterance (and the sequential relationship between
utterances) influence the communicative content of another? Thus, defining
discourse as utterances seems to balance both the functional emphasis on how
language is used in context and the formal emphasis on extended patterns
(Schiffrin 1994: 41).
Following Fairclough (2003: 28) , we can say that discourse figures in
three main ways in social practice. It figures as :
1. Genres (ways of acting)
2. Discourses (ways of representing)
3. Styles (ways of being)
One way of acting and interacting is through speaking or writing , so discourse
figures first as ‘part of the action’ . We can distinguish different genres as
different ways of (inter) acting discoursally – interviewing is a genre, for example
. Second , discourse figures in the representations which are always a part of
social practices – representations of the material world, of other social practices,
reflexive self- representations of the practice in question. Representation is clearly
a discoursal matter, and we can distinguish different discourses, which may
represent the same area of the world from different persepectives or positions.
Notice that discourse is being used by Fairclough in two senses : abstractly , as an
abstract noun , meaning language and other types of semiosis as elements of
26
social life; more concretely , as a count noun , meaning particular ways of
representing part of the world. Third and finally , discourse figures alongside
bodily behaviour in constituting particular ways of being , particular social or
personal identities. The discoursal aspect of this is called a style.
What makes the process of defining discourse even more complex is that
most theorists when using the term do not specify which of these particular
meanings they are using. Furthermore, most theorists modify even these basic
definitions. What is necessary is to be able to decide in which context the term is
being used, and hence what meanings have accrued to it.
So the concept of discourse and genre in particular are used in a variety of
disciplines and theories. Genre is used in cultural studies , media studies, film
theory , and so forth (see for instance Fiske 1987 , Silverstone 1999). These
concepts cut across disciplines and theories , and can operate as bridges between
them- as focuses for a dialogue between them through which perspectives in the
one can be drawn upon in the development of the other. In the next section we
will discuss more broadly the genres of discourse.
2.1.2. GENRES OF DISCOURSE:
The term genre has a long history , dating back to ancient Greeks and their
study of rhetorical structure in different categories of the epic , lyric and dramatic.
For many years the term has been commonly used to refer to particular kinds of
literature or other media of creative expression (e.g. art or film) (see Hammond
and Derewianka 2001). The genre is essentially a classificatory concept, referring
to a class of communicative events, the participants in which share a certain set of
conventions defined in terms of formal, functional and contextual properties.
Both linguistic and non-linguistic criteria enter its definition. The boundaries of a
genre are not only determined by reference to form (e.g. lexical and grammatical
patterns etc.) and content. They are also determined by reference to social and
27
cognitive criteria, such as norms, conventions, rules of use, schemata and, on the
whole, our perceptions of and expectations about textual boundaries (Paltridge
1995: 288-99).
There are two main schools of thought about genre. They differ somewhat
in their theoretical formulations but they do not appear to be in fundamental
conflict and there is much to be learnt from both. The leading figure in the first of
these schools is John Swales (1981, 1990). His definition centres on the notion of
a discourse community that has, in some sense, ownership of a genre. According
to Swales (1990) a genre ‘comprises a class of communicative events , the
members of which share some set of communicative purposes’. His analysis
focuses on what he terms the `moves' that writers choose (and to some extent are
required) to make in constructing their text5 (Hoey 2001: 8). The other major
school of thought with regard to genre is that associated with systemic-functional
linguistics.
Work on genre drawing from systemic functional linguistics has
developed primarily in Australia. This work incorporates a number of features
that are central to systemic function linguistic theory (Halliday and Hasan 1976,
1985; Halliday 1978, 1994). Such features include a functional perspective in the
study of language; a focus on the interrelationship between language texts and the
context in which those texts occur; analytic tools deriving from the descriptions
of discourse and language resources of English ; and a focus on the
interrelationship between spoken and written modes of English. These features
provide a means of studying the organisation, development and cohesion of
spoken and written texts used by people in a variety of contexts. The term genre
is used to refer to the relationship between social function and the predictable
patterning of language. Genres in this sense have been described as ‘staged, goaloriented social processes; in which language plays a significant role’ (Martin et
al. 1987).
28
A genre may be characterized, following Norman Fairclough (1995a: 14)
as the contentionalized, more or less schematically fixed use of language
associated with a particular activity, as "a socially ratified way of using language
in connection with a particular type of social activity"6. Fairclough (1992b: 126)
uses the term genre for a relatively stable set of conventions that is associated
with, and partly enacts, a socially ratified type of activity, such as informal chat,
buying goods in a shop, a job interview, a television documentary, a poem, or a
scientific article. A genre implies not only a particular text type, but also
particular processes of producing, distributing and consuming texts7. Chouliaraki
and Fairclough (1999: 192) claim that "the term genre is reserved for the
structuring of particular type of discourse in terms of sequentially ordered `stages'
- for instance, in a buying and selling encounter in a local shop the sequence of:
greetings + request for goods + compliance with request (there might be a number
of sub-sequences of request + compliance) + payment + farewells". They (1999:
144-5) further say that "genre is itself an articulatory device which controls what
does with what and in what ordering, including what configuration and ordering
of discourses, and like the concept of articulation the concept of genre applies
within different timescales".
Fairclough (2003: 71) further suggests that a particular genre may have a
number of purposes which may be relatively explicit or implicit and purposes
can be hierarchically ordered. Genre therefore needs to be understood in a more
abstract way than in systemic-functional linguistics as the ordering and regulative
facet of discourse, and not simply used for the staged structuring of relatively
permanent types of discourse such as the dissertation defence (see Kress and
Threadgold 1988, Threadgold 1989 on the systemic functional linguistics view of
genre; Chouliaraki 1995, Chandler 2002).
Focusing upon genre as text type, a particular genre is associated with a
particular `compositional structure', as Bakhtin calls it. According to Bakhtin
(1986: 65), genres are "the drive belts from the history of society to the history of
29
language". Changes in social practice are both manifested on the plane of
language in changes, in the system of genres, and in part brought about through
such changes.
Kress (1990: 90) explains that "genre is a category which explains
conventionalized and conventionally available textual forms not, as is usually the
case, in terms of reified historical/linguistic categories, but rather in terms of the
contingent structurings of social occasions, the organization of social participants,
and their purposes and intentions”. Hence, genres are always seen as the linguistic
products of particular social occasions, encoding the social organization,
structures, etc. of that occasion. In general, as Georgakopoulou and Goutsos
(1997: 33) indicate, "genres are helpful as means of constructing, organizing and
interpreting meaning, as well as of controlling its function in audiences and
discourse communities".
Fairclough (2003 : 32) suggests that genres are important in sustaining the
institutional structure of contemporary society – structural relations between
(local) government, business, universities, the media, etc. We can think of such
institutions as interlocking elements in the governance of society (Bjerke 2000),
and of such genres as genres of governance8 (see Jessop 1998).
The genres of governance are characterized by specific
properties of recontextualization – the appropriation of elements of
one social practice within another, placing the former within the
context of the latter , and transforming it in particular ways in the
process (Bernstein 1990, Wernic 1991, Chouliaraki and Fairclough
1999).
Genres of governance more generally have the property of linking
different scales – connecting the local and particular to the national/ regional /
global and general. What this indicates is that genres are important in sustaining
not only the structural relation between , for example , the academic and business,
30
but also scalar relations between the local , the national , the regional and the
‘global’. So changes in genres are germane to both the restructuring and the
rescaling of social life in new capitalism9
( Fairclough 2003: 33) .
Genres are specifically discoursal aspects of ways of acting
and interacting in the course of social events : we might say that
(inter)acting is never just discourse, but it is often mainly discourse.
So when we analyze a text or interaction in terms of genre, we are
asking how it figures within and contributes to social action and
interaction in social events (see Bakhtin 1986 , Bazerman 1988,
Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, Eggins and Martin 1997,
Fairclough 2003, Martin 1992, Swales 1990).
Fairclough (2003 : 66) mentions certain aspects of genres as :
1. The forms of action and interaction
in social events are
defined by its social practices and the ways in which they are
networked together.
2. The social transformation of new capitalism can be seen as
changes in the networking of social practices, and so change in
the forms of action and interaction, which includes change in
genres.
Genre
change
is
an
important
part
of
the
transformations of new capitalism.
3. Some genres are relatively local in scale, associated with
relatively delimited networks of social practices (e.g. within an
organisation such as business). Others are specialized for
relatively ‘global’ (inter)action across networks, and for
31
governance.
4. Change in genres is change in how different genres are
combined together. New genres develop through combination
of existing genres.
5. A chain of events may involve a chain or network of different,
interconnected texts which manifest a ‘chain’ of different
genres. Genre chains are significant for relations of
recontextualization.
6. A particular text or interaction is not ‘in’ a particular genre- it
is likely to involve a combination of different genres - genre
hybridity.
We can conclude from points 5 and 6 that genre analysis proceeds
as follows:
a. analysis of genre chains ;
b. analysis of genre mixtures in a particular text ;
c. analysis of individual genres in a particular text ;
Fairclough (2003) makes two preliminary points about genre.
First, genres vary quite considerably in terms of their degree of
stabilization, fixity and homogenization. Some genres , for instance
the gene of the research paper in certain areas of science (Swales
1990), are well- defined almost to the point of being ritualized.
Others, for example , advertisements for academic posts , are quite
variable and in flux. In this period of rapid and profound social
transformation , there is a tension between pressures towards
stabilization , part of the consolidation of the new social order (for
32
example , the new genres of telemarketing ), and pressures towards
flux and change. Second , there is no established terminology for
genres. Some genres have fairly well-established names within the
social practices in which they are used, others do not. Even where
there are well-established names, we should treat them with caution,
because the classification schemes upon which they are based may
give a misleading picture of what actually goes on. For instance , the
term ‘seminar’ as used now not only in education but in business
covers a variety of activities and genres.
The general approach, we are adopting in this research, is to
see the interdiscursive character of a text (the particular mix of
genres, discourses and styles) as realized in semantic, grammatical
and lexical (vocabulary) features of the text at various levels of text
organisation. Genres are realized in actional meanings and forms of
a text, discourses in representational meanings and forms, and styles
in identification meanings and forms. This means that particular
semantic relations or grammatical categories and relations will be
seen as primarily associated with either genres, or discourses, or
styles. Primarily, because there is not a simple one-to-one relation –
so for instance modality will be seen as primarily associated with
styles, but also germane to genres and discourses.
There are various aspects of text organization and various
features of texts at different levels which are primarily shaped by
and dependent upon genre. Fairclough (2003: 67) summarizes them
as follows :
33
- The overall (generic) structure or organization of a text.
- Semantic (logical , temporal etc.) relations between clauses
and sentences , and over larger stretches of text.
- Formal , including grammatical , relation between sentences
and clauses.
- At the level of the clause (simple sentence) , type of exchange
, speech function , mood.
- The Mode of intertextuality of a text , the way in which other
texts and voices are incorporated.
One of the difficulties with the concept of genre is that genres
can be defined on different levels of abstraction. For example , one
might say that ‘narrative’ is a genre, but then so, too, is ‘report’ in
the sense of a factual narrative about actual events , and so , too , is a
television news report, i.e. the particular form of report characteristic
of television news. If ‘narrative’, ‘argument’, ‘description’ and
‘conversation’ are genres, they are genres on high level of
abstraction. They are categories which transcend particular networks
of social practices, and there are for instance many different types of
narrative genres (e.g. conversational narratives, the endless stories in
the press and on television , the stories that client tell counsellors in
therapy, etc) which are more specifically situated in terms of social
practices. If we say that a genre is tied to a particular social practice
or network of social practices, then we should call narrative, etc.
something different. Swales (1990) suggests the term ‘pre-genre’
which I shall use (Fairclough 2003: 68).
34
However, this does not entirely resolve the problem, because
there are other categories such as ‘interview’ or ‘report’ which are
less abstract than ‘narrative’ or ‘argument’ , yet clearly do transcend
particular networks of practices. We should note that there is a
socio-historical process involved here- what Giddens (1991) has
called ‘disembedding’. That is , genres being , so to speak , lifted out
of , disembedded from, particular
networks of social practices
where they initially developed, and becoming available as a sort of
‘social technology’ which transcends both differences between
networks of practices and differences of scale.
Disembedding is a socio-historical process in which elements
which develop in one area of social life become detached from that
particular context and become available to ‘flow’ into others. This
process is a significant feature of globalization. Genres (e.g. various
types of interview) may become disembedded, becoming a type of
social technology which can be used in different fields and at
different scales of social life (Giddens 1991). Interview, for instance,
encompasses many different types which are specialized for
particular social practices (job interview , celebrity interview on
television, political interview etc.), and even quite specific forms
such as political interview transcend differences of scale to become
internationally used forms. The disembedding of genres is a part of
the restructuring and rescaling of capitalism. (Bakhtin 1986,
Bazerman 1988, Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999, Fairclough
2000b).
35
In order to avoid confusion between different levels of
abstraction, following Faireclough (2003: 69), I shall use ‘pre-genre’
for the most abstract categories like narrative , disembedded genre
for somewhat less abstract categories like interview , situated genre
for which are specific to particular networks of practices such as
ethnographic interview.
An added complication is that particular texts may be
innovative in terms of genre- they may mix different genres in novel
ways. So one cannot assume any simple correspondence between
situated genres and actual texts and interactions - which like any
form of social activity are open to the creativity and indeed
transgression of individual agents .For this reason, Fairclough (2003)
does not agree with Swales when he defines a genre as ‘a class of
communicative events’ (Swales 1990) : actual events (texts,
interactions) are not ‘in’ a particular genre, they do not instantiate a
particular genre- rather they draw upon the socially available
resource of genres in potentially quite complex and creative ways.
The genres associated with a particular network of social practices
constitute a potential which is variably drawn upon in actual texts
and interactions. It is true however that some classes of text are less
generically complex than others – so Swales’ view of genre may
perhaps make sense , for example , in the case of journal articles in
certain natural sciences, but not as a general view of the relationship
between text and genre.
In addition to the sort of genre mixing , the mixing of genres in
36
texts take the form of what Fairclough (2003: 70) calls the
emergence of ‘formats’ , texts which are effectively assemblies of
different texts involving different genres. Websites are a good
example of formats. The website offers the following menu: What’s
up, archive, propaganda, how to, where, images , ideas. A variety of
different things are being done in these different parts of the site,
bringing together a variety of different genres (see Hawisher and
Selfe 2000, Foertsch 1995, Kelly 1994: 221).
With respect to communication technologies , discourse can be
differentiated in terms of two distinctions (compare Martin 1992) :
two-way versus one-way communication, and mediated versus nonmediated communication. This gives us, schematically , as
Fairclough (2003 : 77) suggests , four possibilities :
1. two-way non-mediated : face-to-face conversation
2. two-way mediated : telephone , email, video conferencing
3. one-way non-mediated : lecture, etc.
4. one-way mediated : print , radio , television , internet , film
The increasing complexity of the networking of social practices in
contemporary societies is linked to new communication technologies
– telegraph , telephone , radio, television , and more recently
electronic information technology (e.g. the internet) – which have
significantly enhanced both one-way and two-way mediated
communication. One way in which genres differ from one another is
in the communication technologies they are specialized for, and one
factor in changing genres is developments in communication
37
technologies : the development of new communication technologies
goes along with the development of new genres. Change in genres
(including genre chains) is a significant aspect of technological
change and the new information technologies (Kress and Van
Leeuwen 2001).
To summarize this section we can conclude that a genre is a
way of acting and interacting linguistically –for example , interview
, lecture and news reports are all genres. Genres structure texts in
specific ways. The overall structure or organization of a text , which
depends upon the main genre upon which the text draws is called
generic structure. For instance , news reports are generally structured
as : headline + lead paragraph (summarizing the story) + satellite
paragraphs (adding detail). Some texts , especially institutional texts
with clear purposes have well- defined generic structure, others do
not (Halliday and Hassan 1989, Hassan 1996, Martin 1992, and
Swales 1990).
A genre within a chain characteristically enters both
retrospective and prospective relations with the genres preceding and
following it in the chain , which may progressively lead to
hybridization of the genre through a sort of assimilation to these
preceding and following genres.
Different genres that are regularly linked together, involving
systematic transformations from genre (e.g. official documents,
associated press release or press conferences , reports in the press or
on television) . Genre chains are an important factor in the enhanced
38
capacity for action at a distance which has been taken as a feature of
globalization. Change in genre chains is a significant part of social
change( Fairclough 2000a , Graham 2001, Iedema 1999).
The relationship between texts and genres is a potentially complex
one : a text is not simply a genre. Texts often mix or hybridize
different genres (e.g. chat on television tends to be a mixture of
conversation, interview and entertainment). Genre mixing is an
aspect of interdiscursivity of texts , and analyzing allows us to locate
texts within processes of social change and to identify the potentially
creative and innovative work of social agents in texturing (Bakhtin
1986 , Fairclough 1995a, 1995b, 2000a, 2003).
Genre analysis proceeds from genre chains, to genre mixture,
to properties of individual genres. Genres can be identified at
different levels of abstraction : pre-genres, disembedded genres
(which are significant within the disembedding which is a feature of
globalization) , and situated genres. Texts can combine different
genres in various ways- mixing or hybridizing them, combining
them in formats or hierarchizing them into main genres and subgenres. Individual genres can be differentiated in terms of activity ,
social relations and communication technology (what are people
doing , what are the social relations between them, and what
communication technology (if any) does their activity depend on?).
With respect to activity , only certain genres are well-defined in
terms of purpose and generic structure (organization into welldefined stages), and these tend to be specialized within social
39
systems for strategic (rather than communicative) action. Some
genres can be seen as mystifying social relations through
conversationalization , simulation of conversational exchange in
public contexts, which is an aspect of societal informalization.
Analysis of the interdiscursivity of a text is analysis of the
particular mix of genres, discourses, and of styles upon which it
draws , and of how different genres, discourses or styles are
articulated (or ‘worked’) together in the text. This level of analysis
mediates between linguistic analysis of a text and various forms of
social events and practices (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999,
Fairclough 1992b, 2003).
2.1.3. ORDERS OF DISCOURSE:
The term order of discourse is a concept borrowed but also adapted from
Foucault (1984). The claim is that texts have a dual orientation to ‘systems’ in a
broad sense : there are language systems , and there are orders of discourse. The
text-system relationship in both cases is dialectical : texts draw upon but also
constitute (and reconstitute) systems. An order of discourse is a structured
configuration of genres and discourses (and may be other elements, such as
voices, registers , styles) associated with a given social domain- for example the
order of discourse of a school. In describing such an order of discourse , one
identifies its constituent discursive practice (e.g. various sorts of classroom talk
and writing, playground talk, staffroom talk , centrally produced documentations,
etc.), and crucially the relationships and boundaries between them. The concern ,
however , is not just with the internal economy of various separate orders of
discourse. It is with relationships of tension and flow across as well as within
40
various local orders of discourse in an (open) system that we might call the
‘societal order of discourse’ (Fairclough 1998 : 145 , 1995a).
Language (and more broadly ‘semiosis’ , including for instance
signification and communication through visual images) is an element of the
social at all levels. Schematically, as Fairclough (2003 : 24) views :
-
Social structures : languages
-
Social practices : orders of discourse
-
Social events : texts
Language can be regarded as amongst the abstract social structures. A language
defines a certain potential, certain possibilities , and excludes others- certain ways
of combining linguistic elements are possible, others are not (e.g. ‘the book’ is
possible in English , ‘book the’ is not). But texts as elements of social events are
not simply the effects of the potentials defined by languages. We need to
recognize intermediate organizational entities of a specifically linguistic sort, the
linguistic elements of networks of social practices. Fairclough (2003) calls these
orders of discourse. An order of discourse is a network of social practices in its
language aspect. The elements of orders of discourse are not things like noun and
sentences (elements of linguistic structures), but discourses, genres and styles.
These elements select certain possibilities defined by languages and exclude
others – they control linguistic variability for particular areas of social life. So
orders of discourse can be seen as the social organization and control of linguistic
variation.
There is a further point to make : as we move from abstract structures
towards concrete events, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate language
from other social elements. In the terminology of Althusser , language becomes
increasingly ‘over determined’ by other social elements (Althusser and Balibar
1970). So at the level of abstract structures, we can talk more or less exclusively
about language – more or less, because ‘functional’ theories of language see even
the grammars of languages as socially shaped (Halliday 1978). The way
41
Fairclough (2003) has defined orders of discourse makes it clear that at this
intermediate level we are dealing with a much greater ‘overdetermination’ of
language by other social elements- orders of discourse are the social organisation
and control of linguistic variation, and their elements (discourses , genres, styles)
are correspondingly not purely linguistic categories but categories which cut
across the division between language and ‘non language’ , the discoursal and the
non-discoursal.
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 58) claim that "the socially ordered set
of genres and discourses associated with a particular social field, characterized in
terms of the shifting boundaries and flows between them. This is a structuring of
the semiotic that is different from semiotic systems (including the language
system), which are specifications of the potential of the different semiotics
without reference to the social division and limitation of that potential". They
(1999: 141) further argue "an order of discourse is a socially structured
articulation of discursive practices (including both genres and discourses) which
constitutes the discursive facet of the social order of a social field, such as
politics, media or education. We can say that an order of discourse is the
specifically discoursal organisational logic of a field - a field seen specifically in
terms of its discursive practices". "Genres and discourses can become
disembedded from particular orders of discourse and circulate as free-floating
elements capable of being articulated together in new ways, as the manifestation
of processes of social change in discourse" (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999:
116).
Discourse and practice are constrained not by various independent types of
discourse and practice, but by interdependent networks which we can call orders `orders of discourse' and `social orders'. We always experience the society and the
various social institutions within which we operate as divided up and demarcated,
structured into different spheres of action, different types of situation, each of
which has its associated type of practice. What Fairclough (1989: 29) calls an
42
order of discourse is really a social order looked at from a specifically discoursal
perspective - in terms of those types of practice into which a social space is
structured which happen to be discourse types. This is summarized in the
following figure.
Social order
Order of discourse
Types of practice
Types of discourse
Actual practice
Actual discourses
Fig.2.1. Social orders and orders of discourse (from Fairclough 1989: 29)
Social orders will differ not only in which types of practice they include,
but also in how these are related to each other, or structured. Similarly, orders of
discourse will differ in both discourse types, and the way they are structured
(Fairclough 1989: 29-30).
Social practices networked in a particular way constitute a social order for instance, the social order of education in a particular society at a particular
time. The semiotic aspect of a social order is what Fairclough (2001: 124) calls an
order of discourse. It is the way in which diverse genres and discourses are
networked together: "An order of discourse is a social structuring of semiotic
difference - a particular social ordering of relationships amongst different ways of
making meaning, that is different discourses and genres. One aspect of this
ordering is dominance: some ways of making meaning are dominant or
mainstream in a particular order of discourse; others are marginal, or
oppositional, or `alternative': For instance, there may be a dominant way to
conduct a doctor-patient consultation in Britain, but there are also various other
ways, which may be adopted or developed to a greater or lesser extent in
opposition to the dominant way. The dominant way probably still maintains
43
social distnace between doctors and patients, and the authority of the doctor over
the way interaction proceeds; but there are other ways which are more
`democratic', in which doctors play down their authority. An order of discourse is
not a closed or rigid system, but rather an open system, which is put at risk by
what happens in actual interactions".
In addition to the order of discourse of a social institution, which structures
constituent discourses in a particular way, we can refer to the order of discourse
of the society as a whole, which structures the orders of discourse of the various
social institutions in a particular way. How discourses are structured in a given
order of discourse, and how structurings change over time, are determined by
changing relationships of power at the level of the social institutions or of the
society (Fairclough 1989: 30).
Since the discursive practices of an order of discourse include semiotic
modalities other than language, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 115) state:
"one question about an order of discourse is what relationships are set up between
semiotic and material activity in a field. A crucial issue here is what systematic
distributions can be traced between the semiotic modalities available in a field,
including language, and material practices associated with specific field positions.
These are important questions that need to be addressed in empirical studies
which are yet to be done”10.
Concluding this section , an order of discourse is a particular combination
or configuration of genres, discourses and styles which constitutes the discoursal
aspect of a network of social practices. As such , orders of discourse have a
relative stability and durability – though they do of course change. We can see
orders of discourse in general terms as the social structuring of linguistic variation
or difference – there are always many different possibilities in language, but
choice amongst them is socially structured (Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999,
Fairclough 1992b , 1995 b, Foucault 1984).
44
Genres , discourse and styles are respectively relatively stable and durable
ways of acting , representing and identifying. They are identified as elements of
orders of discourse at the level of social practices. When we analyse specific texts
as part of specific events, we are doing two interconnected things : (a) looking at
them in terms of the three aspects of meaning , ‘action’ , ‘representation’ and
‘identification’ , and how these are realized in the various features of texts (their
vocabulary , their grammar , and so forth); (b) making a connection between the
concrete social event and more abstract social practices by asking, which genres ,
discourses, and styles are drawn upon here, and how are the different genres,
discourses and styles articulated together in the text ? (Fairclough 2003: 28).
2.1.4. DISCOURSE AND TEXT:
There is a conspicuous lack of agreement on definition of both text and
discourse (see Widdowson1995). For example in the more sociologically oriented
areas, discourse is considered primarily in relation to social contexts of language
use. In linguistics, discourse tends to focus more on language and its use (Garret
and Bell 1998: 2).
Hoey (2001: 11) defines a text11 as “the visible evidence of a reasonably
self-contained purposeful interaction between one or more writers and one or
more readers, in which the writer(s) control the interaction and produce most of
(characteristically all) the language”. This definition excludes spoken language,
though it is possible to modify it so that speech is included. The whole interaction
can be referred to as a discourse.
Brown and Yule (1983 : 11) simply define the text as the verbal record of
a communicative act but they argue that: "It must be clear that our simple
definition of text as the verbal record of a communicative act requires at least two
hedges:
(i)
the representation of a text which is presented for discussion may in part,
particularly where the written representation of a spoken text is involved,
45
consist of a prior analysis (hence interpretation) of a fragment of discourse
by the discourse analyst presenting the text for consideration.
(ii)
features of the original production of the language, for example shaky
handwriting or quavering speech, are somewhat arbitrarily considered as
features of the text rather than features of the context in which the
language is produced.
The term text is used by Fairclough (1992b:4) in a sense which is quite
familiar in linguistics but not elsewhere, to refer to any product whether written or
spoken, so that the transcript of an interview or a conversation, for example,
would be called a text. He ( 2003 : 3) mentions in a very broad sense that written
and printed texts such as shopping lists and newspaper articles are texts, but so
also are transcripts of (spoken) conversations and interviews , as well as
television programmes and web- pages. He says that any actual instance of
language in use is a ‘text’ though even that is too limited, because texts such as
T.V. programmes involve not only language but also visual images and sound
effects.
A text is a product rather a process - a product of the process of text
production. But Fairclough (1989: 24) uses the term discourse to refer to the
whole process of social interaction of which a text is just a part. This process
includes in addition to the text the process of production, of which the text is a
product, and the process of interpretation, for which the text is a resource.12
Text is defined by Bernstein (1996: 32) as "any semiotic act that attracts
evaluation, including lingistic but also bodily acts". Evaluative rules distribute
discourses unequally between groups of acquirers according to time (the age of
acquirer) and space (the context of transmission). Bernstein (1990: 186),
selectively determining what is to be learnt and how (the contents and forms of
transmission).
David Crystal's attempt to pin down the meaning of the term's
46
use within linguistics, by contrasting it to the use of the term text:
“Discourse analysis focuses on the structure of naturally
occurring spoken language, as found in such `discourses' as
conversations, interviews, commentaries, and speeches. Text
analysis focuses on the structure of written language, as found
in such `texts' as essays, notices, road signs, and chapters. But
this distinction is not clear-cut, and there have been many
other uses of these labels. In particular, `discourse' and `texts'
can be used in much broader sense to include all language
units with a definable communicative function, whether
spoken or written. Some scholars talk about `spoken or written
discourse'; others about `spoken or written text’” .
(Crystal 1987: 116; emphasis in
original)
Geoffrey Leech and Michael Short argue that: "Discourse is
linguistic communication seen as a transaction between speaker and
hearer, as an interpersonal activity whose form is determined by its
social purpose. Text is linguistic communication (either spoken or
written) seen simply as a message coded in its auditory or visual
medium" (cited in Hawthorn 1992: 189). But Hawthorn comments
on this opposition between text and discourse:
“Michael Stubbs (1983) treats text and discourse as more or less synonymous, but
notes that in other usages a text may be written, while a discourse is spoken, a text
may be non-interactive whereas a discourse is interactive ... a text may be short or
long whereas a discourse implies a certain length, and a text must be possessed of
surface cohesion whereas a discourse must be possessed of a deeper coherence.
47
Finally, Stubbs notes that other theorists distinguish between abstract theoretical
construct and pragmatic realization, although, confusingly, such theorists are not
agreed upon which of these is represented by the term text.”
(Hawthorn 1992: 189; emphasis in original)
In recent discussions of language structure beyond the level of sentence,
the terms ‘text' and ‘discourse' have tended to be used without sharp distinction.
On the whole, discussions with a more sociological basis or aim tend to use the
term `discourse' (Corsaro 1981), while those with a more linguistic basis or aim
tend to use the term ‘text' (van Dijk 1978). Where the materiality, form, and
structure of language are at issue, the emphasis tends to be textual; where the
content, function, and social significance of language are at issue, the study tends
to be of discourse.13
Discourse is a category that belongs to and derives from the social domain,
and text is a category that belongs to and derives from the linguistic domain. The
relation between the two is one of realization : Discourse finds its expression in
text. However, this is never a straightforward relation; any one text may be the
expression or realization of a number of sometimes competing and contradictory
discourses.14
However, although any given discourse is highly specific concerning the
statements possible within its terms and of certain linguistic features, it is not text.
In its expression in text, these specific aspects of a discourse constitute one
determinative and constitutive factor of the text: Certain of the range of linguistic
features that make up the text are determined, selected, by the characteristics of
the discourse. Consequently, the presence of any linguistic feature in a text
always points to some aspect of the discourse of which the text is an expression.
The systematicness of features of the discourse also guarantees the systematicness
of the selection of all the linguistic features of the text.15
A second factor in the determination and constitution of the form of any
text derives from the category of `genre'. The presence of a range of linguistic
48
features does not of itself determine the form of the text; that is determined by the
formal features of particular genres. At any given point in history and in any
given social group, certain genres are available for the expression of specific
discourses. Each generic form has particular possibilities and limitations, which
are an inherent part of that genre. Hence the expression of a discourse within a
specific genre carries with it the meanings, potentialities, and limitations of that
genre.
The form of a text is consequently a factor of the conjunction of the
linguistic features specified by the discourse, and of the formal aspects of the
genre together. It is clear from this that the relation between text and discourse is
not an entirely straightforward one. It could be said that the relation between
discourse and text is one of emergence; discourse emerges in and through texts.
Discourse is never simply the aggregate of texts but is rather, on the one hand, the
(abstract) structure of an aggregate, which is, on the other hand, affected and
obscured by the effect of genre.
Further, any particular text may be the result of the expression of a number
of discourses, differing, and often contradictory. Hence a text is rarely ‘of one
piece’ in terms of the linguistic features that it contains, or of the discourses that it
expresses (Kress 1985a: 27-9).
Fairclough (2003: 8) considers texts as elements of social events and
argues that text as elements of social events have causal effects –i.e. they bring
about changes. Most immediately , texts can bring about changes in our
knowledge (we can learn things from them), our beliefs , our attitudes , values
and so forth. They also have longer-term causal effects –one might for instance
argue that prolonged experience of advertising and other commercial texts
contributes to shaping people’s identities as ‘consumers’, or their gender
identities. Texts can also starts wars, or contribute to changes in education, or to
changes in industrial relations, and so forth. Their effects can include changes in
the material world, such as changes in urban design, or the architecture and
49
design of particular types of building. In sum, texts have causal effect upon, and
contribute to changes in people (beliefs , attitude etc.) actions , social relations,
and the material world. It would make little sense to focus on language in new
capitalism if we did not think that texts have causal effects of this sort, and
effects on social change.
We need, however, to be clear what sort of causality this is. It is not a
simple mechanical causality- we cannot for instance claim that particular features
of texts automatically bring about particular changes in people’s knowledge or
behaviour or particular social or political effects. Nor is causality the same as
regularity : there may be no regular cause – effect pattern associated with a
particular type of text or particular features of texts, but that does not mean that
there are no causal effects (Sayer 2000). Texts can have causal effects without
them necessarily being regular effects, because many other factors in the context
determine whether particular texts actually have such effects , and can lead to a
particular text having a variety of effects , for instance on different interpreters
(Fairclough et al. 2002).
‘Functional’ approaches to language have emphasized the ‘multifunctionality’ of texts. Systemic functional linguistics , for instance, claims that
texts simultaneously have ‘ideational’ , ‘interpersonal’ and ‘textual’ functions.
That is , texts simultaneously represent aspects of the world (the physical world,
the social world, the mental world); enact social relations between participants in
social events and the attitudes , desires and values of participants ; and coherently
and cohesively connect parts of texts together , and connect texts with their
situational contexts (Halliday 1978, 1994) . Or rather , people do these things in
the process of meaning making in social events, which includes texturing ,
making texts. Fairclough (2003) views texts as multi-functional in this sort of
sense, though in a rather different way, in accordance with the distinction
between genres, discourses and styles as the three main ways in which discourse
figures as a part of social practice –ways of acting , ways of representing , ways
50
of beings. Or to put it differently : the relationship of the text to the event to the
wider physical and social world, and to the persons involved in the event. He
(2003: 27) talks about three major types of meaning:
1-action
2- representation
3-identification
Representation corresponds to Halliday’s ‘ideational’ function ; action is closest
to his ‘interpersonal’ function, though it puts more emphasis on text as a way of
(inter)acting in social events , and it can be seen as incorporating relation
(enacting social relations). Halliday does not differentiate a separate function to
do with identification –most of what Fairclough includes in ‘identification’ is in
Halliday’s ‘interpersoal’ function. Fairclough does not distinguish a separate
‘textual’ function , rather he incorporates it within action. We can see action ,
representation and identification simultaneously through whole texts and in small
parts of texts. Focusing analysis of texts on the interplay of action , representation
and identification brings a social perspective into the heart and fine detail of the
text.
Part of what is implied in approaching texts as elements of social events is
that we are not only concerned with texts as such, but also with interactive
processes of meaning–making. There are three analytically separable elements in
processes of meaning – making : the production of the text , the text itself , and
the reception of the text. The production of the text puts the focus on producers,
authors, speakers , writers ; the reception of the text puts the focus on
interpretation, interpreters, readers, listeners. Each of these three elements has
been given primacy at different points in the recent history of theories of
meaning: first the intentions , identity etc. of the author , then the text itself , then
more recently the interpretative work of the reader or listener. But is seems clear
that meanings are made through the interplay between them: we must take
account of the institutional position, interests , values , intentions , desires. etc. of
producers; the relations between elements at different levels in texts ; and the
institutional positions , knowledge , purposes , values etc. of receivers. It is very
51
difficult to be precise about the processes involved in meaning-making for the
obvious reason that they are mainly going on in people’s heads, and there are no
direct ways of accessing them. When we move from spoken dialogue to , for
instance , published texts, the problems are compounded because we no longer
have the ongoing negotiation of meaning within dialogue , which at least gives us
some evidence of how things are being intended and interpreted. And a published
text can figure in many different processes of meaning- making and contribute to
diverse meanings , because it is open to diverse interpretations (Fairclough 2003 :
11) . So it is clear that meaning–making depends upon not only what is explicit in
a text but also what is implicit – what is assumed. What is said in a text always
rests upon unsaid assumptions, so part of the analysis of texts is trying to identify
what is assumed.
Different texts within the same chain of events or which are located in
relation to the same(network of) social practices , and which represent broadly the
same aspects of the world , differ in the discourses upon which they draw. Texts
also set up dialogical or polemical relations between their ‘own’ discourses and
the discourses of others. Texts are inevitably and unavoidably dialogical in the
sense that ‘any utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of other
utterances’ with which it ‘enters into one kind of relation or another’ (Bakhtin
1986 : 69). This dialogical / polemical relationship is one way in which texts mix
different discourses , but their ‘own’ discourses are also often mixed or hybrid.
An interdiscursive analysis of texts is partly concerned with identifying which
discourses are drawn upon, and how they are articulated together . (we can see a
text as drawing upon a discourse even if the realization of that discourse in the
text is minimal – perhaps no more than a single word) (see Fairclough 2003,
Chap.2)
How do we go about identifying different discourses within a text? We
can think of a discourse as (a) representing some particular part of the world , and
52
(b) representing it from a particular perspective . Correspondingly , in textual
analysis, as Fairclough (2003: 129) explains , one can:
1. Identify the main parts of the world (including areas of social life) which
are represented – the main ‘themes’.
2. Identify the particular perspective or angle or point of view from
which they are represented.
The most obvious distinguishing features of a discourse are likely to be
features of vocabulary – discourses ‘word’ or ‘lexicalize’ the world in particular
ways. But rather than just focusing atomistically on different ways of wording the
same aspects of the world, it is more productive to focus on how different
discourses structure the world differently, and therefore on semantic relationships
between words : hyponymy (meaning inclusion) , synonymy (meaning identity)
and antonomy (meaning exclusion) (see Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992).
The vocabularies associated with different discourses in a particular
domain of social life may be partly different but are likely to substantially
overlap. Different discourses may use the same words, but they may use them
differently , and again it is only through focusing upon semantic relations that one
can identify these differences. One way of getting at this relational differences is
though looking at collocations, patterns of co-occurrence of wods in texts, simply
looking at which other words most frequently precedes and follow any word
which is in focus , either immediately or two , three and so on words away. The
most effective way of exploring collocational patterns is through computerassisted corpus analysis of large bodies of text (McEnery and Wilson 2001 ,
Stubbs 1996).
Discourses are also differentiated by metaphor , both in usual sense of
‘lexical metaphor’, words which generally represent one part of the world being
extended to another , and what Fairclough (2003 : 131) calls ‘grammatical
metaphor’ (e.g. processes being represented as ‘things, entities , through
53
nominalization) (see Halliday 1994, Trew 1979a , Goatly 1997, Lakoff and
Johnson 1980).
What these comments point to is that discourses are characterized and
differentiated not only by features of vocabulary and semantic relations, and
assumptions, but also by grammatical features. Discourses differ in how elements
of social events (processes, people , objects , means , times , places) are
represented , and these differences can be grammatical as well as lexical
(vocabulary). The differences between a nominalization and a verb is a
grammatical difference, so also is the difference between transitive and
intransitive verbs, the difference between generic and specific noun phrases (e.g.
generic , general and inclusive , reference to ‘the police’ , as opposed to specific
reference to ‘this policeman’) , and so forth. These are some of the ways in which
discourses differ in the representation of social events (Fairclough 2003 : 133).
Referring
to the author of a text, Goffman (1981) differentiates the
principal , the one whose position is put in the text , the author , the one who puts
the words together and is responsible for the wording , and the animator , the
person who makes the sounds or the marks on paper. In the simplest case, a single
person simultaneously occupies all these positions, but in principle this may not
be so-for instance, a spokesman may be simply the mouthpiece for others in an
organization (i.e just the animator) or a news report may be authored by a
journalist while the principal may be some politician, for instance , whose
position is being implicitly supported. There are various further possible
complications : authorship can be collective without that necessarily being clear
from a text (various hands for example may contribute to a news report). There
are also objections to placing too much weight on authorship from a structuralist
and post-structuralist point of view, but these are often linked to an excessive
playing down of agency. Fairclough (2003: 12) refers to authors without getting
too much into these complications, and primarily referring to whoever can be
54
seen as having put the words together , and as taking on commitments to truth ,
obligations , necessity and values by virtue of choices in wording.
To sum up this section , we should mention that texts differ in the
discourses they draw upon to represent particular aspects of the world, and they
articulate different discourses together (hybridize or mix discourses) in various
ways. Discourses can be differentiated in terms of semantic relations (synonymy,
hyponymy, antonymy) between words – how they classify parts of the world- as
well collocations, assumptions , and various grammatical features. On the other
hand, texts are not just effects of linguistic structures and orders of discourse,
they are also effects of other social structures, and of social practice in all their
aspects , so that it becomes difficult to separate out the factors shaping texts.
2.2. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS :
The terms discourse analysis has come to be used with a wide range of
meanings which cover a wide range of activities. It is used to describe activities at
the interaction of disciplines as diverse as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics,
philosophical linguistics and computational linguistics. So there are many
versions of discourse analysis (van Dijk 1997).
One major division is between approaches which include detailed analysis
of texts , and approaches which do not. Fairclough (1992b) used the term
‘textually oriented discourse analysis’ to distinguish the former from the latter.
Discourse analysis in social sciences is often strongly influenced by the work of
Foucault (Foucault 1972, Fairclough 1992b). Social scientist working in this
tradition generally pay little close attention to the linguistic features of texts.
Fairclough’s approach (2003) to discourse analysis (a version of critical discourse
analysis) is based upon the assumption that language is an irreducible part of
social life, dialectically interconnected with other elements of social life, so that
social analysis and research always has to take account of language. This means
55
that one productive way of doing social research is through a focus on language,
using some form of discourse analysis. His approach to discourse analysis has
been try to transcend the division between work inspired by social theory which
tends not to analyse texts, and work which focuses upon the language of texts but
tends not to engage with social theoretical issues. So, text analysis is an essential
part of discourse analysis , but discourse analysis is not merely the linguistic
anlyasis of texts. Fairclough (2003: 2) sees discourse analysis as “oscillating
between a focus on specific texts and a focus on the order of discourse , the
relatively durable structuring of language which is itself one element of the
relatively durable structuring and networking of social practices”.
The focus of discourse analysis, as Jaworski and Coupland (1999: 7)
argue, will usually be "the study of particular texts" (e.g. conversations,
interviews, speeches, etc., or various written documents), although discourses are
sometimes held to be abstract value system which will never surface directly as
texts.
Van Dijk (1985b: 2) argues that "what we can do with discourse analysis
is more than providing adequate descriptions of text and context. That is, we
expect more from discourse analysis as the study of real language use, by real
speakers in real situations, than we expect from the study of abstract syntax or
formal semantics. Together with psycho- and sociolinguistics, discourse analysis
has definitely brought linguistics to the realm of the social sciences."
Taking a primarily linguistic approach to the analysis of discourse, Brown
and Yule (1983) examine how humans use language to communicate and, in
particular, how addressers construct linguistic messages for addressees and how
addressees work on linguistic messages in order to interpret them. They (1983: 1)
suggest "the analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use.
As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent
of the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human
affairs".
56
Stubbs (1983: 1) uses the term discourse analysis to refer mainly to the
linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected spoken or written discourse:
"Roughly speaking, it refers to attempts to study the organization of language
above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic
units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse
analysis is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in
particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers." Hatch (1992: 1) defines
discourse analysis as "the study of the language of communication - spoken or
written".
For Gee (1999: 92) a discourse analysis essentially involves asking
questions about how language, at a given time and place, is used to construe the
aspects of the situation network as realized at that time and place and how the
aspects of the situation network simultaneously give meaning to that language. A
discourse analysis involves, then, asking questions about the six building tasks.
The tasks through which we use language to construct and/or construe the
situation network, at a given time and place, in a certain way, are:
1. Semiotic building, that is, using cues or clues to assemble situated
meanings about what semiotic (communicative) systems, systems of
knowledge, and ways of knowing, are here and now relevant and
activated.
2. World building, that is, using cues or clues to assemble situated meanings
about what is here and now (taken as) ‘reality', what is here and now
(taken as) present and absent, concrete and abstract, ‘real' and ‘unreal',
probable, possible, and impossible.
3. Activity building, that is, using cues or clues to assemble situated
meanings about
what activity or activities are going on, composed of what specific actions.
4. Socioculturally-situated identity and relationship building, that is, using
cues or clues to assemble situated meanings about what identities and
57
relationships are relevant to the interaction, with their concomitant
attitudes, values, ways of feelings, ways of knowing and believing, as well
as ways of acting and interacting.
5. Political building, that is, using the cues or clues to construct the nature
and relevance of various `social goods' such as status and power and
anything else taken as a `social good' here and now (e.g. beauty, humor,
verbalness, specialist knowledge, etc.).
6. Connection building, that is using the cues or clues to make assumptions
about how the past and future of an interaction, verbally and non-verbally,
are connected to the present moment and to each other - after all,
interactions always have some
degree of continuous coherence (Gee
1999: 85-6).
van Dijk (1985b: 1) argues that discourse analysis is essentially a
contribution to the study of language in use: "Besides - or even instead - of an
explication of the abstract structures of texts or conversations, we witness a
concerted interest for the cognitive and especially the social processes, strategies,
and contextualization of discourse taken as a mode of interaction in highly
complex sociocultural situations".
These different views show that discourse analysis has now become a very
diverse area of study, with a variety of approaches in each of a number of
disciplines and scholars working in different disciplines tend to concentrate on
different aspects of discourse.
2.2.1. A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW :
A brief historical overview to the study of discourse analysis shows that it
grew out of work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including
linguistics semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. Discourse analysts
58
study language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from
conversation to highly institutionalized forms of talk.
At a time when linguistics was largely concerned with the analysis of
single sentences, Zellig Harris published a paper with the title `Discourse
analysis' (Harris 1952). Harris was interested in the distribution of linguistic
elements in extended texts, and the links between the text and its social situation,
though his paper is a far cry from the discourse analysis wich is used to
nowadays. Also important in the early years was the emergence of semiotics and
the French structuralist approach to the study of narrative. In the 1960s, Dell
Hymes provided a sociological perspective with the study of speech in its social
setting (e.g. Hymes 1964). The linguistic philosophers such as Austin (1962),
Searle (1969) and Grice (1975) were also influential in the study of language as
social action, reflected in speech-act theory and the formulation of conversational
maxims, alongside the emergence of pragmatics, which is the study of meaning in
context (see Levinson 1983, Leech 1983).
British discourse analysis was greatly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday's
functional approach to language (e.g. Halliday 1973), which in turn has
connections with the Prague School of linguists. Halliday's framework
emphasises the social functions of language and the thematic and informational
structure of speech and writing. Also important in Britain were Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) at the University of Brimingham, who developed a model for
the description of teacher-pupil talk, based on a hierarchy of discourse units.
Other similar work has dealt with doctor-patient interaction, service encounters,
interviews, debates and business negotiations, as well as monologues. Novel
work in the British tradition has also been done on intonation in discourse. The
British work has principally followed structural-linguistic criteria, on the basis of
the isolation of units, and sets of rules defining well-formed sequences of
discourse.
59
American discourse analysis has been dominated by work within the
ethnomethodological tradition, which emphasises the research method of close
observation of groups of people communicating in natural settings. It examines
types of speech event such as storytelling, greeting rituals and verbal duels in
different cultural and social settings (e.g. Gumperz and Hymes 1972). What is
often called conversation analysis within the American tradition can also be
included under the general heading of discourse analysis.
Alongside the conversation analysts, working within the sociolinguistic
tradition, Labov's investigations of oral storytelling have also contributed to a
long history of interest in narrative discourse. The American work has produced a
large number of descriptions of discourse types, as well as insights into the social
constraints of politeness and face-preserving phenomena in talk, overlapping with
British work in pragmatics (McCarthy 1991: 5-6).
A heavily theorized account of discourse has been developed in France by
Michel Pecheux at the Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, University of Paris
VII, (1969, 1975, Pecheux et al. 1979, Robin 1973) as a tool for ideological
struggle. He states as his objective the need to provide "the basis for a scientific
analysis of discursive processes by articulating through historical materialism the
study of ideological superstructures, psychoanalytical theory and linguistic
research" (Pecheux 1975: 234). As part of this design, and drawing on Althusser's
work on the theory of ideology, he has reformulated the Saussurian dichotomy
`langue-parole' as `langue/processus discursifs'. This shift, foreshadowed in the
work of Volosinov and Bakhtin (Bennett 1979: 75-82) and their critique of
Saussure (see also Guespin in Gardin, Baggioni, and Guespin 1980), takes into
account the distinct systems of linguistic value that exist in a single language
community, in langue (Haroche, Henry, and Pecheux 1971). In other words, it
focuses on the different meanings that words and expressions (signifiers) can
have according to the ideological position of the users and the determining effects
of the sociohistorical conditions (or `ideological formations') in which the
60
utterances are produced that are themselves constitutive of meaning. Discursive
processes are thus seen as part of an ideological class relation16 (Pecheux 1975:
82, Pecheux et al. 1979: 23-24, Seidel 1985: 46-7).
Also relevant to the development of discourse analysis as a whole is the
work of text grammarians, working mostly with written language. Text
grammarians see texts as language elements strung together in relationships with
one another that can be defined. Linguists such as van Dijk (1972), De
Beaugrande (1980), Halliday and Hasan (1976) have made a significant impact in
this area. The Prague School of linguists, with their interest in the structuring of
information in discourse, has also been influential. Its most important
contribution has been to show the links between grammar and discourse.
Discourse analysis has grown into a wide-ranging and heterogeneous
discipline which finds its unity in the description of language above the sentence
and an interest in the contexts and cultural influences which affect language in
use. It is also now, increasingly, forming a backdrop to research in applied
linguistics, and second language learning and teaching in particular (McCarthy
1991: 6-7).
2.2.2. APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:
Discourse analysis has become increasingly popular in recent years, across
a range of disciplines. This must be seen against the background of what is often
referred to as the linguistic turn in philosophy and the social sciences, which has
shaped much twentieth century thought. Diverse developments can be included
under this heading: the emergence of symbolic logic in the work of Frege, Russell
and Whitehead, of structuralism in linguistics and elsewhere, of philosophical
hermeneutics, and of the so-called linguistic philosophy of Wittgenstein, Austin,
Ryle and others.
61
Of course, discourse analysis is itself a term that covers a multitude of
rather different approaches. Coulthard (1985) identifies four versions:
anthropological work on the ethnography of speaking; speech act theory;
ethnomethodological conversation analysis; and the systemic linguistics-based
approach associated with John Sinclair and himself. This by no means exhausts
the field: Levinson (1983) and Brown and Yule (1983) adopt more pragmaticsbased approaches; conversational analysis has been extended beyond its original
concerns by researchers working in social studies of science and other areas of
sociology and social psychology (see for example Potter and Wetherel 1987) and
there are quite distinct forms of discourse analysis associated with French
structuralism and post-structuralism (see Pecheux 1982, 1988, Macdonell 1986).
These different kinds of discourse analysis vary in several important ways:
in their focus, in what sorts of claim they make, and in the kinds of technique they
deploy. At one extreme there are approaches focusing on language above the
level of the sentence, which rule ‘non-linguistic' action out of account and rely on
some established form of linguistic analysis as a model. At the other end of the
spectrum, ethnomethodologists, structuralists and others see language as
constituting social reality, albeit in different ways. For them, the study of
discourse is a way of studying society, and the analytic techniques they use reflect
this.
More recently, a new kind of discourse analysis has been announced:
critical discourse analysis. We find this advocated and exemplified in many of the
writings of Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough and others (van Dijk 1983a,b,
1985b,1998c, Fairclough 1989, 1992b, 1995a, 2003, Kress 1990, Luke 1995/6,
Caldas-Coulthard and Coulthard 1996). Its distinctiveness lies not so much in the
analytic techniques it employs as in its attempt to locate discourse within a
particular conception of society, and its adoption of a thoroughgoingly `critical'
attitude towards that society (Hemmersley 1997: 237).
62
Eggins and Slade (1997: 24) classified the different approaches to
discourse according to their disciplinary origins:
Fig.2.2. Approaches to discourse analysis according to disciplinary origins
(adopted
from McCarthy et al. 2002: 60).
Although each of the approaches listed above has made a significant
contribution to our understanding of discourse, we will review only those that are
currently playing a major role in various contexts of applied linguistics and
language education.
2.2.2.1. Speech Act Theory:
Speech act theory focuses on the fact that by saying something we are also
doing something. Discourse analysts working in this tradition have elaborated
63
complex typologies of different sorts of speech act and have tried to explain
different aspects of communication, such as psychiatric interviews, by trying to
identify the intended meanings of a speaker's utterance and the responses of
hearers (Howarth 2002: 6-7).
John Austin and John Searle, developed speech act theory from the basic
belief that language is used to perform actions: thus, its fundamental insights
focus on how meaning and action are related to language.17 Although speech act
theory was not first developed as a means of analysing discourse, some of its
basic insights have been used by many scholars to help solve problems basic to
discourse analysis18 (Schiffrin 1994: 49).
An elaboration of speech act theory was offered by Labov and Fanshel
(1977) in their examination of psychiatric interview. Although their prime
concern was with the identification of speech acts and specifying the rules
governing their successful realisation, they broadened the view that an utterance
may only perform one type of speech act at a time.19
Labov and Fanshel (1977) explain communication in terms of hearers
accurately identifying the intended meaning of the speaker's utterance and
responding to it accordingly. However, given the multifunctionality of utterances,
we cannot be sure that a hearer always picks up the right interpretation of an
utterance, i.e., the one that was intended by the speaker. In general, the problem
of internationality and variability in people's discourse rules precluded developing
a coherent framework for explaining communication, beyond producing an
inventory of such rules and speech act types (Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 16).
Much of the speech act theory has been concerned with taxonomising
speech acts and defining felicity conditions for different types of speech acts. For
example Searle (1969, 1979) suggested the following typology of speech acts
based on different types of conditions which need to be fulfilled for an act to
obtain: `representative (e.g., asserting), directives (e.g., requesting), commissives
(e.g., promising), expressives (e.g., thanking), and declarations (e.g., appointing)'.
64
This taxonomy was one of many, and it soon became clear in speech act theory
that a full and detailed classification would be unwiedly given the multitude of
illocutionary verbs in English. Stipulating the felicity conditions for all of them
appeared to be not only a complex procedure but also an essentialising one relying too heavily on factors assumed to be essential in each case, when reality
shows us that they are variably determined by the precise social context (Jaworski
and Coupland 1999: 16).
Speech act theory is basically concerned with what people do with
language - with the functions of language. Typically, however, the functions
focused upon are those akin to communicative intentions (the illocutionary force
of an utterance) that can be performed through a conventional procedure and
labelled (cf. that have a performative verb). Even within this relatively welldefined set of acts, the act performed by a single utterance may not be easy to
discover: some utterances bear little surface resemblance to their underlying
illocutionary force.
Despite the emphasis on language function, speech act theory deals less
with actual utterances than with utterance-types, and less with the ways speakers
and hearers actually build upon inferences in talk, than with the sort of knowledge
that they can be presumed to bring to talk. Language can do things - can perform
acts - because people share constitutive rules that create the acts and that allow
them to label utterances as particular kinds of acts. These rules are part of
linguistic competence, even though they draw upon knowledge about the world,
including an array of "social facts" (e.g. knowledge about social obligations,
institutions, identities), as well as knowledge about the grammar of language
(Schiffrin 1994: 60).
2.2.2.2. Pragmatics:
65
The study of meaning is at the heart of the discipline referred to as
pragmatics. Closely related to semantics, which is primarily concerned with the
study of word and sentence meaning, pragmatics concerns itself with the meaning
of utterances in specific contexts of use. It deals with three concepts: meaning,
context and communication (see Levinson 1983).
Morris (1938: 30) defined pragmatics as "the science of the relation of
signs to their interpreters". Pragmatics was defined by him as a branch of
semiotics, the study of signs (see Givon 1989: 9-25, for discussion of its earlier
roots). Morris (1938: 81) viewed semiosis (the process in which something
functions as a sign) as having four parts. A sign vehicle is a sign; a designatum is
that to which the sign refers; an interpretant is the effect in virtue of which the
sign vehicle is a sign; an interpreter is the organism upon whom the sign has an
effect. Put another way, something is a sign of a designatum for an interpreter to
the degree that the interpreter takes account of the designatum in virtue of the
presence of the sign. In Morris's own terms: "Semiosis is ... a mediated - takingaccount-of. The mediators are sign vehicles; the taking-account-of are
interpretants; the agents of the process are interpreters; what is taken account of
are designata" (Morris 1938: 82).
In addition to defining different aspects of the semiosis process, Morris
identified three ways of studying signs: ‘syntax’ is the study of formal relations of
signs to one another, ‘semantics’ is the study of how signs are related to the object
to which they are applicable (their designata), pragmatics is the study of the
relation of signs to interpreters. Thus pragmatics is the study of how interpreters
engage in the `taking-account-of' designata (the construction of interpretants) of
sign-vehicles (Schiffrin 1994: 191).
Grice's ideas (1957) about the relationship between logic and conversation
leads to Gricean pragmatics. Gricean pragmatics provides a set of principles that
constrains speakers' sequential choices in a text and allows hearers to recognize
speakers' intensions by helping to relate what speakers say (in an utterance) to its
66
text and contexts. It provides a way to analyse the inference of speaker meaning:
how hearers infer intentions underlying a speaker's utterance.
The approach that Gricean pragmatics offers to discourse analysis is based
in a set of general principles about rationally based communicative conduct that
tells speakers and hearers how to organize and use information offered in a text,
along with background knowledge of the world (including knowledge of the
immediate social context), to convey (and understand) more than what is said - in
brief, to communicate. The operation of these principles leads to a particular view
of discourse structure in which sequential dependencies - constrains imposed by
one part of a discourse on what occurs next - arise because of the impact of
general communicative principles on the linguistic realization of speaker meaning
at different points in time.20 Thus, what Gricean pragmatics offers to discourse
analysis is a view of how participant assumptions about what comprises a cooperative context for communication (a context that includes knowledge, text,
and situation) contribute to meaning, and how those assumptions help to create
sequential patterns in talk (see Schiffrin 1994: 191-227).
Thomas (1995) distinguishes three types of meaning:
• abstract meaning (the meaning of words and sentences in isolation, e.g., the
various
meanings of the word grass);
• contextual or utterance meaning (e.g., when two intimate persons hold their
faces very
near each other and one says `I hate you' while smiling, the utterance really
means `I
love you');
• utterance force (i.e., how the speaker intends his/her utterance to be understood;
e.g.,
when X says to Y `are you hungry?', X may intend the question as a request for
Y to
67
make X a sandwich) (Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 15).
Thomas (1995: 22) focuses on utterance meaning and force, which are
central to pragmatics, which she defines as "the study of meaning in interaction"
with the special emphasis on the interrelationship between the speaker, hearer,
utterance and context.
Spencer-Oatey and Zegarac (2002: 74-5) indicate that pragmatics is
concerned not with language as a system or product per se, but rather with the
interrelationship between language form (communicated) messages and language
users. It explores questions such as:
•
How do people communicate more than what the words or phrases of
their utterances might mean by themselves, and how do people make these
interpretations?
• Why do people choose to say and/or interpret something in one way rather
than another?
• How do people's perceptions of contextual factors (for example, who the
interlocutors are, what their relationship is, and what circumstances they
are communicating in) influence the process of producting and interpreting
language?
Pragmatics thus questions the validity of the `code-model' of
communication that was developed within the discipline of semiotics. According
to this view, communication is successful to the extent that the sender and the
receiver pair signals and messages in the same way, so that the message broadcast
in the form of a given signal is identical to the one received when that signal is
decoded. The code model has to merit of describing one way in which
communication can be achieved, but it is wholly inadequate as an account of how
people actually communicate (see Sperber and Wilson 1995, Chap. 1).
Modern approaches to pragmatics recognize that human communication
largely exploits a code (a natural language), but they also try to do justice for the
68
fact that human communicative behaviour relies heavily on people's capacity to
engage in reasoning about each other's intentions, exploiting not only the
evidence presented by the signals in the language code, but also evidence from
other sources, including perception and general world knowledge.
2.2.2.3. Interactional Sociolinguistics:
This approach to discourse is inextricably linked with the names of the
sociologist Erving Goffman (e.g., 1959, 1967, 1981) and Hymes's close associate,
the anthropological linguist John Gumperz (e.g., 1982a, 1982b).
Interactional socioloinguistics provides an approach to discourse that
focuses upon situated meaning. What Gumperz contributes to this approach is a
set of concepts and tools that provide a framework within which to analyse the
use of language during interpersonal communication; Gumperz views language
as "a socially and culturally constructed symbol system that both reflects and
creates macro-level social meaning and micro-level interpersonal meanings.
Speakers use language to provide continual indices of who they are and what they
want to communicate" (Schiffrin 1994: 133).
The work of Erving Goffman also focuses upon situated knowledge, the
self, and social context in a way that complements Gumperz's focus on situated
inference: Goffman provides a sociological framework for describing and
understanding the form and meaning of the social and interpersonal contexts that
provide presuppositions for the interpretation of meaning.21
As Goffman's work shows, for example, all interactive activity is socially
organized at multiple levels: all utterances are situated within contexts such as
"occasions," "situations," or "encounters" that not only provide structure and
meaning to what is said, but may themselves be organized by what is said (e.g.
Goffman 1963). What Gumperz stresses is the interpretive importance of
69
contexts, including, of course, the occasion in which an utterance is produced
(Schiffrin 1994: 133-4).
Much of Gumperz's research has concentrated on ‘intercultural interaction'
and, especially, on the mechanisms of `miscommunication'. For example, he
demonstrates how seemingly irrelevant signalling details, such as falling rather
than rising intonation on a single word, can trigger complex patterns of
interpretation and misinterpretation between members of different cultural groups
(see also Roberts et al. 1992). These patterns of (mis)interpretation, which he
labels ‘conversational inferencing' depend not only on the `actual' contents of
talk, but to a great extent on the processes of perception and evaluation of a
number of the signalling mechanisms, based on details of intonation, tempo of
speech, rhythm, pausing, phonetic, lexical, and syntactic choices, non-verbal
signals, and so on. Gumperz calls such features contextualisation cues, and he
showed that they relate what is said to the contextual knowledge that contributes
to the presuppositions necessary to the accurate inferencing of what is meant
(including, but not limited to, the illocutionary force) (Schiffrin 1994: 99-100).
Gumperz adapts and extends Hymes's ethnographic framework by
examining how interactants from different cultural groups apply different rules of
speaking in face-to-face interaction. In his work, he draws heavily on the
pragmatic notion of inferential meaning and the ethnomethodological
understanding of conversation as joint action (Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 28).
In sum, Schiffrin (1994: 134) states that, "interactional socioloinguistics
views discourse as a social interaction in which the emergent construction and
negotiation of meaning is facilitated by the use of language". Although the
interactional approach is basically a functional approach to language, its focus on
function is balanced in important ways. The work of Goffman forces structural
attention to the contexts in which language is used: situations, occasions,
encounters, participation frameworks, and so on, have forms and meanings that
are partially created and/or sustained by language. Similarly, language is
70
patterned in ways that reflect those contexts of use. Put another way, language
and context co-constitute one another: language contextualizes and is
contextualized, such that language does not just function in context, language also
forms and provides context. One particular context is social interaction.
Language, culture, and society are grounded in interaction: they stand in a
reflexive relationship with the self, the other, and the self-other relationship, and it
is out of these mutually, constitutive relationships that discourse is created.
2..2.2.4 The Ethnography of Communication:
The ethnography of communication is an approach to discourse that is
based in anthropology and linguistics.22 This approach is the most encompassing
of all those considered. It focus upon a wide range of communicative behaviours
and built into its theory and methodology is an intentional openness to discovery
of the variety of forms and functions available for communication, and so the way
such forms and functions are part of different ways of life. In addition, the
ethnography of communication is not an approach that can "simply take separate
results from linguistics, psychology, sociology, ethnology, as given, and seek to
correlate them" (Hymes 1974a: 20). Rather, it is an approach that seeks to open
new analytical possibilities (by finding new kinds of data and asking new
questions) and to propose new theories. It seeks to do so by analyzing patterns of
communication as part of cultural knowledge and behavior: this entails a
recognition of both the diversity of communicative possibilities and practices (i.e.
cultural relativity) and the fact that such practices are an integrated part of what
we know and do as members of a particular culture (i.e. a holistic view of human
beliefs and actions)23 (Schiffrin 1994: 137).
In anthropological tradition of ethnography of communication, as
Gumperz (1982a: 154) states, "socio-cultural knowledge is seen as revealed in the
performance of speech events defined as sequences of acts bounded in real time
71
and space, and characterized by culturally specific values and norms that
constrain both the form and the content of what is said".
The key figure responsible for the development of the ethnography of
communication is Dell Hymes.24 Hymes's definition of the ethnography of
communication consisted of four elements:
• whether and to what degree something is grammatical (linguistic
competence);
• whether and to what degree something is appropriate (social
appropriateness);
• whether and to what degree something is feasible (psycholinguistic
limitations);
• whether and to what degree something is done (observing actual language
use).
(Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 25-6).
This far broader conceptualisation of language, and indeed of the purpose
of language study, imposes a radically different methodology from Chomsky's
linguistics, which is based on introspection and intuition. The object of inquiry
for Hymes is no longer the structure of isolated sentences, but ‘rules of speaking’
within a community.25 Consequently, the sentence is replaced as a basic unit of
analysis with a three-fold classification of speech communication (Hymes 1972):
• speech situations, such as ceremonies, evenings out, sports events, bus
trips, and so on; they are not purely communicative (i.e., not only
governed by rules of speaking) but provide a wider context for speaking.
• speech events are activities which are par excellence communicative and
governed by rules of speaking, e.g., conversations, lectures, political
debates, ritual insults, and so on. As Duranti (1997: 289) comments, these
are activities in which "speech plays a crucial role in the definition of what
is going on - that is, if we eliminate speech, the activity cannot take place".
72
• speech acts are the smallest units of the set, e.g. orders, jokes, greetings,
summonses, compliments, etc.; a speech act may involve more than one
move from only one person, e.g., greetings usually involve a sequence of
two ‘moves'.26
Hymes argues that ethnographers can analyze communicative patterns
using the traditional method of anthropological research: participant observation.
By participating in a wide range of activities endemic to the life of a particular
group of people, one attempts to replace one's own way of thinking, believing,
and acting with a framework in which what is done by the members of another
group starts to seem ‘expected' and ‘natural'. The challenge faced by an
anthropologist is thus, in some ways, similar so that faced by any neophyte: an
anthropologist has to learn what native members already know about how to
"make sense out of experience" (Schiffrin 1994: 140).
Linguists ignored the study of communicative patterns and systems of
language use for reasons quite different from those of anthropologists. Chomsky's
(1957, 1965) reformulation of the goals of linguistic theory excluded the analysis
of performance (see Saussure's `parole'), focusing theoretical interest instead on
competence, i.e. tacit knowledge of the abstract rules of language. Rather than
concentrate linguistic theory on competence, Hymes proposed that scholarship
focus on communicative competence: the knowledge governing appropriate use
of grammar. Knowledge of abstract linguistic rules is included in communicative
competence. But also included is the ability to use language in concrete situations
of everyday life: the ability to engage in conversation, to shop in a store, to
interview (and be interviewed) for a job, to pray, joke, argue, tease, warn, and
even to know when to be silent. Furthermore, the study of language in use - the
study of how we are communicatively competent - contributes "in an empirical
and comparative way (to) many notions that underlie linguistic theory proper"
(Hymes 1974a: 20, also Hymes 1981), simply because "it is not easy to separate
73
areas of language that are insulated from cultural and social processes, from those
that are vulnerable to such processes" (Ochs 1988: 3).
It would be misleading, however, to think that an ethnographic approach
to discourse just adds a new component (culture) to the basic material of speech
acts and interactional sociolinguistics. Rather, an ethnographic approach creates a
whole that is greater than the sum of its parts: it seeks to define the basic notions
of the other approaches to discourse simply because it views all phases and
aspects of communication (from the cognitive to the political) as relative to
cultural meanings (e.g. Sherzer 1983).
2.2.2.5. Variation Analysis:
Variationist approach stems largely from studies of variation and change
in language: fundamental assumptions of such studies are that linguistic variation
(i.e. heterogeneity) is patterned both socially and linguistically, and that such
patterns can be discovered only through systematic investigation of a speech
community. Thus, variationists try to discover patterns in the distribution of
alternative ways of saying the same thing, i.e. the social and linguistic factors that
are responsible for variation in ways of speaking (see McCarthy et al. 2002).
Both the initial methodology and the theory underlying such studies are
those of William Labov (who has also developed a speech act approach to
discourse). Although traditional variationist studies have been limited to
semantically equivalent variants (what Labov (1972a) calls "alternative ways of
saying the same thing"), such studies have also been extended to texts. It is in the
search for text structure, the analysis of text-level variants and of how text
constrains other forms, that a variationist approach to discourse has developed.
Although the linguistics in which this approach is grounded is ‘socially
realistic’ (a term used by Hymes 1974c: 196), Labov resists the term
sociolinguistics "since it implies that there can be a successful linguistic theory or
74
practice which is not social" (1972c: xiii). Furthermore, although social factors
(e.g. social stratification) are considered in actual analyses, and in more general
formulations of patterns and explanations of distributions, the influence of
sociology (its assumptions, concepts, and theory) was not heavily incorporated
into early studies of language variation and change. Thus, the influence of
linguistics pervades the variationist approach to discourse.
Labov (1972d) and Labov and Fanshel (1977, Chap. 3), propose rules that
connect actions and meanings to words. This is a major task of discourse analysis
and should be pursued in formal terms: "Linguists should be able to contribute
their skill and practice in formalization to this study ... formalization is a fruitful
procedure even when it is wrong: it sharpens our questions and promotes the
search for answers" (Labov 1972d: 298). Variationist formalizations of discourse
rules include social information with linguistic primitives because discourse is an
area "of linguistic analysis in which even the first steps towards ... rules cannot be
taken unless the social context of the speech event is considered" (Labov 1972e:
252).
Labov (1972b, Labov and Waletsky 1967) provided a systematic
framework for the analysis of oral narrative - a framework that illustrates quite
well the variationist approach to discourse units. This framewor, as indicated by
Schiffrin (1994: 283), defines a narrative as a particular bounded unit in
discourse, and it defines parts of narrative as smaller units whose identities are
based on their linguistic (syntactic, semantic) properties and on their role in the
narrative.
Labov argued that a fully formed narrative (as summarized by Mesthrie et
al. 2000: 193) may include the following:
•
Abstract, which summarizes the events to come or offers a preliminary
assessment of the significance of those events
•
Orientation, which identifies the setting, characters and other background and
contextual details relevant to narrative
75
•
Complicating action, a series of narrative clauses - the basic details of the
storyline
•
Evaluation(s), which indicate the point of the story, or the reason(s) why the
speaker thinks the story is worth (re)telling. Such material may occur at the
end, but may also be included at any point within the narrative
•
Result or resolution, which resolves the story
•
Coda, which signals the end of the narrative and may bridge the gap between
the narrative and the present time.
Variationists require data that allow the discovery of the highly regular
rules of language and the social distribution of variants governed by those rules.
This type of data - a variety of language termed the vernacular - emerges only
during certain social situations with certain interactional conditions. One such
condition is when a speaker tells a narrative of personal experience.27 Thus, the
same discourse unit that is useful for variationists because of its regular textual
structure, and because it enables the definition of environments in which to locate
specific linguistic variants, is also useful as a source of vernacular speech in
which patterns of linguistic variation and change may be discovered (Schiffrin
1994: 290).
A variationist approach to discourse is thus a linguistic approach that
considers social context under certain methodological and analytical
circumstances. It adds social context to analyses of the use of language.
2.2.2.6. Conversation Analysis:
Conversation analysis (henceforth CA) offers an approach to discourse
that has been extensively articulated by sociologists, beginning with Harold
Garfinkel who developed the approach known as ethnomethodology28 (influenced
by the phenomenology of Alfred Schutz), and then applied specifically to
76
conversation, most notably by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail
Jefferson (see Gumperz 1982a).
Ethnomethodology means studying the link between what social actors
`do' in interaction and what they `know' about interaction. Social structure is a
form of order, and that order is partly achieved through talk, which is itself
structured and orderly. Social actors have common-sense knowledge about what
it is they are doing interactionally in performing specific activities and in jointly
achieving communicative coherence. Making this knowledge about ordinary,
everyday affairs explicit, and in this way finding an understanding of how society
is organized and how it functions, is ethnomethodology's main concern
(Garnfinkel 1967, Turner 1974, Heritage 1984).
Conversation analysis differs from other branches of sociology because
rather than analyzing social order per se, it seeks to discover the methods by
which members of a society produce a sense of social order. Conversation is a
source of much of our sense of social order, e.g. it produces many of the
typifications underlying our notions of social role (Ciccourel 1972). Conversation
also exhibits its own order and manifests its own sense of structure.
Conversation analysis is like interactional sociolinguistics in its concern
with the problem of social order, and how language both creates and is created by
social context. It is also similar to the ethnography of communication in its
concern with human knowledge and its belief that no detail of conversation (or
interaction) can be neglected a priori as unimportant. All three approaches also
focus on detailed analysis of particular sequences of utterances that have actually
occurred. But conversation analysis is also quite different from any of the
approaches discussed thus far: conversation analysis provides its own
assumptions, its own methodology (including its own terminology), and its own
way of theorising (Schiffrin 1994: 232).
CA views language as a form of social action and aims, in particular, to
discover and describe how the organization of social interaction makes manifest
77
and reinforces the structures of social organization and social institutions (see,
e.g., papers in Boden and Zimmerman 1991, Drew and Heritage 1992, Schegloff
1999, Hutchby and Wooffitt 1998). Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 14), who point
out that `talk in interaction' is now commonly preferred to the designation
‘conversation', define CA as follows:
“Conversation analysts were the first to provide systematic evidence for
the
cooperative nature of conversational processes and to give
interactional substance to the claim that - "to use Halliday's expression words have both relational and ideational significance" (Gumperz 1982a:
160, emphasis in original).
The emphasis in CA in contrast to earlier ethnomethodological concerns
has shifted away from the patterns of `knowing' per se towards discovering the
‘structures of talk’ which produce and reproduce patterns of social action. At
least, structures of talk are studied as the best evidence of social actors' practical
knowledge about them. (see Schegloff, Ochs and Thompson 1996 for an
informative account of the early history of conversation analysis).
One central CA concept is ‘preference’, the idea that, at specific points in
conversation, certain types of utterances will be more favored than others (e.g. the
socially preferred response to an invitation is acceptance, not rejection). Other
conversational features which CA has focused on, as Jaworski and Coupland
(1999: 20) indicate, include:
• openings and closings of conversations (see Schegloff and Sacks 1999).
• adjacency pairs (i.e. paired utterances of the type summons-answer, greeting
greeting, compliment-compliment response, etc.);
• topic management and topic shift;
• conversational repairs;
• showing agreement and disagreement;
• introducing bad news and processes of troubles-telling;
• (probably most centrally) mechanisms of turn-taking.
78
Conversation analysts drawing largely on Garnfinkel's (1967) sociological
method of ethnomethodology, which is "the study of the way in which
individuals experience their everyday activities, endeavor to deduce from
observation that speakers are doing and how they are doing it" (Trask 1999: 57).
More concretely, discourse analysts such as Schegloff and Sacks (1973) have
examined the organization and logic of `turn-taking' in conversations. For
instance, their research shows that a key principle that structures conversations is
the avoidance of `holes' and `intersections' between speakers. A further aspect of
this research has concentrated on the accepted principles that usually govern the
logic of turn-taking in conversations, in which speakers adopts certain ‘speaker
roles' and are encouraged to speak by conversational markers such as body
language, gaze, tone and certain ritualized words29. According to this particular
form of discourse analysis, these insights enable us to understand "patterns of
individual relations between interactants, individuals' positions within larger
institutional structures and overall societal organization" (Howarth 2002: 7).
In sum, CA approaches to discourse consider the way participants in talk
constructs systematic solutions to recurrent organizational problems of
conversation. The existence of those problems - and the need to find such
solutions - arises out of the ethnomethodological search for members' knowledge
of their own ordinary affairs, knowledge that reveals and produces a sense of
order and normalcy in everyday conduct. Since the sense of order that emerges is
publicly displayed through ongoing activity, one can examine the details of that
activity for evidence of its underlying order and structure - searching not just for
evidence that some aspect of conversation ‘can’ be viewed in a certain way, but
that it is viewed that way by participants themselves (Levinson 1983: 318-19).
2.2.2.7. Critical Discourse Analysis:
79
Critical linguistics was the approach developed by a group based at the
University of East Anglia in the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979, Kress and Hodge
1979). They tried to marry a method of linguistic text analysis with a social
theory of the functioning of language in political and ideological processes,
drawing upon the functionalist linguistic theory associated with Michael Halliday
(1978, 1985) and known as systemic linguistics30 (Fairclough 1992b: 25-6).
Critical discourse analysis (henceforth CDA), as McCarthy et al. (2002:
67) state, is concerned with the relationship between language, ideology and
power (Fairclough 1989) and the relationship between discourse and sociocultural
change (Fairclough 1992b). “It is a type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are
enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in social and political context”
(van Dijk 1998a: 1).
Critical discourse analysis regards `language as social practice' (Fairclough
and Wodak 1997), and takes consideration of the context of language use to be
crucial (Wodak 2000; Benke 2000). Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) have
put forward an eight-point programme to define critical discourse analysis as
follows:
1.
Critical discourse analysis addresses social problems.
2. Power relations are discursive.
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture.
4. Discourse does ideological work.
5. Discourse is historical.
6. The link between text and society is mediated.
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory.
8. Discourse is a form of social action.
In Wodak's (2001: 2) term, critical discourse analysis may be defined as
fundamentally concerned with analysing opaque as well as transparent structural
relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in
80
language. In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it
is expressed, signalled, constituted, legitimized and so on by language use (or in
discourse). Most critical discourse analysts would thus endorse Habermas's claim
that "language is also a medium of domination and social force. It serves to
legitimize relations to organized power. In so far as the legitimations of power
relations, ... are not articulated, ... language is also ideological" (Habermas 1977:
259).
The differences between CDA and other sociolinguistic approaches may
be most clearly established with regard to the general principles of CDA. First of
all the nature of the problems with which CDA is concerned is different in
principle from all those methods which do not determine their interest in advance.
It is a fact that CDA follows a different and a critical approach to problems, since
it endeavours to make explicit power relationships which are frequently hidden,
and thereby to derive results which are of practical relevance.
One important characteristic arises from the assumption of CDA that all
discourses are historical and can therefore only be understood with reference to
their context. In accordance with this ‘CDA’ refers to such extralinguistic factors
as culture, society, and ideology. In any case, the notion of context is crucial for
CDA, since this explicitly includes social-psychological political and ideological
components and thereby postulates an interdisciplinary procedure.
Beyond this, CDA, using the concepts of intertextuality and
interdiscursivity, analyses relationships with other texts, and this is not pursued in
other methods. From its basic understanding of the notion of disciourse it may be
concluded that CDA is open to the broadest range of factors that exert an
influence on texts (Wodak and Meyer 2001).
From the notion of context a further difference emerges concerning the
assumption about the relationship between language and society. CDA does not
take this relationship to be simply deterministic but invokes an idea of mediation.
There is a difference between the various approaches to discourse. Norman
81
Fairclough (1992b) defines the relationship in accordance with Halliday's
multifunctional linguistic theory and the concept of orders of discourse according
to Foucault, while Ruth Wodak (2001a,b) and Paul Chilton (2004), like Teun van
Dijk, introduces a sociocognitive level. This kind of mediation between language
and society is absent from many other linguistic approaches, such as, for
example, conversation analysis.
A further distinguishing feature of CDA is the specific incorporation of
linguistic categories into its analyses. CDA in no way includes a very broad range
of linguistic categories. As Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 93) state "to
capture some contradictory character of discourse on late modernity, CDA should
be open in its analysis to different theoretical discourses which construct the
problem in focus in different ways".
Another characteristic of CDA is its interdisciplinary claim and its
description of the object of investigation from widely differing perspectives, as
well as its continuous feedback between analysis and data collection. Compared
with other linguistic methods of text analysis,CDA seems to be closest to
sociological and socio-psychological perspectives, although these interfaces are
not well defined everywhere (Meyer 2001: 15-6).
In sum, as Scollon (2001a: 140) argues "CDA is a programme of social
analysis that critically analyses discourse - that is to say language in use - as a
means of addressing problems of social change. The programme of CDA is
founded in the idea that the analysis of discourse opens a window on social
problems because social problems are largely constituted in discourse".
Since the approach of the present study is critical and based on a critical
discourse analysis, the electoral materials from the seventh presidential election in
Iran will be analyzed, therefore in the following section we will explain CDA in
details.
82
2.3. WHAT IS CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS:
Critical discourse analysis belongs to a tradition of language critique
which can be traced back to classical antiquity and which is present in many
modern academic disciplines (Stubbs 1997, Toolan 1997). It follows, broadly ,
the Whorfian position on the influence of language and thought and perception of
reality (see Whorf 1997). What is distinctive about CDA, as it is commonly
abbreviated, within this tradition however is that it brings critical social science
and linguistics (specifically, systemic functional linguistics) together within a
single theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue between them
(Chouliaraki and Fairclough 1999: 6). Having said that, the contemporary field of
critical analysis of discourse is itself quite diverse (Jorgensen and Phillips 1999).
Critical discourse analysis is concerned with continuity and change, as
well as with what happen in particular texts. The link between these two concerns
is made through the way in which texts are analyzed in critical discourse analysis.
Text analysis is seen as not only linguistic analysis ; it also includes
‘interdiscursive anlaysis’ , that is, seeing texts in terms of the different discourses,
genres and styles they draw upon and articulate together (see Fairclough 2000 a ,
2003 , Chap. 2).
2.3.1. THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT:
The 1970s saw the emergence of a form of discourse and text analysis that
recognized the role of language in structuring power relations in society (see
Anthonissen 2001 for an extensive summary of this development). At that time,
much linguistic research elsewhere was focused on formal aspects of language
which constituted the linguistic competence of speakers and which could
theoretically be isolated from specific instances of language use (Chomsky 1957).
Where the relation between language and context was considered, as in
83
pragmatics (Levinson 1983), with a focus on speakers' pragmatic/sociolinguistic
competence, sentences and components of sentences were still regarded as the
basic units. Much sociolinguistic research at the time was aimed at describing and
explaining language variation, language change and the structures of
communicative interaction, with limited attention to issues of social hierarchy and
power (Labov 1972f, Hymes 1972). In such a context, attention to texts, their
production and interpretation and their relation to societal impulses and
structures, signalled a very different kind of interest (de Beaugrande and Dressler
1981, see also Titscher et al. 2000 for an overview). The work of Kress and
Hodge (1979), Fowler et al. (1979), van Dijk (1985a) Fairclough (1989) and
Wodak (ed.) (1989) serve to explain and illustrate the main assumptions,
principles and procedures of what had then become known as critical linguistics
(henceforth CL).
Kress (1990: 84-97) gives an account of the theoretical foundations and
sources of critical linguistics. He indicates that the term CL was quite selfconsciously adapted' (1990: 88) from its social-philosophical counterpart, as a
label by the group of scholars working at the University of East Anglia in the
1970s (see also Wodak 1996a, Blommaert and Bulcaen 2000). By the 1990s the
label CDA came to be used more consistently with this particular approach to
linguistic analysis. Kress (1990: 94) shows how CDA by that time was "emerging
as a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind of linguistics". He lists
the criteria that characterize work in the critical discourse analysis paradigm,
illustrating how these distinguish such work from other politically engaged
discourse analysis. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) took these criteria further and
established ten basic principles of a CDA programme.
Many of the basic assumptions of CL/CDA that were salient in the early
stages, and were elaborated in later development of the theory, are articulated in
Kress's (1989) work. These include assumptions such as:
• language is a social phenomenon;
84
• not only individuals, but also institutions and social groupings have specific
meanings
and values, that are expressed in language in systematic ways;
• texts are the relevant units of language in communication;
• readers/hearers are not passive recipients in their relationship to texts;
• there are similarities between the language of science and the language of
institutions,
and so on.
Kress concentrates on the ‘political economy “of representational media:
that is, an attempt to understand how various societies value different modes of
representation, and how they use these different modes of representation. A
central aspect of this work is the attempt to understand the formation of the
individual human being as a social individual in response to available
‘representational resources” (Wodak 2001b).
His present position as part of an institute of educational research has
meant that much of Kress's effort has gone into thinking about the content of
educational curricula in terms of representational resources and their use by
individuals in their constant transformation of their subjectivities, the process
usually called “learning”. One by-product of this research interest has been his
increasing involvement in overtly political issues, including the politics of culture.
Fowler et al. (1979) has been referred to, in order to ascertain the early
foundations of CL. Later works of Fowler (1991, 1996) show how tools provided
by standard linguistic theories (a 1965 version of Chomskyan grammar, and
Halliday's theory of systemic functional grammar) can be used to uncover
linguistic structures of power in texts. Not only in news discourses, but also in
literary criticism Fowler illustrates that systematic grammatical devices function
in establishing, manipulating and naturalizing social hierarchies (Wodak 2001b:
6).
85
Fairclough (1989) sets out the social theories underpinning CDA and, as in
other early critical linguistic work, a variety of textual examples are analysed to
illustrate the field, its aims and methods of analysis. Later, Fairclough (1992b,
1995a, 1998, 2003) and Chouliariki and Fairclough (1999) explain and elaborate
some advances in CDA, showing not only how the analytical framework for
investigating language in relation to power and ideology developed, but also how
CDA is useful in disclosing the discursive nature of much contemporary social
and cultural change. Particularly the language of the mass media is scrutinized as
a site of power, of struggle and also as a site where language is apparently
transparent. Media institutions often purport to be neutral in that they provide
space for public discourse, that they reflect states of affairs disinterestedly, and
that they give the perceptions and arguments of the newsmakers. Fairclough
shows the fallacy of such assumptions, and illustrates the mediating and
constructing role of the media with a variety of examples (see Fairclough 1998).
Norman Fairclough has developed his approach to media discourse over a
decade or more through his concern with language, discourse and power in
society. His early works (1989, 1992b, 1992c, 1995a) focused on the place of
language and discourse in sociopolitical power and processes of social change,
often using media texts as examples. As with other critical discourse analysts ,
Fairclough’s approach draws on Halliday’s functional framework. To this ,
though , he adds a knowledge of more recent social theory, drawing particularly
on the French theorist Foucault. He has developed his approach independent of
the media focus and his works cover a broader range of media texts (Fairyclough
200b, 2003).
Fairclough’s framework has three components. The first dimension is text
or discourse analysis , which includes micro levels (e.g. vocabulary , syntax) and
macro levels of text structure, a well as interpersonal elements in a text. The
second is analysis of discourse practices. This looks at how a text is constructed
and interpreted , and also how it is distributed. The media, of course , distribute to
86
receivers a considerable number of texts from other sources. Anlaysis of
discourse also consider the discourse practices of different social domains (such
as political discourse). Fairclough calls these orders of discourse (a term adapted
from Foucault). The third dimension is analysis of social practices, focusing in
particular on the relation of discourse to power and ideology.
Although Fairclough’s and van Dijk’s versions of CDA both have three
components, they differ on the nature of the central, mediating dimension. Where
van Dijk sees ‘sociocognition’ – cognitive structures and mental models – as
mediating between discourse and society, Fairclough sees this central role as
occupied by the discourse practices through which texts are produced and
received. However, Fairclough makes the point himself that the analysis of
discourse practice has sociocognitive aspects and intertextual aspects. His own
focus is on the latter (see Garrett and Bell 1998).
In the analysis of discourse practice, Fairclough is particularly concerned
with two trends : ‘marketization’ (or ‘commodification’) of discourse, and
‘conversationalization’ of discourse (which may or may not serve the
‘democratization’ of discourse). These are both instances of ‘intertextuality’ ,
where there is an admixture of different language styles or genres within a text.
Marketization relates to a process that began in many areas in Western
democracies in the 1980s, where many aspects of life and institutions were
increasingly viewed in terms of commercial models. Hence , for example, the
promotional language of advertising encroached more and more into other
domains (e.g. universities ) , in a sense colonizing other areas of discourse in
society (Fairclough 1993). The evaluative stance taken towards these constructs
tends to be generally negative (though J. Coupland (1996) has pointed to their
potential for empowerment.
Democratization is seen as a shift towards increased informality in
language in areas such as the news, which are more traditionally associated with a
voice of authority. Fairclough points to the ambiguities here : there appears to be
87
a move towards democratization, but this democratization is nevertheless
restricted to an institutional representation of the voices of ordinary people.
Similarly , the more general tendency towards conversationalization , in which ,
say, panel interviews may be conducted in ways that are strikingly similar to TV
chat shows, cannot simply be interpreted as a sign that previously closed domains
are opening up. There is also the possibility that this is merely pseudoconversation, acting as a more effective mask for the exercise of power
(Fairclough 1998).
Van Dijk's earlier work in text linguistics and discourse analysis (1977,
1981b) already shows the interest he takes in texts and discourses as basic units
and social practices. Like other critical linguistic theorists, he traces the origins of
linguistic interest in units of language larger than sentences and in text- and
context-dependency of meanings. Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) considered the
relevance of discourse to the study of language processing. Their development of
a cognitive model of discourse understanding in individuals, gradually developed
into cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning on a societal
level.
Van Dijk turns specifically to media discourse, giving not only his own
reflection on communication in the mass media (van Dijk 1986,1998c) but also
bringing together the theories and applications of a variety of scholars interested
in the production, uses and functions of media discourses (van Dijk 1985a). In
critically analysing various kinds of discourses that encode prejudice, van Dijk's
interest is in developing a theoretical model that will explain cognitive discourse
processing mechanisms (Wodak and van Dijk 2000). Most recently, van Dijk has
focused on issues of racism and ideology (van Dijk 1998b).
Teun van Dijk has long been a leading theorist and advocate of discourse
analysis as an interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of texts in social context.
His framework aims to integrate the production and interpretation of discourse as
well as its textual analysis. In the 1980s he began to apply his theory and
88
methodology of discourse analysis to media texts (van Dijk 1998a,b). Later he
worked within the framework of a larger project on discourse and ideology , and
employed a multidisciplinary theory of ideology.
A fundamental question that van Dijk’s theory (1998c) addresses is : how
are societal structures related to discourse structures? Van Dijk argues that they
cannot be related directly. If they were, then there would be no need for ideology,
and moreover , all actors in a social group would do and say the same thing. He
posits a framework in which societal structures can only be related to discourse
structures through social actors and their minds : mental model mediate between
ideology and discourse. Hence his theory has three main components : social
functions , cognitive structures, and discursive expression and reproduction.
These bridge the gap between macro and micro levels of analysis.
Discourse structures which may contain underlying ideological positions
range from microstructres such as lexical items and grammatical structures to
macrostructures such as topics or themes expressed indirectly in larger stretches
of text or whole discourses. These macrostructures are organized hierarchically :
macrorules define the most important information in a text. These are evident , for
example , when we give a summary of a text. Such macrorules draw upon the
reader’s world knowledge. At the macrolevel, then, this is a point at which
meanings are assigned by readers.
But readers do not impose coherence only at the global level: they do this
at the local level too. A sequence of sentences, for example , may have coherence
read into it through the reader’s mental model. This is an important implication of
van Dijk’s model. Not only is a text just a fraction of a model, but people
understand much more than a text actually expresses (see van Dijk 1998c).
By the end of 1980s’ CL was able to describe its aims, research interests,
chosen perspectives and methods of analysis much more specifically and rigidly
than hitherto. Wodak (1989) lists, explains and illustrates the most important
characteristics of critical linguistic research as they had become established in
89
continued research. The relevance of investigating language use in institutional
settings is reiterated, and a new focus on the necessity of a historical perspective
is introduced (the discourse-historical approach). This was followed by a variety
of research projects into discursive practices in institutional contexts that would
assist in developing an integrated theory of critical discourse analysis (Wodak
2001b).
Wodak (1996a,b) shows how scholars who have engaged in linguistic,
semiotic and discourse analysis from different scholarly backgrounds share a
particular perspective in which the concepts of power, ideology and history figure
centrally. In an overview of the development of a critical tradition in discourse
analysis, she refers to the reliance on Hallidayan linguistics, on Bernsteinian
sociolinguistics, and also on the work of literary critics and social philosophers
such as Pecheux, Foucault, Habermas, Bakhtin and Voloshinov. She supports the
suggestion of other critical linguists who believe that relationships between
language and society are so complex and multifaceted that interdisciplinary
research is required (Wodak 2001a: 7-8).
Whether analysts with a critical approach prefer to focus on
microlinguistic, macrolinguistic, textual, discursive or contextual, whether their
angle is primarily philosophical, sociological or historical - in most studies there
is reference to Hallidayan systemic functional grammar. This indicates that an
understanding of the basic claims of Halliday's grammar and his approach to
linguistic analysis is essential for a proper understanding of CDA. For an
exposition of Halliday's contribution to the development of CL, one should
consider the work of Halliday himself (1978, 1985), as well as the work of
scholars who have worked very closely with Hallidayan grammar, and have not
only applied the theory, but also elaborated it such as Kress (1976), Martin and
Hasan (1989), Martin (1992) and Iedema (1997, 1999).
As early as 1970, Halliday had stressed the relationship between the
grammatical system and the social and personal needs that language is required to
90
serve. Halliday (1970: 142) distinguished three metafunctions of language which
are continuously interconnected: firstly, the ‘ideational’ function through which
language lends structure to experience (the ideational structure has a dialectical
relationship with social structure, both reflecting and influencing it); secondly, the
‘interpersonal’ function which constitutes relationships between the participants;
and thirdly, the ‘textual’ function which constitutes coherence and cohesion in
texts. Moreover, argumentation theory and rhetoric have been successfully
combined with functional systemic linguistics (see Reisigl and Wodak 2001,
Muntigl et al. 2000, van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999).
Recognition of the contribution of all the aspects of the communicative
context to the text meaning, as well as a growing awareness in media studies
generally of the importance of non-verbal aspects of texts, has turned attention to
semiotic devices in discourse rather than the linguistic ones. Pioneering work on
the interaction between the verbal and visual in texts and discourse, as well as on
the meaning of images, has been done by Theo van Leeuwen. Particularly the
theory put forward by Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) should be mentioned here,
as this provides a useful framework for considering the communiciative potential
of visual devices in the media (see Anthonissen 2001, Scollon 2001b).
Van Leeuwen studied film and television production as well as Hallidayan
linguistics. His principal publications are concerned with topics such as the
intonation of disc jockeys and newsreaders, the language of television interviews
and newspaper reporting, and more recently, the semiotics of visual
communication and music. His approach has increasingly led him into the field of
education. Van Leeuwen (1993) distinguishes two kinds of relations between
discourses and social practices: "discourse itself (as) social practice, discourse as
a form of action, as something people do to, or for, or with each other”. And there
is discourse in the Foucaultian sense, “discourse as a way of representing social
practice(s), as a form of knowledge, as the things people say about social
practice(es)". Critical discourse analysis, according to van Leeuwen, "is, or
91
should be, concerned with both these aspects, with discourse as the instrument of
power and control as well as with discourse as the instrument of the social
construction of reality" (van Leeuwen 1993: 193).
The Duisburg school is massively influenced by Michel Foucault's
theories. Siegfried Jager is concerned with linguistic and iconic characteristics of
discourse, focusing on `collective symbols' (topoi) which possess important
cohesive functions in texts. Discourse is seen as the flow of text and speech
through time (Jager 1993: 6). Discourses have historical roots and are interwoven.
Jager developed a very explicit research programme and methodology which
allows analysis in several steps. The main topics of research have been right-wing
discourses in Germany, as well as the analysis of tabloids (Wodak 2001a: 9, see
also Titscher et al. 2000 for an extensive overview of the Lesarten approach and
the Duisburg school).
As van Dijk (1998a: 1) says CDA is not much a direction, school or
specialization - next to the many other approaches in discourse studies. Rather, it
aims to offer a different ‘mode' or ‘perspective' of theorizing, analysis and
application through the whole field. In contrast to other paradigms in discourse
analysis and text linguistics, CDA focus not only on texts, spoken or written, as
objects of inquiry. A fully `critical' account of discourse would thus require a
theorization and description of both the social processes and structures which give
rise to the production of a text, and of the social structures and processes within
which individuals or groups as social historical subjects, create meanings in their
interaction with texts (Fairclough and Kress 1993: 2ff.). Consequently, some
concepts such as power, ideology, etc., figure indispensably in all CDA.
After this introductory explanation about the history and developments of
CDA, the following sections will discuss the concepts of power, ideology,
knowledge and social conditions and their relationship with discourse in details.
92
2.3.2. Discourse and Power:
A defining feature of CDA is its concern with power as a central condition
in social life, and its efforts to develop a theory of language which incorporates
this as a major premise. Power is involved in all social relations, though
interestingly it is not necessarily transferable from one kind of relation to
another.… “Power may or may not transfer across these types of social relations
, but our interest in it, ironic or cynical , is equal , both when it does ands when
it does not” (Albrow 1999: 79).
Mey (1993: 209) suggests that "power structures discourse and discourse
supports the power it has created". To focus upon various dimensions and major
aspects of
the power/discourse relationship, I should first explain the concept
of power, first.
At its simplest, power can mean the ability of people to further their own
interests or aims, to do or get done the things they want. As Ng and Bradac
(1993) note: "It is the kind of concept that most people think they understand
intuitively - until someone asks them to define it" (Pugh 1996: 72). Fowler (1985:
61) claims, "power is not a very satisfactory technical term, but its everyday
usage will be adequate to get us going. Let us say that power is the ability of
people and institutions to control the behaviour and material lives of others. It is
obviously a transitive concept entailing an asymmetrical relationship: X is more
powerful than/has power over Y". He further observes that "language ... is an
important instrument in maintaining the power differential between two classes,
the authority of the one and the powerlessness of the other" (Fowler 1985: 67).
One of the best-known accounts of the concept of power is arguably that
of Max Weber (1922), who regarded power as the fundamental concept in
relations of inequality. In Weber’s definition “power is the probability that one
actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will
despite resistance regardless of the basis on which the probability arises” (Tansey
93
2000:5). In general terms, power denotes the probability of persons or groups
carrying out their will even when opposed by others. Weber argued that classes,
status groups and political parties are all involved in the distribution of power.
Fairclough (2003: 41) defines powers in its most general sense of ‘the
transformative capacity of human action’, the capacity to ‘intervene in a series of
events so as to alter their course’ depends upon ‘resources or facilities’ which are
differentially available to social actors; and power in the ‘relational’ sense of ‘the
capability’ to secure outcomes where the realization of these outcomes depends
upon the agency of others’ is also differentially available to different social actors.
Power is based on access to resources which might include economic resources,
as well as physical force like that of the military. Successful rule involves the
legitimisation and acceptance of power. This legitimisation involves the
conversion of power to ‘bases of authority', for example a monarchy, a legal
system, an educational system (Mesthrie et al. 2000: 319). David Lockwood
(1973: 270) notes that power is often a latent force, involving not just the capacity
to realize one's end in a situation of conflict, but also the potential to prevent
opposition from arising in the first place. Power in this view is best realised if the
actor can manipulate situations so as to prevent the actor from coming to the point
of decision at all.
In Froman's (1992: 15) point of view power is languaged advantage and is
known by relations of inequality in strcutures. "Language is a tool of organization
and order - of power and resistance - of coming and going of structures". He
(1992: 124) suggests:
“Power is concerned with structuration and differentiation - how reality is
constituted, how the world is given meaning, what is known, in language.
Power does this in two ways, guided by the grammar of language which
creates subjects who see objects: it structures language users into their
own structures (division of labor), from which the world is viewed as
various subject (object) matters; and it structures the language of
94
objectification by which subjects create objects seen as exterior to
themselves. A leading part puts together and maintains hierarchical
structures and controls the language of observation of the members of
these structures, including both observations internal and external to the
human structures”.
Foucault's model of power is ‘productive'. For him, power is dispersed
throughout all of social relations and as a force which prevents some actions but
enables others. Foucault (1979) stressed always that it is power which establishes
the very terms of discourse. However, power is not confined to large-scale,
macro processes of politics and society. It is a potential present in all everyday
exchanges and social encounters (Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 498-9).
Fairclough (1992b: 50) claims that “power is implicit within everyday
social practices which are pervasively distributed at every level in all domains of
social life, and are constantly engaged in”; moreover, "it is tolerable only on
condition that it makes a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its
ability to hide its own mechanisms" (Foucault 1981: 86).
Power is a social process which is frequently mediated through language;
there are many resources that can be used to exercise power. Anything that gives
one person or group a degree of control over what others want or need can be a
power resource (Mann 1983). But all resources are relational because their
effectiveness depends upon the situation in which their use is attempted (Pugh
1996: 74). Power is always relational. That is, it cannot be defined without
relating it to other people or groups who either have it or are subject to its
exercise. Fairclough (1989: 34-5) suggests that power relations are alwyas
relations of `struggle', using the term in a technical sense to refer to the process
whereby social groupings with different interests engage with one another. Social
struggle occurs between groupings of various sorts - women and men, black and
white, young and old, dominating and dominated groupings in social institutions,
and so on. But just as class relations are the most fundamental relations in class
95
society, so too is class struggle the most fundamental form of struggle. Class
struggle is a necessary and inherent property of a social system in which the
maximization of the profits and power of one class depends upon the
maximization of its exploitation and domination of another. Social struggle may
be more or less intense and may appear in more or less overt forms, but all social
developments, and any exercise of power, take place under conditions of social
struggle. This applies also to language: language is both a site of and a stake in
class struggle, and those who exercise power through language must constantly
be involved in struggle with others to defend (or lose) their position.31
Foucault in a study (1984: 109) explores various procedures through
which discursive practices are socially controlled and constrained: "in every
society, the production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized and
redistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its
powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade its
ponderous formidable, materiality". A significant emphasis in Foucault is upon
power struggle over the determination of discursive practices: "Discourse is not
simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing
for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be
seized" (Foucault 1984: 110). So discourse is part and parcel of this complex
situation of struggle, and we can deepen our understanding of discourse by
keeping this matrix in mind, and our understanding of the struggle by attending to
discourse. Any given piece of discourse may simultaneously be a part of a
situational struggle, an institutional struggle, and a societal struggle (including
class struggle) (Fairclough 1989: 70).
Power is about relations of difference, and particularly about the effects of
differences in social structures. The constant unity of language and other social
matters ensures that language is entwined in social power in a number of ways:
language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention
over and a challenge to power. Power does not derive from language, but
96
language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter distributions of
power in the short and long term. Language provides a finely articulated means
for differences in power in social hierarchical structures. Very few linguistic
forms have not at some stage been pressed into the service of the expression of
power by a process of syntactic or textual metaphor. CDA takes an interest in the
ways in which linguistic forms are used in various expressions and manipulations
of power. Power is signaled not only by grammatical forms within a text, but also
by a person's control of a social occasion by means of the genre of a text. It is
often exactly within the genres associated with given social occasions that power
is exercised or challenged32 (Wodak 2001a: 11).
In terms of the CDA framework as Fairclough (1998: 147)
indicates, power enters the picture as power struggle to achieve
hegemony in two ways:
a) ‘internally’ within the order of discourse of the political system in the
articulation of different discursive practices;
b) ‘externally’ in the articulation of different systems and different orders of
discourse. The internal struggle for hegemony is a struggle between
political parties and political tendencies.
An example is the struggle to establish the hegemony of Thatcherite political
discourse in Britain first within the conservative party, then within the political
system as a whole, and ultimately beyond it - so ‘internal’ struggle turns into
‘external’ struggle. The external struggle for hegemony is a struggle between
professional politicians and other social agents in fields which intersect with the
political system – for example , between politicians and journalists in the mass
media, and between politicians and grassroots activists in social movements such
as environmentalist.
Fairclough (1989: 73-4) argues on the one hand that power is exercised
and enacted in discourse, and on the other hand that there are relations of power
97
behind discourse. In both cases power is won, held and lost in social struggles. In
terms of ‘power in discourse'33, discourse is the site of power struggles, and, in
terms of ‘power behind discourse'34, it is the stake in power struggles - for control
over orders of discourse is a powerful mechanism for sustaining power.
Power in discourse as Fairclough (1989: 46) explains, is to do with
powerful participants "controlling and constraining the contributions of nonpowerful participants". It is useful to distinguish broadly between three types of
such constraints - constrains on:
• contents, on what is said or done;
• relations, the social relations people enter into in discourse;
• subjects, or the `subject positions' people can occupy.
Relations' and `subjects' are very closely connected, and all three overlap and cooccur in practice, but it is helpful to be able to distinguish them.
Fairclough (1989: 135) further argues that there are various devices which
are used by more powerful participants to put constrains on the contributions of
less powerful participants such as:
- interruption
- enforcing explicitness
- controlling topic
- formulation
One can think of these constraints either in relatively immediate and
concrete terms as matter of power in discourse, or can think of them in a
relatively structural and long-term way as a matter of power behind discourse - a
matter, that is, of the conventions of discourse types constraining participants'
contributions in these three ways. Thinking of them in the second of these ways,
one can see that such constraints on discourse may have long-term structural
effects of a more general sort.
Discourse is part of social practice and contributes to the reproduction of
social structures. If therefore there are systematic constraints on the contents of
98
discourse and on the social relationships enacted in it and the social identities
enacting them, these can be expected to have long-term effects on the knowledge
and beliefs, social relationships, and social identities of an institution or society.
This is represented in Fig. 2.3.
Constraints
Structural effects
Contents
Knowledge and beliefs
Relations
Social relationships
Subjects
Social identities
Fig.2.3 Constraints on discourse and structural effects (from
Fairclough
1989: 74).
In any society there will be mechanisms for achieving coordination and
commonality of practice in respect of knowledge and beliefs, social relationships,
and social identities. Fairclough distinguishes three main types of these
mechanism. "First, there may be practices and discourse types which are
universally followed and necessarily accepted because no alternative seems
conceivable, which have built into them coordinated knowledge and beliefs,
social relationships, and social identities. Secondly, coordination can be imposed
in the exercise of power, in a largely hidden fashion, as the power behind
discourse. Let us call this mechanism inculcation. Thirdly, coordination can be
arrived at through a process of rational communication and debate. Let us call this
mechanism communication" (Fairclough 1989:75, emphasis in original).
99
All three mechanisms exist in contemporary society, but it is the struggle
between communication and inculcation that is most salient. Inculcation can be
thought of as motivated by a wish to re-create the universality and `naturalness' of
the first mechanism under conditions of class domination and division. It attempts
to ‘naturalize’ partial and interested practices to facilitate the exercise and
maintenance of power. Broadly speaking, inculcation is the mechanism of powerholders who wish to preserve their power while communication is the mechanism
of emancipation and the struggle against domination. Correspondingly, a longterm focus of the struggle over discourse is the issue whether constraints on
contents, relations and subjects are to be imposed through inculcation (and it is
their imposition through inculcation that is the main concern of CLS) or
coordinated through communication (Fairclough 1989: 75).
Power is also sometimes hidden in face-to-face discourse. For instance,
there is obviously a close connection between requests and power, in that the
right to request someone to do something often derives from having power. But
there are many grammatically different forms available for making requests.
Some are direct and mark the power relationship explicitly, while others are
indirect and leave it more or less implicit.35
It must mentioned, as Fairclough (1989: 70-71) claims, that there is always
a tendency against the overt marking of power relationships in discourse - a
tendency which is of considerable interest from the perspective of social struggle.
Closing the discourse-power circle, van Dijk (1989a: 4-5) argues that
those groups who control most influential discourse also have more chances to
control the minds and actions of others. The issue of discoursive power can be
split up into these basic questions for CDA research:
a. How do people obtain and maintain power within a given community?
b. How do (more) powerful groups control public discourse?
c. How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful
groups,
100
and what are the social consequences of such control, such as social
inequality?
d. How do dominated groups discursively challenge or resist such power?
2.3.3. Discourse and ideology:
A central component of the critical linguistic creed is the conviction that
language reproduces ideology. As an integrated form of social behaviour,
language will be inevitably and inextricably tied up with the socio-political
context in which it functions. Language is not used in a contextless vacuum;
rather, it is used in a host of discourse contexts, contexts which are impregnated
with the ideology of social systems and institutions. Because language operates
within this social dimension it must, of necessity reflect, and some would argue,
construct ideology (Simpson 1993:6).
The concept of ideology first appeared in late eighteen-century France and
has thus been in use for about two centuries. The term has been given changing
functions and meanings at different times. Its meanings range from the relatively
innocuous ‘system of ideas’37 or world view to more contested one such as ‘false
consciousness’38 or ‘ideas of dominant ruling class’39. It is a difficult term to
interpret , though it is usually widely used and abused.
Ideology is also one of the less settled categories of philosophical and
sociological discussions of the last century or more. For sociologists an ideology
is a set of beliefs which claims to have universal validity but in fact reflects the
social position of its adherents. Views about society as a whole are common
components of ideologies. Sociology’s view of society as a complex set of social
relations, in which people have different positions , allows for changes in those
relations and leaves its nature always open to research (Albrow 1999).
One school of thought led by Karl Popper (1962) interprets ideology as
a way of political thinking typical of totalitarian movements. To Popper an
101
ideology is an all-encompassing and closed system of thought. Not only does
such a system have something to say about virtually all political, social and
moral issues, but it is virtually impossible to disprove because there is always
an explanation, within the terms of the ideology, for any apparent deviation
from its predictions (Tansy 2000: 71).
It might therefore seem pointless or distractive to introduce such a term
into considerations of theories of language. There are, however, quite powerful
reasons for doing so. Any theory of language that is serious about the social
function and effect of language cannot make do with a social categories such as
worldview. Rather, it has to focus quite deliberately on the relations of language
to the material condition of its uses and of its users. And here it is essential to
accept the category ideology as the term that covers concerns with forms of
knowledge and their relation to class structure, to class conflict, and class interest,
to modes of production and of economic structure, and with forms of knowledge
in specific social practices. Ideology is concerned equally with dominant and with
oppositional forms of knowledge in a society, with accommodative strategies,
and with knowledge deriving from the historical and social positions of its users
(Mannheim 1955, Parkin 1971, Sumner 1975: 4-6, Kress 1985a: 29).
Jaworski and Coupland (1999: 496) understand the term ideology as social
(general and abstract) representations shared by members of a group and used by
them to accomplish everyday social practices: acting and communicating (e.g.,
van Dijk 1998b, Billing et al. 1988, Fowler 1985). These representations are
organized into systems which are deployed by social classes and other groups "in
order to make sense of, figure out and render intelligible the way society works"
(Hall 1996: 26).
Thompson discusses the concepts of ideology and culture and the relations
between these concepts and certain aspects of mass communication. For
Thompson (1990), ideology refers to social forms and processes within which,
and by means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world. He explains
102
that the study of ideology is a study of "the ways in which meaning is constructed
and conveyed by symbolic forms of various kinds". This kind of study will also
investigate the social contexts within which symbolic forms are employed and
deployed. The investigator has an interest in determining whether such forms
establish or sustain relations of domination. For Eagleton (1994: 15) the study of
ideology has to consider the variety of theories and theorists that have examined
the relation between thought and social reality. All the theories assume "that there
are specific historical reasons why people come to feel, reason, desire and
imagine as they do" (Wodak 2001a: 10).
Van Dijk (2001: 115) defines ideologies as the basic social representations
of social groups. They are at the basis of the knowledge and attitudes of groups
such as socialists, neo-liberals, ecologists, feminists as well as anti-feminists.
They probably have a schematic structure that represents the self-image of each
group, featuring membership devices, aims, activities, norms and resources of
each group. Ideologies feature the basic principles that organize the attitudes
shared by the members of a group. He (1998b) argues that it is through discourse
and other semiotic practices that ideologies are formulated, reproduced and
reinforced.
Van Dijk (1998c: 27) suggests that ideologies organize specific group
attitudes; these attitudes may be used in the formation of personal opinions as
represented in models, and these personal opinions may finally be expressed in
text and talk. This is the usual, indirect way of ideological expression in
discourse. However , in some forms of discourse, ideologies may also be
expressed directly , that is, in general statements.
He (1998c :44) introduces a mental model of an event, and a context
model of the current communicative event and claims that language, users are
allowed to express their opinions not only through explicitly evaluative words,
but also through :
1. the generality vs. specificity and quantity of model propositions used in
103
descriptions of events;
2. the explicitness vs. the implicitness of model propositions;
3. the importance assigned to propositions relative to others;
4. the contextual relevance assigned to propositions;
5. the attribution of agency , responsibility and blame for actions;
6. the perspective from which events are described and evaluated.
The relation between language and ideology depends on the category of
discourse. Any linguistic form considered in isolation has no specifically
determinate meaning as such, nor does it possess any ideological significance or
function. It is because linguistic forms always appear in a text and therefore in
systematic form as the sign of the system of meaning embodied in specific
discourse that we can attribute ideological significance to them. The defined and
delimited set of statements that constitute a discourse are themselves expressive
of and organized by a specific ideology. That is, ideology and discourse are
aspects of the same phenomenon, regarded from two different standpoints.
The systematic organization of content in discourse, drawing on and
deriving from the prior classification of this material in an ideological system,
leads to the systematic selection of linguistic categories and features in a text.
Hence the presence of a linguistic feature in a text is always the sign of the
presence of one term from a discursive and ideological system appearing in the
context of the copresence of other terms from that system. A linguistic feature or
category therefore never appears simply by itself - it always appears as the
representative of a system of linguistic terms, which themselves realize discursive
and ideological systems. The linguistic term in a discourse and in a text therefore
derives a specific meaning from its place in a system of other linguistic terms.
That is, the system gives specific meaning to terms in the system (Kress 1985a).
Kress (1985a: 30) argues that "a powerful way of examining ideological
structure is through the examination of language. Conversely, the forms of
language are illuminated by an analysis of the ideologies at work in given
104
societies. The connection between language and ideology exists at many levels: at
the lexical level and at the grammatical-syntactic level"40 (see for instance the
work of Halliday, in Kress 1976, Kress and Hodge 1979, Volosinov 1973, Whorf
1956).
Kress (1985a) claims that ideological significance can be read off from the
linguistic items in a text: The linguistic feature appears as the sign of a term in an
ideological system and this term has a quite precise meaning deriving from its
place in a system of other terms. However, beyond this, texts can also be read for
their ideological content because of the iconic nature of linguistic forms. While
most lexical forms do stand in an entirely conventional relation to their referents
in the world (with exceptions such as onomatopoeia), most or perhaps all
syntactic forms and processes have an expressive relation to their referents. For
instance, in the relation between an active and a passive clause, the shift of
emphasis (indicated by first position) from agent to goal directly expresses the
relative significance assigned by the speaker or writer to the respective entities.
Fowler (1985: 65) also explains that syntactic structures such as transitivity (see
Trew 1979a,b) and various syntactic transformations (Fowler et al. 1979) may
articulate social meanings, and even features of pronunciation are value laden.
The vocabulary of a language could also be considered a kind of lexical map of
the preoccupations of a culture. Whatever is important to a culture is richly
lexicalized: Detailed systems of terms develop for the areas of expertise, the
features of habitat, the institutions and relationships and the beliefs and values of
a community.41 Possessing the terms crystallizes the relevant concepts for their
users; using them in discourse keeps the ideas current in the community's
consciousness, helps transmit them from group to group and generation to
generation. In this way ideology is reproduced and disseminated within society ideology in the neutral sense of a worldview, a largely unconscious theory of the
way the world works accepted as commonsense (Fowler 1985: 65; see also
Fowler 1981, Chap. 1).
105
Fairclough (1992b: 89) claims that meanings and especially word
meanings (sometimes specified as ‘content' as opposed to ‘form') are ideological.
"Meaning relations between words like synonymy, hyponymy and antonymy can
often be regarded as relative to particular ideologies; either the ideology
embedded in a discourse type, or the ideology being creatively generated in a
text" (Fairclough 1989: 115-16). Word meanings are important but so too are
other aspects of meaning, such as presuppositions, metaphors, and coherence. He
(1992b: 88) suggests that ideology invests language in various ways at various
levels, and that we do not have to chose between different possible ‘locations' of
ideology, all of which seem partly justified and none of which seems entirely
satisfactory. The key issue is whether ideology is a property of structures or a
property of events, and the answer is ‘both'. And the key problem is to find a
satisfactory account of the dialectic of structures and events. He further (1992b:
88-9) argues that it is not possible to "read off" ideologies from texts because
meanings are produced through interpretations of texts, and texts are open to
diverse interpretations which may differ in their ideological import, and because
ideological processes appertain to discourses as whole social events - they are
processes between people - not just to the texts which are moments of such
events42. He prefers the view that ideology is located both in the structures (i.e.
orders of discourse) which constitute the outcome of past events and the
conditions for current events, and in events themselves as they reproduce and
transform their conditioning structures. It is an accumulated and naturalized
orientation which is built into norms and conventions, as well as an ongoing work
to naturalize and denaturalize such orientations in discursive events.
Fairclough (2003) suggests that ideologies are representations of aspects
of the world which contribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power,
domination and exploitation. They may be enacted in ways of interacting (and
therefore in genres) and inculcated in ways of being or identities (and therefore in
styles). Analysis of texts (including perhaps especially assumptions in texts) is an
106
important aspect of ideological analysis and critique, provided it is framed within
a broader social analysis of events and social practices (Eagleton 1991, Larrain
1979, Thompson 1984).
Fairclough (2003: 9) argues that one of the causal effects of texts which
has been of major concern for critical discourse analysis is ideological effects –
the effects of texts in inculcating and sustaining or changing ideologies (van Dijk
1998b). Ideologies are representations of aspects of the world which can be
shown to contribute to establishing , maintaining and changing social relations of
power , domination and exploitation. This ‘critical’ view of ideology, seeing it as
a modality of power, contrasts with various ‘descriptive’ views of ideology as
positions , attitudes, beliefs , perspectives , etc. of social groups without reference
to relations of power and domination between such groups. Ideological
representations can be identified in texts (Thompson 1984 glosses ideology as
‘meaning in the service of power’), but in saying that ideologies are
representations which can be shown to contribute to social relations of power and
domination. Fairclough (2003) suggests that textual analysis needs to be framed
in this respect in social analysis which can consider bodies of texts in terms of
their effects on power relations. Moreover , if ideologies are primarily
representations, they can nevertheless also be ‘enacted’ in ways to acting socially
, and ‘inculcated’ in the identities of social agents. Ideologies can also have a
durability and stability which transcends individual texts or bodies of texts - they
can be associated with discourses (as representations), with genres (as
enactments), and with styles (as inculcations).
Implicitness is a pervasive property of texts, and a property of
considerable social importance. All forms of fellowship, community and
solidarity depends upon meanings which are shared and can be taken as given,
and no form of social communication or interaction is conceivable without some
such ‘common ground’. On the other hand, the capacity to exercise social power,
domination and hegemony includes the capacity to shape to some significant
107
degree the nature and content of this ‘common ground’, which makes
implicitness and assumptions an important issue with respect to ideology
(Fairclough 2003, van Dijk 1998c , Chilton 2004).
Assumptions are of particular significance in term of ideological work of
text. Defining assumption as ‘the implicit meaning of texts’, Fairclough (2003:55)
distinguishes three main types of assumptions:
1. Existential assumptions : assumptions about what exists ,
2. propositional assumptions : assumptions about what is or can be or will be
the case,
3. Value assumptions : assumptions about what is good or desirable.
Each of these may be marked or ‘triggered’ (Levinson 1983) by linguistic
features of a text, though not all assumptions are ‘triggered’. For example ,
existential assumptions are triggered by markers of definite reference such as
definite articles and demonstratives (the , this , that , these , those). Factual
assumptions are triggered by certain verbs (factive verbs e.g., realize, forget,
remember). Value assumptions can also be triggered by certain verbs- for
instance, ‘help’ (for other types of assumptions see Verschueren 1999).
Questions of implicitness and assumptions take us into territory which is
conventionally seen as that of linguistic pragmatics (Blakemore 1992, Levinson
1983, Mey 1993, Grice 1981). Linguistic pragmatics is the study of ‘language in
relation to its users’ (Mey 1993). It focuses on meaning, but the making of
meaning in actual communication, as opposed to what is often seen as the
concern of linguistic semantics with semantic relations, which can be attributed to
a language as such, in abstraction from actual communication. Linguistic
pragmatics has produced valuable insights about assumptions (presuppositions43,
implicatures), speech acts, and so forth which have been drawn upon in critical
discourse analysis (e.g. Fairclough 1992b), but it is also (at least in its AngloAmerican as apposed to continental European versions) sometimes problematic in
108
overstating social agency and tending to work with isolated (often invented)
utterances (Fairclough 2003 : 58, 1989).
Fairclough (2003) links assumptions to intertexuality . Using the general
term assumptions to include types of implicitness, which are generally
distinguished in the literature of linguistic pragmatics as presuppositions, logic
implications or entailments, and implicature. He (2003: 40) argues that texts
inevitably make assumptions. What is ‘said’ in a text is ‘said’ against a
background of what is ‘unsaid’ , but taken as given. As with intertextuality,
assumptions connect one text to other texts, to the ‘world of texts’ as one might
put it. The difference between assumptions and intertextuality is that the former
are not generally attributed or attributable to specific texts. It is a matter rather of
a relation between this text and what has been said or written or thought
elsewhere, with the ‘elsewhere’ left vague.
Both intertextuality and assumption can be seen in terms of claims on the
part of the ‘author’ – the claim that what is reported was actually said, that what is
assumed has indeed been said or written elsewhere, that one’s interlocutors have
indeed heard it or read it elsewhere. Such claims may or may not be substantiated.
People may mistakenly, or dishonestly, or manipulatively make such implicit
claims – assertions may for instance be manipulatively passed off as assumptions,
statement may mistakenly or dishonestly be attributed to others.
Value systems and associated assumptions can be regarded as belonging
to particular discourses. Existential and prepositional assumptions may also be
discourse – specific – a particular discourse includes assumptions about what
there is, what is the case, what is possible, what is necessary, what will be the
case, and so forth. In some instances, on might argue that such assumptions, and
indeed the discourses they are associated with, are ideological. Assumed
meanings are of particular ideological significance –one can argue that relations
of power are best served by meanings which are widely taken as given. The
ideological work of texts is connected to hegemony and uinversalization. Seeking
109
hegemony is a matter of seeking to universalize particular meanings in the service
of achieving and maintaining dominance, and this is ideological work. So for
instance texts can be seen as doing ideological work in assuming, taking as an
unquestioned and unavoidable reality (Fairclough 2003: 58).
Considering that there is no one , standard way to do critical discourse
analysis, not to do ideological analysis of texts or talk, van Dijk (1998c: 61-3)
gives some practical suggestions for doing ideological analysis: (a) examine the
context of the discourse, (b) analyze which groups , power relations and conflicts
are involved, (c) look for positive and negative opinions about Us and Them, (d)
spell out the presupposed and the implied , and (e) examine all formal structures
that (de)emphasize polarized group opinions:
1-Context : in order to understand the ideological position of the author
(writer or speaker), describe the communicative context; group membership(s) of
the author , the aims of the communicative events, the genre, the intended
audience (s) , the setting (time, location) , the medium , and so on. Through the
contextual occasioning or functions of the discourse, its ideological functions may
be spelled out (see van Dijk 2002).
2-Ideological categories: ideologies are the basic ‘axioms’ of socially
shared representations of groups about themselves and their relations to other
groups, including such categories as membership criteria, activities, goals, values,
and crucial group resources. Look for expressions in the text that refer to these
basic categories defining the interests or identity of the group the author belongs
to.
3-Polarization : many ideologies sustain and reproduce social conflict,
domination and inequality. This conflict may involve any type of interest
(typically symbolic or material resources) mentioned above, and is
characteristically organized in a polarized way, that is, represented as Us vs
Them. This polarization is at the basis of much ideological discourse, that is, as
the strategy of positive self-presentation and negative other- presentation. Since
110
ideologies involve values, they typically surface as evaluative beliefs or opinions.
Find all opinions in the text that enact such polarized evaluation of Us and Them.
Little discourse analytical expertise is necessary to do such an ideological reading
of the text.
4-The implicit: ideological opinions, however, are not always expressed in
a very explicit way. That is, very often they are implied, presupposed, hidden,
denied or taken for granted. Hence it is necessary to examine more systematically
the semantic structure of the text for various forms of implication, indirectness or
denial. Indeed, seemingly non–evaluative, non-ideological descriptions of ‘facts’
may imply positive opinions about Us and negative opinions about Them. Also
the ways the sentences of the discourse cohere (e.g. on the basis of causality) may
be part of this implicit manifestation of ideology. Similarly, the overall coherence
of the discourse in terms of topics or themes indicates what information (and
what ideological opinions) are deemed more or less important, thus reflecting ,
the structures of the underlying ideological mental models, attitudes and
ideologies (see Fairclough 2003: 55-7).
5-Formal structures : the various forms of a discourse may indirectly be
involved in the expression or signaling of ideological positions. The ideological
square of polarization applies here too. Structural features may emphasize or deemphasize information or opinions about Us and Them: sound structures in talk
(e.g. intonation, stress, volume, ‘tone’, applause, laughs); graphical structures in
printed text (head- lines, columns, placing, letter type, photos etc.); the overall
(schematic organization of the discourse (e.g. argumentation); lexical choice and
variation in the description of Us vs Them; and the syntactic structure of clauses
and sentences.
The ideologies embedded in discursive practices are most effective when
they become naturalized, and achieve the status of common sense. Fairclough
(1989: 107) offers that: "Ideology, however, is not inherently commonsensical:
certain ideologies acquire that status in the course of ideological struggles, which
111
take the linguistic form of struggles in social institutions between ideologically
diverse discourse types. Such struggles determine dominance relations between
them and their associated ideologies. A dominant discourse is subject to a process
of ‘naturalization’, in which it appears to lose its connection with particular
ideologies and interests and become the common-sense practice of the institution.
Thus when ideology becomes common sense, it apparently ceases to be ideology;
this is itself an ideological effect, for ideology is truly effective only when it is
disguised" 44.
It should not be assumed that people are aware of the ideological
dimensions of their own practice. Ideologies built into conventions may be more
or less naturalized and automatized, and people may find it difficult to
comprehend that their normal practices could have specific ideological
investments. Even when one's practice can be interpreted as resistant and
contributing to ideological change, one is not necessarily aware in detail of its
ideological import (Fairclough 1992b: 90). So in doing critical discourse analysis,
it is always necessary to consider the relationship between language and ideology
in order to show, as Fairclough (1995a: 27) says, "how social structures determine
properties of discourse, and how discourse in turn determines social structures".
2.3.4. Discourse and Knowledge:
An important means of linking up discourses with one another is collective
symbolism. Collective symbols are "cultural stereotypes (frequently called
‘topoi’), which are handed down and used collectively" (Drews et al. 1985: 265).
In the store of the collective symbols that all the members of a society
know, a repertoire of images is available with which we visualize a complete
picture of societal reality and/or the political landscape of society, and through
which we then interpret these and are provided with interpretations - in particular
by the media. Discourse analysis pertains to both everyday knowledge that is
112
conveyed via the media, everyday communication, and so on, and also to that
particular knowledge (valid at a certain place at a certain time) which is produced
by the various sciences. This applies to both the cultural and the natural sciences
(see Link 1982, Link and Link-Heer 1990, and Becker et al. 1997). The most
important rules regulating these links through which the image of such a societal
or political context is produced are catachreses or image fractures. These function
by creating connections between utterances and areas of experience, bridging
contradictions, generating possibilities and acceptances and so on, plus
reinforcing the power of discourses (Jager 2001: 35).
Van Dijk (2001: 114) argues that social representations are
‘particularized' in mental models, and it is often through mental
models that they are expressed in text and talk. And conversely, it is
through mental models of everyday discourse such as conversations,
news reports and textbooks that we acquire our knowledge of the
world, our socially shared attitudes and finally our ideologies and
fundamental norms and values. He (1998 c: 28) claims that because
models represent what people know and think about an event or
situation, they essentially control the content, or semantics, of
discourse. However, since people know and think much more than
they usually need to say for pragmatic reasons, only a fraction of the
information in a model will usually be expressed in text and talk.
This is of course also true for opinions: people do not always find it
necessary or appropriate to say or write what they think. In many
respects a text is merely a tip of the iceberg of what is mentally
represented in models. And conversely, due to the construction of a
model and the application of knowledge and attitudes in this
113
construction, people usually understand much more of a text than it
actually expresses.
Central to a critical discourse analysis based on Michel Foucault's
discourse
theory are issues such as:
- what knowledge (valid at certain place at a certain time) consists of;
- how this valid knowledge evolves;
- how it is passed on;
- what function it has for the constitution of subjects and the shaping of
society.
- what impact this knowledge has on the overall development of society.
For Foucault knowledge means all kinds of contents which make up a
consciousness and/or all kinds of meanings used by respective historical persons
to interpret and shape the surrounding reality. People derive this ‘knowledge'
from the respective discursive contexts into which they are born and in which
they are involved for their entire existence (Jager 2001: 33 , 1996).
Chandler (2002: 150) argues that interpreters of texts require
three key kind of knowledge, namely knowledge of :
1. the world (social knowledge) ;
2. the medium and the genre (textual knowledge) ;
3. the relationship between (1) and (2) (modality judgements).
Fairclough (1995a: 33) suggests that the knowledge base, which
constitutes participants’ background knowledge about how orderly interactions
proceed, involves four components:
• knowledge of language codes,
• knowledge of principles and norms of language use,
• knowledge of situation,
114
• knowledge of the world.
Fairclough claims that all four of these types of knowledge involve ideology, by
which he (1995a: 31) means: “each is a particular representation of some aspect of the
world (natural or social; what is, what can be, what ought to be, which might be (and may
be) alternatively represented and where any given representation can be associated with
some particular social base”. This means knowledge is not neutral, and always
implies ways of doing which serve the interests of some social group, generally at
the expense of others.45
Van Dijk (2001) distinguishes between different kinds of knowledge,
namely personal knowledge, group knowledge and cultural knowledge. "Personal
knowledge is represented in mental models about specific, personal events.
Specific social groups, such as professionals, social movements or business
companies, share group knowledge. Such knowledge may be biased and
ideological, and not be recognized as `knowledge' by other groups at all, but be
characterized as mere ‘belief' (of course, the beliefs of some group have more
influence, power and legitimacy than those of others, as is the case for scientific
discourse). Cultural knowledge is shared by all competent members of a society
or culture, and forms the basis or common ground of all social practices and
discourses. Indeed, in principle all culturally shared knowledge may therefore be
presupposed in public discourse. Of course, such common ground knowledge
constantly changes, and what is common ground yesterday, may be ideological
group belief today, or vice versa, as is the case for much scholarly knowledge.
Discourses are like icebergs of which only some specific forms of (contextually
relevant) knowledge are expressed, but of which a vast part of presupposed
knowledge is part of the shared sociocultural common ground. Many properties
of discourse, such as overall topics, local coherence, pronouns, metaphors and
many more require definition in terms of this kind of socially shared cultural
knowledge. One of the main theoretical challenges has been the organization of
knowledge in memory, for which many proposals have been formulated, for
115
instance in terms of scripts, schemas, scenarios, and many more. These proposals
are not only relevant for cognitive science, but also for CDA, because such
knowledge structures (directly or through models) also organize the structures of
discourse". (van Dijk 2001:114).
From the perspective of CDA, the most important result of work on
comprehension is the stress which has been placed upon its active nature: you do
not simply decode an utterance, you arrive at an interpretation through an active
process of matching features of the utterance at various levels with
representations you have stored in your long-term memory. These representations
are prototypes for a very diverse collection of things - the shapes of words, the
grammatical forms of sentences, the typical structure of a narrative, the properties
of types of object and person, the expected sequence of events in a particular
situation type, and so forth. Some of these are linguistic, and some of them are
not. Fairclough (1989: 11) refers to these prototypes collectively as ‘members'
resources'. The members' resources which people have in their heads include their
knowledge of language, representation of the natural and social worlds they
inhabit, values, beliefs, assumptions, and so on.46
From the point of view of the interpreter of a text, formal features of the
text are cues which activate elements of interpreters' members' resources, and that
interpretations are generated through the dialectical interplay of cues and
members' resources. In their role of helping to generate interpretations,
Fairclough (1989) refers to members' resources as "interpretative procedures".
Fairclough (1989: 142-4) lists major elements of members' resources which
function as interpretative procedures:
1. knowledge of language which he has specified as phonology, grammar,
and vocabulary,
2. semantic aspects of members' resources that is the representations of the
meanings of words, the interpreters' ability to combine word-meanings and
116
grammatical information and work out implicit meanings to arrive at meanings
for whole propositions,
3. pragmatic conventions within the members' resources which allow the
interpreters to determine that speech act(s) an utterance is being used to perform,
4. schema (plural schemata)47 which is a representation of a particular type
of activity in terms of predictable elements in a predictable sequence. It represents
modes of social behaviour,
5. social orders which is the representations of societal and institutional
social orders which allow the interpreters to ascribe the situations they are
actually in to particular situation types.
Fairclough (1989: 24-5) also argues that: "the members' resources which
people draw upon to produce and interpret texts are cognitive in the sense that
they are in people's heads, but they are social in the sense that they have social
origins - they are socially generated, and their nature is dependent on the social
relations and struggles out of which they were generated - as well as being
socially transmitted and, in our society, unequally distributed. People internalize
what is socially produced and made available to them, and use this internalized
members' resources to engage in their social practice, including discourse. This
gives the forces which shape societies a vitally important foothold in the
individual psyche, though the effectiveness of this foothold depends on it being
not generally apparent. Moreover, it is not just the nature of these cognitive
resources that is socially determined, but also the conditions of their use - for
instance, different cognitive strategies are conventionally expected when
someone is reading a poem on the one hand, and a magazine advertisement on the
other. It is important to take account of such differences when analyzing
discourse from a critical perspective".
The main point is that comprehension is the outcome of interactions
between the utterance being interpreted, and members' resources. Fairclough
(1989: 11) argues that attention to the processes of production and comprehension
117
is essential to an understanding of the interrelations of language, power and
ideology, and that this is so because members' resources are socially determined
and ideologically shaped, through their common sense and automatic character
typically disguise that fact. Routine and unselfconscious resort to members'
resources in the ordinary business of discourse is a powerful mechanism for
sustaining the relations of power which ultimately underlie them.
2.3.5. Discourse and Social Conditions:
The fruitless study of language in isolation has led linguists to
acknowledge the importance of considering social context in discourse analysis.
Fairclough (1989: 25) stresses that "discourse involves social conditions which
can be specified as social conditions of production, and social conditions of
interpretation. These social conditions, moreover, relate to three different levels
of social organization: the level of the social situation, or the immediate social
environment in which the discourse occurs; the level of the social institution
which constitutes a wider matrix for the discourse; and the level of the society as
a whole. These social conditions shape the background knowledge of people
bring to production and interpretation, which in turn shape the way in which texts
are produced and interpreted".
Van Dijk (2001: 116) defines discourse "as a communicative event,
occurring in a social situation, featuring a setting, participants in different roles,
actions, and so on". Discourse is a form of social action and "it is inherently part
of, and influenced by social structure, and produced in social interaction" (van
Dijk 1998a: 1).
Social structures are very abstract entities. One can think of a social
structure (such as an economic structure, a social class or kinship system, or a
language) as defining a potential, a set of possibilities. However the relationship
between what is structurally possible and what actually happens, between
118
structures and events, is a very complex one. Events are not in any simple or
direct way the effects of abstract social structures. Their relationship is mediated
– there are intermediate organizational entities between structures and events.
Fairclough (2003: 23) calls these ‘social practices’. Social practices can be
thought of as ways of controlling the selection of certain structural possibilities
and the exclusion of others, and the relation of these selections over time, in
particular areas of social life.
Social practices can be seen as articulations of different types of social
element which are associated with particular areas of social life- the social
practice of classroom teaching in contemporary British education, for example.
The important point about social practices is that they articulate discourse (hence
language) together with other non-disoursal social elements. Fairclough (2003:
25) sees any social practice as an articulation of these elements:
1. action and interaction
2. social relations
3. persons (with beliefs , attitudes , histories etc. )
4. the material world
5. discourse
So, for instance, classroom teaching articulates together particular ways of using
language (on the part of both teachers and learners) with the social relations of the
classroom, the structuring and use of the classroom as a physical space, and so
forth. The relationship between these different elements of social practices is
dialectical, as Harvey argues (Fairclough 20001b, Harvey 1996): this is a way of
putting the apparently paradoxical fact that although the discourse element of a
social practice is not the same as for example its social relations, each in a sense
contains or internalizes the other – social relations are partly discoursal in nature,
discourse is partly social relations. Social events are causally shaped by (networks
of) social practices – social practices define particular ways of acting, and
although actual events may more or less diverge from these definitions and
119
expectations (because they cut across different social practices, and because of
the causal powers of social agents), they are still partly shaped by them.
In representing a social event, as Fairclough (2003: 139) argues, one is
incorporating it within the context of another social event, recontextualizing it.
Particular social fields, particular networks of social practices, and particular
genres as elements of such networks of social practices, have associated with
them specific ‘recontextualizing principles’ (Bernstein 1990). These are specific ‘
principles’ according to which they incorporate and re-contextualize social
events. These principles underlie differences between the ways in which a
particular type of social events is represented in different fields, networks of
social practices, and genres. Elements of social events are selectively ‘filtered ‘
according to such recontextualizing principles (some are excluded, some
included and given greater or lesser prominence). These principles also affect
how concretely or abstractly social events are represented, whether and how
events are evaluated, explained, legitimized , and the order in which events are
represented. In summary:
 Presence : which elements of events, or events in a chain of events, are
present / absent , prominent / backgrounded?
 Abstraction : what grade of abstraction / generalization from concrete
event?
 Arrangement : how are events ordered?
 Additions : what is added in representing events – explanation /
legitimations (reasons , causes , purposes), evaluations?48
There are a number of choices available in the representation
of social actors (participants in social processes). Fairclough (2003)
suggests that an initial question is whether they are included or excluded
in representations of events. If they are included , it may be as nouns or as
pronouns; in one grammatical role as opposed to another (e.g. actor or
120
affected), and more broadly in an ‘activated’ or ‘passivated’ role. They
may be represented personally or impersonally, named (given personal
names) or classified (in terms of class or category , e.g . ‘teachers’),
referred to specifically or generically (e.g. ‘teachers’, meaning teachers in
general). Which social actors get represented in which ways is a matter of
social significance - for instances, if ‘the poor’ are consistently passivated
(represented as subject to the action of others), the implication is that they
are incapable of agency (Fairclough 2003: 145-6, Halliday 1994, Van
Leeuwen 1996).
Space, time and space-times are also routinely constructed in
texts. The term ‘space-time’ is used by Fairclough (2003) to register the
view that it is difficult or even impossible to treat space and time as
different qualities. Space and time are not just naturally given. Space times are social constructs, and in turn different social orders construct
space-times differently, and constructions of space-time are dialectically
interconnected with other social elements in the construction of social
order as networks of social practices. Moreover , a social order constructs
relations between different space-times (e.g. between the local and the
global in comtemporary society), and these relations are a focus of
contestation and struggle. These relations are assumed in a banal way,
and sometimes contested, in our ordinary activities and texts. Text
anlaysis can contribute to researching them (Bakhtin 1981, Bourdieu
1977, Giddens 1991, Harvey 1996).
A general distinction within representations of both time and
space is between representation of location and representations of extent
(duration , distance). Various liguistic features contribute to the
121
representations of time : the tense of verbs (past, present and future time)
; the aspects of verbs , the distinction between progressive and nonprogressive and between perfect and non-perfect, adverbials (e.g. today ,
yesterday) , and conjunctions and prepositions which marks temporal (as
well as spatial) relations (e.g. while , before , after ; between , in front of ,
behind, etc.) (Fairclough 2003: 151, Firth 1957).
According to Harvey (1996) , space and time are social constructs – they
are differently constructed in different societies, change in their construction is
part of social change, and constructions of space and time are contested (for
instance within class struggles in workplaces). Moreover constructions of
space and constructions of tiem are closely interconnected, and it is difficult to
separate them, so that it makes sense to focus on their intersection in the
construction of different space-times. In any social order, there will be
different co-existing space –times ( e.g. the relationship between the global
and the local) , and one matter for analysis is how these different space- times
are connected to each other. Harvey gives the example of trade union
militancy in specific places or localities, and the way the specificity of place is
connected with the national and international space-times of social
movements. Such connections are made routinely in daily life in events and
the ways in which events are chaied together, and are built into social
practices. Harvey’s analysis of space-times can be operationalized in textual
analysis by seeing space-times and relations between space-times as routinely
textured in texts.
So, as Fairclough (1989: 26) explains, in seeing language as discourse and
social practice, one is committing oneself not just to analysing texts, nor just to
analysing processes of production and interpretation, but to analysing the
relationship between texts, processes, and their social conditions, both the
immediate conditions of the situational context and the more remote conditions of
122
institutional and social structure. He further indicates that "discursive practice is
constitutive in both conventional and creative ways: it contributes to reproducing
society (social identities, social relationships, systems of knowledge and belief) as
it is, yet also contributes to transforming society" (Fairclough 1992b: 65). The
following figure (figure 2.4) gives a summary view of Fairclough's view of
relationship between text, processes and their social conditions.
Fig. 2.4 Discourse as text, interaction and context (from Fairclough 1989: 25).
In using the term discourse, we are proposing to regard language use as a
form of social practice, rather than a purely individual activity or a reflex of
situational variables. This implies that there is a dialectical relationship between
discourse and social structure, there being more generally such a relationship
between social practice and social structure: the latter is both a condition for, and
an effect of, the former49. On the one hand, discourse is shaped and constrained
by social structure in the widest sense and at all levels: by class and other social
relations at a societal level, by the relations specific to particular institutions such
as law or education, by systems of classification, by various norms and
conventions of both a discursive and a non-discursive nature, and so forth.
123
Specific discursive events vary in their structural determination according to the
particular social domain or institutional framework in which they are generated.
On the other hand, discourse is socially constructive. Discourse contributes to the
constitution of all those dimensions of social structure which directly or indirectly
shape and constrain it: its own norms and conventions, as well as the relations,
identities and institutions which lie behind them (Fairclough 1992b: 63-4).
Fairclough (1989: 152) explains that situational context for all diesences
includes the system of social and power relationships at the highest, societal,
level. Just as even a single sentence has traditionally been seen to imply a whole
society. This is so because the basic classificatory and typifying schemes for
social practice and discourse upon which all else depends - what he calls social
orders and orders of discourse- are shaped by the societal and institutional
matrices of that single discourse. He (1999: 206) further indicates that "how texts
are produced and interpreted, and therefore how genres and discourses are drawn
upon and combined, depends upon the nature of the social context. Thus a
relatively stable social domain and set of social relations and identities would tend
to predict relatively normative ways of drawing upon orders of discourse, i.e.
ways which entail sticking quite closely (and appropriately) to the conventions of
particular genres and discourse types".50
Hymes (1962) views the role of context in interpretation as, on the one
hand, limits a note which the range of possible interpretations and, on the other, a
role which supports the intended interpretation: "The use of a linguistic form
identifies a range of meanings. A context can support a range of meanings. When a form is
used in a context it eliminates the meanings possible to that context other than those the
form can signal: the context eliminates from consideration the meanings possible to the
form other than those the context can support"(Hymes 1962, quoted in Brown and Yule
1983: 37-8).
Cutting (2002: 2) argues that discourse analysis studies the meaning of
words in context analyzing the parts of meaning that can be explained by
124
knowledge of the physical and social world, and the socio-psychological factors
influencing communications, as well as the knowledge of the time and place in
which the words are uttered or written (Stilwell Peccei 1999, Yule 1996). It
focuses on the meaning of words in interaction and how interactors communicate
more information than the words they use.
So it seems obvious that all the interpreters assume a social context, while
analyzing a discourse, and they need to interpret the situational context as well.
Fairclough (1989: 144-5) claims that participants arrive at interpretations of
situational context partly on the basis of external cues – features of the physical
situation, properties of participants, what has previously been said; partly on the
basis of aspects of their knowledge in terms of which they interpret these cues –
specifically, representations of societal and institutional social orders which allow
them to ascribe the situations they are actually in to particular situation types. The
way participants interpret the situation determines which discourse types are
drawn upon, and this in turn affects the nature of the interpretative procedures
which are drawn upon in textual about which previous (series of) discourses the
current one is connected to, and their assumptions determine what can be taken as
given in the sense of part of common experience, what can be alluded to,
disagreed with, and so on.
Interpretation can be seen as a complex process with various different
aspects. Partly it is a matter of understanding – understanding what words or
sentences or longer stretches of text mean, understanding what speakers or writers
mean (the latter involving problematic attributions of intentions). But it is also
partly a matter of judgment and evaluation: for instance, judging whether
someone is saying something sincerely or not, or seriously or not; judging
whether the claims that are explicitly or implicitly made are true; judging whether
people are speaking or writing in ways which accord with the social, institutional
etc. relations within which the event takes place, or perhaps in ways which
mystify those relations. Furthermore, there is an explanatory element to
125
interpretation – we often try to understand why people are speaking or writing as
they do, and even identify less immediate social causes. Having said this, it is
clear that some texts receive a great deal more interpretative work than others:
some texts are very transparent, other more or less opaque to particular
interpreters; interpretation is sometimes unproblematic and effectively automatic,
but sometimes highly reflexive, involving a great deal of conscious thought about
what is meant, or why something has been said or written as it has (Fairclough
2003:11, Chilton 2004).
For interpreting the situational context, Fairclough (1989: 147-8) suggests
four questions which relate to four main dimensions of situation:
1. What is going on? This can be subdivided into ‘activity’, ‘topic’, and
‘purpose’ (one could certainly make finer discriminations, but these will suffice
for our purposes). The first, activity, is the most general; it allows us to identify a
situation in terms of one of a set of activity types, or distinctive categories of
activity, which are recognized as distinct within a particular social order in a
particular institution. The activity types is likely to constrain the set of possible
topics, though this does not mean topics can be mechanically predicted given the
activity type. Similarly, activity types are also associated with particular
institutionally recognized purposes.
2. Who is involved? The question of ‘who's involved’ and ‘in what
relations' is obviously closely connected, though analytically separable. In the
case of the former, one is trying to specify which ‘subject positions’ are set up;
the set of subject positions differs according to the type of situation. It is
important to note that subject positions are multi-dimensional. Firstly, one
dimension derives from the activity type. Secondly, the institution ascribes social
identities to the subjects who function within it. And thirdly, different situations
have different speaking and listening positions associated with them - speaker,
addressee, hearer, overhearer, spokesperson, and so forth.
126
3. In what relations? When it comes to the question of relations, we look
at subject positions more dynamicaly, in terms of what relationships of power,
social distance, and so forth are set up and enacted in the situation.
4. What is the role of language? Language is being used in an
instrumental way as a part of a wider institutional and bureaucratic objective. The
role of language in this sense not only determines its genre but also its channel,
whether spoken or written language is used.
Answering to these questions helps interpreters arrive at interpretations of the
situational context, and the way in which this determines decisions about which
discourse type is the appropriate one to draw upon.
Fairclough (1989: 37-8) believes that social practice does not merely
reflect a reality which is independent of it, social practice is in an active
relationship to reality and it changes reality. The world that human beings live in
is massively a humanly created world, a world created in the course of social
practice. This applies not only to the social world but also to what we normally
call the natural world for the essence of human labour is that it creates the means
of life for people by transforming the natural world. As far as the social world is
concerned, social structures not only determine social practice, they are also a
product of social practice. And more particularly, social structures not only
determine discourse, they are also a product of discourse. A consequence of
seeing discourse as just a particular form of social practice is perhaps that
language research ought to be more closely in tune with the rhythms of social
research than it has tended to be.
In sum, social structures define what is possible, social events constitute
what is actual and the relationship between potential and actual is mediated by
social practices. Language (more broadly, semiosis) is an element of the social at
each of these levels – languages are a type of social structure, texts are elements
of social events, and orders of discourse are elements of (networks of) social
practices. One consequence is that rather than starting from texts, one starts from
127
social events (and chains and networks of events) , and analyses texts as elements
of social events (Bhaskar 1986, Fairclough et al. 2002, Sayer 2000).
What is important, as Fairclough (1992b: 65) says, is that the relationship
between discourse and social structure should be seen dialectically to avoid the
pitfalls of overemphasizing on the one hand the social determination of discourse,
and on the other hand the construction of the social in discourse. The former turns
discourse into a mere reflection of a deeper social reality, the latter idealistically
represents discourse as the source of the social.
128
Endnotes
1.
The Oxford English Dictionary presents the following definitions for discourse:
"1. Onward course; process or succession of time, events, actions, etc; 2. `The act of the
understanding, by which it passes from premises to consequences' (J.); reasoning,
thought, ratiocination; the faculty of reasoning, reason, rationality (Obs. or arch); 3.a.
Communication of thought by speech; `mutual intercourse of language' (J.); talk,
conversation (arch.); 3.b. The faculty of conversing; conversational power (Obs.); 3.c.
(with a and pl.) A talk, a conversation (arch.); 3.d. A common talk, report, rumour
(Obs.); 4. Narration; a narrative, tale, account (Obs.); 5. A spoken or written treatment
of a subject, in which it is handled or discussed at length; a dissertation, treatise,
homily, sermon, or the like. (Now the prevailing sense.); 6.a. Familiar intercourse,
familiarity; 6.b. Familiarity with a subject; conversancy (in). (Obs.)"
(The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989: 750-1, Vol.IV).
The Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines discourse as:
1. archaic a: the act, power, or faculty of thinking consecutively and logically: the
process of proceeding from one judgment to another in logical sequence: the reasoning
faculty. b: the capacity of proceeding in an orderly and necessary sequence. 2. obs:
progression or course esp. of events. 3.a: verbal interchange of ideas; often:
conversation. b: an instance of such interchange. 4.a: the expression of ideas; esp:
formal and orderly expression in speech or writing. b: a talk or piece of writing in
which a subject is treated at some length usu. in an orderly fashion. 5. obs a: power of
conversing: conversational ability. b: account, narrative, tale. c: social familiarity; also:
familiarity with a subject. 6 linguistics: connected speech or writing consisting of more
than one sentence.
(The Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1986: 647, Vol.I).
The Collins Concise Dictionary defines discourse as:
discourse 1. verbal communication; talk, conversation; 2. a formal treatment of a subject in
speech or writing; 3. a unit of text used by linguists for the analysis of linguistic phenomena that
range over more than one sentence; 4. to discourse: the ability to reason (archaic); 5. to
discourse on/upon: to speak or write about formally; 6. to hold a discussion; 7. to give forth
(music) (archaic)
(14th century, from Medieval Latin. discursus: argument, from Latin, a running to and fro
discurrere)
(Collins Concise English Dictionary, 1988)
According to Longman Dictionary of the English Language discourse means:
129
discourse: 1. a conversation, especially of a formal nature; formal and orderly
expression of
ideas in speech or writing; also such expression in the form of a sermon, treatise, etc.; a
piece or unit of connected speech or writing (Middle English: discours, from Latin: act
of
running about)
(Longman Dictionary of the English Language, 1984)
2.
Fairclough (1992a: 28) says: "Discourse for me is more than just language use: it is language
use, whether speech or writing, seen as a type of social practice". "Discourse constitutes the
social. Three dimensions of the social are distinguished-knowledge, social relations and social
identity - are these correspond respectively to three major functions of language ... Discourse is
shaped by relations of power, and invested with ideologies" (Fairclough 1992a: 8).
3.
However, discourse, as will be readily observed, cannot be pinned down to one meaning, since it
has had a complex history and it is used in a range of different ways by different theorists. As
Michel Foucault (1972: 80) comments: "Instead of gradually reducing the rather fluctuating
meaning of the word `discourse', I believe I have in fact added to its meanings: treating it
sometimes as the general domain of all statements sometimes as an individualizable group of
statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements".
4.
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999: 38) use the term discourse to refer to semiotic elements of
social practices. Discourse therefore includes language (written and spoken and in combination
with other semiotics, for example, with music in singing), nonverbal communication (facial
expressions, body movements, gestures, etc.) and visual images (for instance, photographs,
film). The concept of discourse can be understood as a particular perspective on these various
forms of semiosis - it sees them as moments of social practices in their articulation with other
non-discursive moments.
5.
Vijay Bhatia takes Swales's ideas and shows their application to genres belonging to other
discourse communities, most notably those associated with the legal profession (Bhatia 1983,
1993). From a slightly different perspective, Berkenkotter and Huckin (1995) examine genre
knowledge within disciplinary communication. Tony Dudley-Evans (1994, 1995, with Hopkins
1988), on the other hand, stays with the genres belonging to the academic community. Their
work suggests that moves do not apply as straight forwardly to (some parts of) some genres (see
Hoey 2001: 8-9).
6.
Genres in critical discourse analysis are seen as social actions occurring within particular social
and historical contexts. As Millar argues (1984), the similarities in form and discursive function
are seen as deriving from the similarity in the social action undertaken. Thus texts are looked at
130
not only for the textual regularities they display, and therefore also the generic conventions they
flout, but also for the class, gender, and ethnic biases they incorporate. Thus, the ways in which
the texts position readers or other participants and the ways in which the texts function as
discursive practices are explored (Eggins and Slade 1997: 64).
7.
For example, not only are newspaper articles and poems typically quite different sorts of text,
but they are also produced in quite different ways (e.g. one is a collective product, one an
individual product), have quite different sorts of distribution, and are consumed quite differently
- the latter including quite different protocols for reading and interpreting them (see Fairclough
1992b: 126).
8.
Fariclough uses the term ‘governance’ in a very broad sense for any activity within an institution
or organization directed at regulating or managing some other (network of) social practice(s).
We can contrast genres of governance with ‘practical genres’ - roughly,genres which figure in
doing things rather than governing the way things are done (Fairclough 2003: 32).
9.
Much action and interaction in modern societies in ‘mediated’. Mediated (inter)action is ‘action
at a distance’, action involving participants who are distant from another in space and/ or time,
which depends upon some communication technology (print, television, the internet etc.). The
genres of governance are essentially mediated genres specialized for ‘action at a distance’
(Fairclough 2003). What are usually referred to as ‘the mass media’ are, one might argue, a part
of the apparatus of governance – a media genre such as television news recontextualizes and
transforms other social practices, such as politics and government, and is in turn recontextualized
in the texts and interactions of different practices, including, crucially , everyday life, where it
contributes to the shaping of how we live, and the meanings we give to our lives (Silverstone
1999).
10.
CDA has been working for some time now with the concept of order of discourse as the
discursive aspect of hegemonies open to articulatory struggle and change (Fairclough 1989,
1992c, 1995a). But this conception of the structuring of discursive space has not hitherto been
systematically linked to an overall integrated theory of the structuring of social space and its
regulations. A transdisciplinary connection between CDA and field theory can begin to make
that link, thus providing a chart or topology of social relations where the more general social
theories of time-space, such as those of Harvey and Giddens can be explored in concrete terms
and on the basis of empirical data - as for example with the relationships between the field of
politics and media discussed above (see Calhoun 1995: 207 and Fowler 1997 on Bourdieu's
capacity to mediate between the abstract and the empirical).
131
11.
The word text itself originally meant `something woven' (Latin texere, textum - `to weave'), and
there is a relationship between text, textile (`capable of being woven') and texture (`having the
quality of woven cloth') (Carter et al. 1997: 166).
12.
Text analysis is correspondingly only a part of discourse analysis, which also includes analysis
of productive and interpretative processes. The formal properties of a text can be regarded from
the perspective of discourse analysis on the one hand as traces of the productive process, and on
the other hand as cues in the process of interpretation (Fairclough 1989: 24).
13.
There have been proposals, such as that of van Dijk (1978, 1981a), to establish a distinction
between the two terms that does not coincide with the one sketched here (Kress 1985a: 27).
14.
Hoey (2001: 20) argues that "texts teach us two things. First, texts are indeed the product of an
interaction between their author and their audience, and, second, adults manage the interaction
differently". "The point is that our understanding of a text is partly governed by our ability to
generate sensible hypotheses about what is going to happen in the text that we are reading and by
the attempts we make to find those hypotheses fulfilled. Our understanding is fortunately also
partly governed by our ability to interprete the juxtaposition of sentences in such a way that we
can see how they are related after the event" (Hoey 2001: 24).
15.
It is important to avoid a one-sided emphasis on either repetitive or creative properties of texts.
Any text is part repetition, part creation, and texts are sites of tension between centripetal and
centrifugal pressures (Bakhtin 1981, 1986). Texts vary in the relative weight of these pressures
depending upon their social conditions, so that some texts will be relatively normative whereas
others are relatively creative. Centripetal pressure follow from the need in producing a text to
draw upon given conventions, of two main classes; a language, and an order of discourse - that
is, a historically particular structuring of discursive (text-producing) practices (see further in
Fairclough 1995a: 7-8).
16.
Both British and French attempts suffer from an imbalance between the social and linguistic
elements of the synthesis, though they have complimentary strengths and weaknesses: in the
former linguistic analysis and the treatment of language texts is well developed, but there is little
social theory and the concepts of `ideology' and `power' are used with little discussion or
explanation, whereas in Pecheux's work the social theory is more sophisticated but linguistic
analysis is treated in very narrow, semantic terms. Moreover, both attempts are based upon a
static view of power relation, with an overemphasis upon how the ideological shaping of
language texts contributes to reproducing existing power relations. Little attention is paid to
struggle and transformation in power relations and the role of language therein. There is similar
emphasis upon the description of text production and interpretation, or the tension that
characterize these processes (Fairclough 1992b: 2).
132
17.
Austin developed his more general theory of speech acts.Utterances can perform three kinds of
act. The locutionary act is the act of saying something: producing a series of sounds which mean
something. This is the aspect of language which has been the traditional concern of linguistics.
The perlocutionary act produces some effect on hearers. Persuasion is a perlocutionary act: one
cannot persuade someone of something just by saying I persuade you. Comparable examples are
convincing, annoying, frightening and amusing. This has been the traditional concern of rhetoric:
the effect of language on the audience. The illocutionary act is performed in saying something,
and includes acts such as betting, promising, denying and ordering (Stubbs 1983: 152).
18.
Many scholars have already found speech act theory to be an important source of insight into
discourse (e.g. Labov and Fanshel 1997; Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). Others have made
observations similar to the essential insight of speech act theory, e.g. Halliday's (1978) thesis that
language is the realization of meaning. But just as some have embraced the application of speech
act theory to discourse, others have been more reluctant to transfer insights. Taylor and Cameron
(1987. Chap. 3), for example, have questioned the wisdom of relying so heavily on rules;
Levinson (1983, Chap. 5) has doubted the possibility of specifying mapping relationships
between utterances and actions; Searle (1989) himself has suggested that discourse is more
readily viewed in terms of speaker goals than felicity conditions and rules (Schiffrin 1994: 93).
19.
For example, the following utterance by a client in their data, reported to have been said to her
mother: well, when d' you plan to come home? may be a request for information, a challenge, or
an expression of obligation (Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 16).
20.
Grice proposed a model of communication based on the notion of `cooperative principle', i.e. the
collaborative efforts of rational participants in directing conversation towards attaining a
common goal. In following the cooperative principle, the participants follow a number of
specific maxims (conversational maxims), such as `be informative, be truthful, be relevant, and
be clear'. When the maxims are adhered to, meaning is produced in an unambiguous, direct way.
However, most meaning is implied, through two kinds of implicatures: `conventional
implicatures', which follow from the conventional meanings of words used in utterances, and
`conversational implicatures', which result from the non-observance of one (or more) of the
conversational maxims. When participants assume that the cooperative principle is being
observed but one of the maxims is violated, they seek an indirect interpretation via
conversational implicature (see Jaworski and Coupland 1999: 17).
21.
Goffman (1983: 2) summarises his research programme in one of his later papers as being "to
promote acceptance of the ... face-to-face domain as an analytically viable one - a domain which
might be titled, for want of any happy name, the interaction order - a domain whose preferred
method of study is microanalysis".
133
22.
Linguistics and anthropology are disciplines whose data, problems, methods, and theories are
often seen as clearly distinct from one another. However, one area in which both fields share an
interest is `communication'. Since language is the central means by which people communicate
with one another in everyday life, understanding communication is an important goal for
linguists. The understanding of communication is also important for anthropologists: the way we
communicate is part of our cultural repertoire for making sense of - and interacting with - the
world (Schiffrin 1994: 138).
23.
The impact of the ethnography of communication, its methodology and attendance to contextual,
historical and cultural detail of interaction is felt across most discourse analytic traditions,
especially in interactional sociolinguistics (see, e.g., Rampton 1995; Jaquemet 1996).
24.
Although the ethnography of communication was developed by Hymes in a series of papers
written in the 1960s and 1970s (many of which are collected in Hymes 1974), the roots of this
approach reach back to Edward Sapir's (1933) movement away from the study of sociocultural
form and content as "product" toward their study as "process" (Hymes 1974a: 20).
25.
Hymes developed a schema for analysing context that has the speech event in which language
occurs as its prime unit of analysis: "The speech event is to the analysis of verbal interaction
what the sentence is to grammar ... It represents an extension in the size of the basic analytical
unit from the single utterance to stretches of utterances, as well as a shift in focus from ... text to
... interaction" (Hymes 1972: 17).
26.
For further on ethnography of communication see Mesthrie et al. 2000, Chap. 6.
27.
Garfinkel's term `ethnomethodology' was modelled after terms used in cross-cultural analyses of
ways of "doing" and "knowing". Ethnobotany, for example, is concerned with culturally specific
systems by which people "know about" (classify, label, etc.) plants. Garfinkel (1974: 16) states
that he used the term `ethno' for the following reason: "Ethno seemed to refer, somehow or other,
to the availability to a member of common-sense knowledge of his society as common-sense
knowledge of the `whatever'". The `whatever' encompassed by ethnomethodology is not a
specific body of knowledge about one domain (e.g. plants). Rather it is the "ordinary
arrangement of a set of located practices" (1974: 17). What ethnomethodology is thus concerned
with is: "a member's knowledge of his ordinary affairs, of his own organized enterprises, where
that knowledge is treated by us as part of the same setting that it also makes orderable".
28.
In conversational analysis, the emphasis is not upon building structural models but on the close
observation of the behaviour of participants in talk and on patterns which recur over a wide
range of natural data. The work of Goffman (1976, 1979), and Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson
(1974) is important in the study of conversational norms, turn-taking, and other aspects of
134
spoken interaction (for further see Garfinkel 1967; Turner 1974; Heritage 1984) (McCarthy
1991: 6).
29.
In addition to needing speech representing the vernacular, variationists also need speech
representing a range of styles (because people often shift their pronunciation of sounds that are
undergoing change when they shift styles) as well as a large volume of high-quality recorded
speech from different members of a speech community (to facilitate analysis of the social
distribution of linguistic forms). The technique traditionally used to collect data with these
qualities is the sociolinguistic interview (Labov 1984: 32-42). Sociolinguistic interviews are a
mixed genre of talk. One way in which they differ from other interviews is that they encourage
topic shifting and group interaction among people present. Another difference is that respondents
are encouraged to tell narratives of personal experience. This is not only because narratives
reveal community norms and styles of personal interaction, but also because speakers regularly
shift toward the vernacular when telling a story (Labov 1984: 32). Thus, narratives have another
value for variationists apart from their status as discourse units: the search for the vernacular
within a sociolinguistic interview is believed to be greatly facilitated when a respondent tells a
story (Schiffrin 1994: 289-90).
30.
Ultimately, critical linguistics is probably best understood not as just another approach to
language study, but as an alternative orientation to language study which implies a different
demarcation of language study into approaches or branches, different relationships between
them, and different orientations within each of them. Critical language study would place a
broad conception of the social study of language at the core of language study. It would also
favour certain emphases within the various branches of study (Fairclough 1989: 13).
31.
Access to prestigious discourse types and their powerful subject positions is another arena of
social struggle, as Fairclough (1989: 73) explains. One thinks for instance of the struggles of the
working class through the trade unions and the Labour Party around the turn of the century for
access to political arenas including Parliament, and by implication to the discourses of politics in
the public domain. Or of the struggles of women and black people as well as working-class
people to break into the professions, and more recently the higher echelons of the professions.
32.
The very recent and exciting research of Christine Anthonissen about modes to circumvent
censorship in South Africa during Apartheid manifest a variety of linguistic and semiotic
strategies of power and resistance (see Anthonissen 2001 for an extensive discussion of the
concept of power).
33.
One dimension of power in discourse as Fairclough 1989: 72 claims, is arguably the capacity to
determine to what extent that power will be overtly expressed. It is therefore quite possible for
the expression of power relationships to be played down as a tactic within a strategy for the
135
continued possession and exercise of power. This is a case of hiding power for manipulative
reasons. But can it account for the longer term trend across diverse institutions and indeed across
national and linguistic frontiers? It is hardly credible to interpret it as a international conspiracy!
34.
The idea of `power behind discourse' is that the whole social order of discourse is put together
and held together as a hidden effect of power (Fairclough 1989: 55).
35.
Direct requests are typically expressed grammatically in imperative sentences: type this letter for
me by 5 o'clock, for instance. Indirect requests can be more or less indirect, and they are typically
expressed grammatically in questions of various degrees of elaborateness and corresponding
indirectness: can you type this letter for me by 5 o'clock, do you think you could type this letter
for me by 5 o'clock, could I possibly ask you to type this letter for me by 5 o'clock. There are also
other ways of indirectly requesting - through hints, for instance: I would like to have the letter in
the 5 o'clock post (see Fairclough 1989: Chap. 3).
36.
In some languages such as Persian there are noun phrases such as `your slave', `your servant',
etc. (Jahangiri 1980). This language also has a similar range of noun phrases with
complimentary meanings for referring to the addressee, so that power relations between speaker
and addressee may be defined by the noun phrase referring to both of them (Hudson 1980: 126).
37.
In sociology, two related uses of the term `ideology' occur. The first refers to the systems of
ideas, beliefs, speech and cultural practices that operate to the advantage of a particular social
group. Classical Marxist scholars view ideology as a system of ideas and practices that disguise
(or distort) the social, economic and political relations between dominant and dominated classes.
In the original model of social organization. Marx and Engels analysed ideology as part of the
superstructure rather than the economic base. The neo-Marxists, on the other hand, see ideology
as more fundamental, stressing the dynamic relation between the base-superstructure-ideology
triangle (Mesthrie et al. 2000: 320-1).
38.
Language, typically, is immersed in the ongoing life of a society, as the practical consciousness
of that society. This consciousness is inevitably a partial and false consciousness. Kress and
Hodge (1979) call it ideology, defining `ideology' as a systematic body of ideas, organized from
a particular point of view. Ideology is thus a subsuming category which includes sciences and
metaphysics, as well as political ideologies of various kinds, without implying anything about
their status and reliability as guides to reality. Language is ideological in another, more political,
sense of that word: it involves systematic distortion in the service of class interest. Yet the two
kinds of ideology are not entirely distinct, in theory or in practice. Science is a systematization
from a point of view: so is a political ideology. Political ideology is liable to project fantasy
versions of reality, but science deals in hypothetical constructs whose status is not always so
very different (Kress and Hodge 1979: 6).
136
39.
From a critical linguistic perspective, the term normally describes the ways in which what we
say and think interacts with society. An ideology therefore derives from the taken-for-granted
assumptions, beliefs and value-systems which are shared collectively by social groups. And
when an ideology is the ideology of a particularly powerful social group, it is said to be
dominant. Thus, dominant ideologies are mediated through powerful political and social
institutions like the government, the law and the medical profession. Our perception of these
institutions, moreover, will be shaped in part by the specific linguistic practices of the social
groups who comprise them (Simpson 1993: 5).
40.
In Saussurian linguistics this connection is not and cannot be made. As Eagleton (1980: 165) has
said: "language cannot be, for Saussure, as it can be for Volosinov and Baxtin, a terrain of
ideological struggle. Such a recognition would involve, precisely, the displacement and
rearticulation of formal linguistic difference at the level of other theoretical practices. If the
dictionary informs us that the opposite of capitalism is totalitarianism, we will need more than
the Course of General Linguistics to illuminate that particular diacritical formulation".
41.
There is not enough space to explain in detail here how language constructs ideology, but the
basis of the mechanism may be mentioned and illustrated at the level of vocabulary. One of the
fundamental principles of modern linguistics, enunciated by Ferdinand de Saussure (see 1974
edition), is that linguistic signs are arbitrary: There is no essential connection between ideas or
things outside language and the words that designate them. Saussure and others (Leach 1964;
Sapir 1949; Whorf 1956) have assumed that this semiotic arbitrariness allows different cultures
to chop up `the world' into unpredictably variable conceptual categories. Certainly semiotic
arbitrariness is a precondition for differences in the way the world gets coded. In support of this
claim, the difficulties of translating between languages and the marked differences between
languages in particular areas of vocabulary such as kinship terminology and colour terminology
have been cited (Fowler 1985: 64-5).
42. Claims to discover ideological processes solely through text analysis run into the problem now familiar in media
sociology, that text `consumers' (readers, viewers) appear sometimes to be quite immune to effects of ideologies
which are supposedly `in' the texts (Morley 1980).
43. Texts are always a mixture of explicit and implicit meaning – what is said and what is presupposed , taken as given.
Sometimes what is presupposed is uncontentious- simply common-sense knowledge. But many presuppositions are
contenous- they take for granted things which are questionable. Presuppositions are marked in various ways in texts- a
definite article (‘the’) is most common marker (Fairclough 2000b). Presuppositions in particular are closely linked
with interactive considerations and also with other forms of cognitive structures. Fro instance presuppositions call up
knowledge bases already held in long-term memory , as well as short-term memory of the ongoing speech context
(van Dijk 2002).
Chilton (2004 : 64) argues that presuppositions
can be seen as a way of strategically ‘packaging’ information. Some information (the existence of a referent or a
proposition can be treated as commonly known or accepted – that is , as old information. It is not known or accepted,
it seems unreasonable to presuppose it. He (2004) also claims that presuppositions are not made explicit unless they
137
are being challenged or rejected.
44. It is in the nature of ideology to "naturalize" itself. And thus critical discourse analysis involves "denaturalizing"
everyday discourse, to expose the ideologies expressed and therefore the interests served. To achieve this
denaturalization, Fairclough (1995: 7) argues that: "Textual analysis demands diversity of focus not only with respect
to functions but also with respect to levels of analysis".
45. For example, knowing about the principles and norms of language used in lectures involves
knowing a way of using language in that context which serves the interests of one social group
(academics, whose position as an educated authority is maintained, at the expense of another
(students, who would certainly learn more through other modes and under other conditions).
However, participants generally notice neither the social determinations of their speech (e.g. that
I behave as a student in lectures in conformity to norms established by an interested social group,
academics), nor the social effects (e.g. surrendering of control over my own acquisition of
knowledge) (Eggins and Slade 1997: 62).
46. Members' resources are often called background knowledge, but this term is unduly restrictive
that many of these assumptions are ideological, which makes knowledge a misleading term
(Fairclough 1989: 141-2).
47. Schemata are a part of members' resources and frames and scripts are closely related notions.
They constitute a family of types of mental representation of aspects of the world, and share the
property of mental representations in general of being ideologically variable. Whereas schemata
represent modes of social behaviour, frames represent the entities that populate the (natural and
social) world. A frame is a representation of whatever can figure as a topic, or `subject matter', or
`referent' within an activity. Frames can represent types of person or other animate beings (a
woman, a politician, a dog, etc.) or inanimate objects (a house, a computer, etc.), or processes
(running, attacking, dying, etc.), or abstract concepts (democracy, love, etc.). They can also
represent complex processes or series of events which involve combinations of such entities: an
air crash, a car factory (car production), a thunderstorm.
While frames represent the entities which can be evoked or referred to in the activities
represented by schemata, scripts represent the subjects who are involved in these activities, and
their relationships. They typify the ways in which specific classes of subject behave in social
activities, and how members of specific classes of subjects behave towrds each other - how they
conduct relationships. For instance, people have scripts for a doctor, for a patient, and for how a
doctor and a patient can be expected to interact.
There are overlaps between scripts and frames (there is a close connection between the
script for a class of subject and the frame for the corresponding class of animate being, for
instance), and between schemata and frames (frames for complex processes are not far from
schemata, for instance). This is to be expected, because the three terms identify three very broad
138
dimensions of a highly complex network of mental representations. Nevertheless, the three do
vary independently to some extent, and it therefore does make sense to distinguish them in
analysis. Textual cues evoke schemata, frames, or scripts, and these set up expectations which
colour the way in which subsequent textual cues are interpreted (Fairclough 1989: 158-9).
48. Van Leewan (1993) develops a similar view of representation in term of the ‘deletion’,
‘addition’, ‘substitution’, and ‘rearrangement’ of elements.
49. The relationship between discourse and social structure is not a one-way relationship. As well as
being determined by social structures, discourse has effects upon social structures and
contributes to the achievement of social continuity or social change.
50. Fairclough (1999) believes that intertextual analysis has an important mediating role in linking
text to context. What intertextual analysis draws attention to is the discursive processes of text
producers and interpreters, how they draw upon the repertoires of genres and discourses
available within orders of discourse, generating variable configurations of these resources which
are realized in the forms of texts.
CHAPTER THREE
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS : A FRAMEWORK
CDA in all of its various forms understands itself to be strongly based in
theory. To which theories do the different methods refer? Here we find a wide
variety of theories, ranging from microsociological perspectives (Ron Scollon) to
theories on society and power in Foucault’s tradition (Jager, Fairclough, Wodak),
theories of social cognition (van Dijk and Chilton) and grammar, as well as
individual concepts that are borrowed from larger theoretical traditions. As a first
step, this chapter aims to systematize these different theoretical influences.
A second step relates to the problem of operationalizing theoretical
concepts. The primary issue here is how the various methods of CDA are able to
translate their theoretical claims into instruments and methods of analysis. In
particular, the emphasis is on the mediation between grand theories as applied to
society at large and concrete instances of social interaction, the foci of analysis
139
for CDA. As far as methodology is concerned, there are several perspectives
within CDA: in addition to those which can be described primarily as variations
from hermeneutics, one finds interpretative perspectives with various emphases,
among them even quantitative procedures.
In empirical social research a distinction can be made between elicitation
and evaluation methods: between ways of collecting data (in the laboratory or by
fieldwork) and procedures that have been developed for the analysis of collected
data. Methodical procedures for the collection of data organize observation, while
evaluation methods regulate the transformation of data into information and
further restrict the opportunities for inference and interpretation. The distinction
between these two tasks of data collection and analysis does not necessarily mean
that there are two separate steps: CDA sees itself more in the tradition of
Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967), where data collection is not a phase
that must be finished before analysis starts but might be a permanently ongoing
procedure (Meyer 2001: 18).
This connection between theory and discourse can be described in terms of
the model for theoretical and methodological research procedures that is
illustrated in figure 3.1.
140
Fig. 3.1. Empirical research as a circular process (from Meyer 2001: 19)
3.1. Theoretical grounding:
Among the different positions within CDA presented in this section,
theoretical components of very different origins have been adopted. Moreover
there is no guiding theoretical viewpoint that is used consistently within CDA,
nor do the CDA protagonists proceed consistently from the area of theory to the
field of discourse and then back to theory.
Within the CDA approaches presented here the reader may find all the
theoretical levels of sociological and socio-psychological theory (the concept of
different theoretical levels is in the tradition of Merton 1967: 39-72).
1. Epistemology covers theories which provide models of the conditions,
contingencies and limits of human perception in general and scientific perception
in particular.
2. General social theories, often called ‘grand theories’, try to conceptualize
relations between social structure and social action and thus link micro- and
macro-sociological phenomena. Within this level one can distinguish between the
more structuralist and the more individualist approaches. To put it very simply,
the former provide topdown explanations (structure  action), whereas the latter
prefer bottom-up explanations (action  structure). Many modern theories try to
reconcile these positions and imply some kind of circularity between social action
and social structure.
3. Middle-range theories focus either upon specific social phenomena (such
as conflict, cognition, social networks), or on specific subsystems of society (for
example, economy, politics, religion).
4. Micro-sociological theories try to explain social interaction, for example
the resolution of the double contingency problem (Parsons and Shils 1951: 3-29)
141
or the reconstruction of everyday procedures which members of a society use to
create their own social order, which is the objective of ethnomethodology.
5. Socio-psychological theories concentrate upon the social conditions of
emotion and cognition and, compared to micro-sociology, prefer causal
explanations to hermeneutic understanding of meaning.
6. Discourse theories aim at the conceptualization of discourse as a social
phenomenon and try to explain its genesis and its structure.
7. Linguistic theories, for example, theories of argumentation, of grammar,
of rhetoric, try to describe and explain the pattern specific to language systems
and verbal communication.
All these theoretical levels can be found in CDA. At first glance it seems
that the unifying parentheses of CDA are rather the specifics of research
questions than the theoretical positioning. In the following, a short outline of the
theoretical positions and methodological objectives of CDA approaches will be
presented.
Among other scholars Jager is one of the closest to the origin of the notion
of discourse, that is to Foucault’s structuralist explanations of discursive
phenomena. Jager (2001) detects a blind spot in Foucault’ theory, namely the
mediation between subject and object, between discursive and non-discursive
practices (activities) on the one hand and manifestations (objects) on the other1.
He strategically inserts Aleksej Leontjew’s (for example, 1982) activity theory.
The mediation between the triangle’s corners is performed by work, activity and
non-discursive practices. Thus the social acting subject becomes the link between
discourse and reality, a theoretical movement which moderates the severeness of
the Foucaultian structuralism. Jager’s epistemological position is based upon
Ernesto Laclau’s (1981, 1985) social constructivism, which denies any societal
reality that is determined outside the discursive: "If the discourse changes, the
object not only changes its meaning, but it becomes a different object, it loses its
previous identity" (Jager 2001: 43). That way Jager introduces a dualism of
142
discourse on reality, where the role of social actors is strongly reminiscent of
Umberto Eco’s (1985) ‘Lector in fabula’.
Jager applies Jurgen Link’s notion of discourse as ‘a consolidated concept
of speech’ which determines and consolidates action and exercises power. He
tries to reposition Foucault’s definition of discourse which is too strongly caught
up in the verbal. For this reason he reinvents Foucault’s concept of the
‘dispositive’ as a shell which envelops both discursive and non-discursive
practices and materializations. Jager’s method explicitly aims at the analysis of
discourses and dispositives. Yet he admits difficulties with the determination of
the dispositive which are connected to the lack of determination of the links
between the triangle’s corners.
Whereas Jager refers mainly to general social theories, van Dijk is rather
on the socio-psychological side of the CDA field. He sees theory not as the
classical relationship of causal hypotheses but rather as a framework
systematizing phenomena of social reality. He (1989a) claims that critical
research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to
effectively realize its aims:
1. As is often the case for more marginal research tradition, CDA research
has to be ‘better’ than other research in order to be accepted.
2. It focuses primarily on ‘social problems’ and political issues, rather than
on current paradigms and fashions.
3. Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually
‘multidisciplinary’.
4. Rather than to merely ‘describe’ discourse structures, it tries to ‘explain’
them in terms of properties of social interaction and especially social
structure.
5. More specifically CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact,
confirm, legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of ‘power’ and
‘dominance’ in society (van Dijk 1998a: 1).
143
Van Dijk (2001: 96) explains that CDA focuses on social problems, and
especially on the role of discourse in the production and reproduction of power
abuse or domination. Whenever possible, it does so from a perspective that is
consistent with the best interests of dominated groups. It takes the experiences
and opinions of members of such groups seriously, and supports their struggle
against inequality. That is, CDA research combines what perhaps somewhat
pompously used to be called ‘solidarity with the oppressed’ with an attitude of
opposition and dissent against those who abuse text and talk in order to establish,
confirm or legitimate their abuse of power. Unlike much other scholarship, CDA
does not deny but explicitly defines and defends its own sociopolitical position.
That is, CDA is biased - and proud of it.
His focal triad is construed between discourse, cognition and society. He
defines discourse as a communicative event, including conversational interaction,
written text, as well as associated gestures, facework, typographical layout,
images and any other ‘semiotic’ or multimedia dimension of signification. Van
Dijk relies on socio-cognitive theory splints and understands linguistics in a broad
‘structural-functional’ sense. He argues that CDA should be based on a sound
theory of context. Within this he claims that the theory of social representations
plays a main part.
Social actors involved in discourse do not exclusively make use of their
individual experiences and strategies; they mainly rely upon collective frames of
perceptions, called social representations. These socially shared perceptions form
the link between social system and the individual cognitive system and perform
the translation, homogenization and co-ordination between external requirements
and subjective experience. This assumption is not new. Already in the first half of
the nineteenth century Durkheim (1933, for example) pointed out the significance
of collective ideas which help societies to consciousness and reification of social
norms. Moscovici (1981) coined the notion of social representations as a bulk of
concepts, opinions, attitudes, evaluations, images and explanations which result
144
from daily life and are sustained by communication. Social representations are
shared amongst members of a social group2. Thus they form a core element of the
individual’s social identity (Wagner 1994: 132). Social representations are bound
to specific social groups and not spanning society as a whole. They are dynamic
constructs and subject to permanent change. Together they constitute a
hierarchical order of mutual dependency (Duveen and Lloyd 1990).
van Dijk, however, does not explicitly refer to this tradition but rather to
socio-psychological research: in line with current theorizing in cognitive
psychology, such mental constructs have the form of a specific kind of mental
model, as stored in episodic memory - the part of long-term memory in which
people store their personal experiences (van Dijk 2001: 112). He introduces the
concept of context models, which are understood as mental representations of the
structures of the communicative situation that are discursively relevant for a
participant. These context models control the ‘pragmatic’ part of discourse,
whereas event models do so with the ‘semantic’ part. Van Dijk names three forms
of social representations relevant to the understanding of discourse: firstly
knowledge (personal, group, cultural), secondly attitudes (not in the sociopsychological understanding), and thirdly ideologies. Discourses take place
within society, and can only be understood in the interplay of social situation,
action, actor and societal structures. Thus, unlike Jager, he conceptualizes the
influence of social structure via social representations.
Scollon can be seen as the micro-sociologist within the field of discourse
analysis. He calls his approach mediated discourse analysis (henceforth MDA),
which shares the goals of CDA but ’strategizes to reformulate the object of study
from a focus on the discourses of social issues to a focus on the social actions
through which social actors produce the histories and habitus of their daily lives
which is the ground in which society is produced and reproduced’ (Scollon
2001a: 140). MDA aims to establish the links between discourses and social
actions where the focus of analysis overtly is upon action. Scollon emphasizes
145
that all social actions are mediated by cultural tools or mediational means,
whereby the most salient and perhaps most common of these mediational means
is language or, to use the term Scollon prefers, discourse. Although this is only
one of the mediational means in MDA, there remains a central interest in
discourse mainly on empirical grounds.
Scollon (2001a: 145-6) theoretically links the micro level of action with
the macro level of communities by means of six concepts:
1- mediated action;
2- site of engagement;
3- mediational means;
4- practices;
5- the nexus of practice;
6- the community of practice.
Using the concept of mediation and mediational means (cultural tools), Scollon
not only explains the formation of practices out of singular actions but also builds
his micro-macro link, meticulously avoiding the notion of social structure.
The methodical objective of MDA is "to provide a set of heuristics by
which the researcher can narrow the scope of what must be analyzed to achieve
an understanding of mediated actions even knowing that mediated actions occur
in real time, are unique and unrepeatable and therefore must be ‘caught’ in action
to be analyzed. In a real sense it is a matter of structuring the research activities to
be in the right place at the right time" (Scollon 2001a: 152). The more general
goal of MDA is to explicate the link between broad social issues and the everyday
talk and writing, and to arrive at a richer understanding of the history of the
practice within the habitus of the participants in a particular social action.
Wodak, together with Reisigl (Reisigl and Wodak 2001), explicitly tries to
establish a theory of discourse. They understand discourse as "a complex bundle
of simultaneous and sequential interrelated linguistic acts, which manifest
themselves within and across the social fields of action as thematically
146
interrelated semiotic, oral or written tokens, very often as ‘texts’, that belong to
specific semiotic types, i.e. genres" (Wodak 2001b: 66).
In investigating historical, organizational and political topics and texts, the
discourse-historical approach attempts to integrate a large quantity of available
knowledge about the historical sources and the background of the social and
political fields in which discursive events are embedded. Further, it analyzes the
historical dimension of discursive actions by exploring the ways in which
particular genres of discourse are subject to diachronic change (Wodak et al.
1990, Wodak et al. 1994). Lastly, and most importantly, ’this is not only viewed
as information: at this point we integrate social theories to be able to explain the
so-called context’ (Wodak 2001b: 65).
In the discourse-historical approach the connection between fields of
action (Girnth 1996), genres, discourses and texts is described and modelled.
Although the discourse-historical approach is indebted to critical theory, general
social theory plays a negligible part compared with the discourse model
mentioned above and historical analysis: context is understood mainly
historically. To this extent Wodak agrees with Mouzelis’s (1995) severe
diagnosis of social research. She consistently follows his recommendations: not
to exhaust oneself in theoretical labyrinths, not to invest too much in the
operationalization of unoperationalizable ‘grand theories’, but rather to develop
conceptual tools relevant for specific social problems. The discourse-historical
approach finds its focal point in the field of politics, where it tries to develop
conceptual frameworks for political discourse. Wodak tries to fit linguistic
theories into her model of discourse, and she makes extensive use of
argumentation theory (list of topoi). This does not necessarily mean that the
concepts resulting from argumentation theory fit well with other research
questions. Wodak seems strongly committed to a pragmatic approach (Meyer
2001: 22).
147
Although this is not expressed explicitly, Fairclough takes a specific
middle-range theory position: he focuses upon social conflict in the Marxist
tradition and tries to detect its linguistic manifestations in discourses, in particular
elements of dominance, difference and resistance. According to Fairclough, every
social practice has a semiotic element. Productive activity, the means of
production, social relations, social identities, cultural values, consciousness, and
semiosis are dialectically related elements of social practice3. He (2001a)
understands CDA as the analysis of the dialectical relationships between semiosis
(including language) and other elements of social practices. These semiotic
aspects of social practice are responsible for the constitution of genres and styles.
The semiotic aspect of social order is called the order of discourse. His approach
to CDA oscillates between a focus on structure and a focus on action. Both
strategies ought to be problem based: by all means CDA should pursue
emancipatory objectives, and should be focused upon the problems confronting
what can loosely be referred to as the ‘losers’ within particular forms of social
life.
Fairclough draws upon a particular linguistic theory, systemic functional
linguistic (Halliday 1985), which analyses language as shaped (even in its
grammar) by the social functions it has come to serve.
Fairclough (1989: 22-3) has glossed the discourse view of language as
‘language as a form of social practice’. This firstly implies that language is a part
of society, and not somehow external to it. Secondly, that language is a social
process. And thirdly, that language is a socially conditioned process, conditioned
that is by other (non-linguistic) parts of society. His view is that there is not an
external relationship between language and society, but an internal and dialectical
relationship. Language is a part of society: linguistic phenomena are social
phenomena of a special sort, and social phenomena are (in part) linguistic
phenomena.
148
Linguistic phenomena are social in the sense that whenever people speak
or listen or write or read, they do so in ways which are determined socially and
have social effects. Social phenomena are linguistic, on the other hand, in the
sense that the language activity which goes on in social contexts (as all language
activity does) is not merely a reflection or expression of social processes and
practices, it is a part of those processes and practices.
Fairclough’s (1992b) attempt at drawing together language analysis and
social theory centers upon a combination of this more social-theoretical sense of
‘discourse’ with the ‘text-and-interaction’ sense in linguistically-oriented
discourse analysis. This concept of discourse presents discourse as
simultaneously involving three dimensions:
1- a language text, which may be spoken, written or signed;
2- discoursive practice (involving text production and text interpretation);
3- sociocultural practice (involving wider social and political relations).
Figure 3.2 shows Fairclough’s three-dimensional model of discourse.
Text
Discursive practice
(production,
distribution,
Social Practice
Fig.3.2 A three-layered model of discourse (from Fairclough 1992b: 73).
149
Any discourse event (i.e. any instance of discourse) is seen as being
simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance
of social practice. The text dimension attends to language analysis of texts. The
discursive practice dimension specifies the nature of the processes of text
production and interpretation. The social practice dimension attends to issues of
concern in social analysis such as institutional and organizational circumstances
of the discursive event and how that shapes the nature of discursive practice, and
the constitutive/constructive effects of discourse (Fairclough 1992b: 4).
Building on Foucault (1984), Fairclough introduces the concept of an
‘order of discourse’ which relates discourse practices to what might be termed
‘the social order’. Not all types of discourse are equally validated in different
social and institutional settings. There is often a hierarchy of acceptability4.
Particular social settings and institutions may have different preferred orders of
discourse. To a large extent, these institutions are defined by their particular
order of discourses. The historical shift in many societies from more explicit to
more implicit exercise of power means that common-sense notions of language
practices (for example in the classroom, or in lawyers’ or doctors’ rooms) become
important in sustaining and reproducing power relations. Fairclough stresses a
critical approach to language interaction known as ‘critical language awareness’
(see Fairclough 1992c, 2003).
3.2. Methodology in Data Collection:
The conclusion made above that CDA does not constitute a well-defined
empirical method but rather a cluster of approaches with a similar theoretical base
and similar research questions becomes most obvious here: there is no typical
CDA way of collecting data5. Some authors do not even mention data collection
methods and others rely strongly on traditions based outside the sociolinguistic
field6. In any case, in a way similar to grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967),
150
data collection is not considered to be a specific phase that must be completed
before analysis begins: after the first collection exercise it is a matter of carrying
out the first analyses, finding indicators for particular concepts, expanding
concepts into categories and, on the basis of these results, collecting further data
(theoretical sampling). In this mode of procedure, data collection is never
completely excluded, and new questions always arise which can only be dealt
with if new data are collected or earlier data are re-examined (Strauss 1987: 56).
Whereas Jager (2001) at least suggests a concentration on texts extracted
from television and press reports, no evidence can be found concerning data
collection requirements in the contributions of van Dijk and Fairclough. Yet the
text examples selected by these authors might indicate that they also prefer mass
media coverage (van Dijk 1988b, 1988c, Fairclough 1998). This focus embodies
specific strengths, in particular it provides non-reactive data (Webb 1966), and
certain weaknesses, for restrictions concerning the research questions have to be
accommodated. Wodak (2001b) postulates that CDA studies always incorporate
fieldwork and ethnography in order to explore the object under investigation as a
precondition for any further analysis and theorizing.
The most detailed discussion of this methodical step is provided by
Scollon (2001a). He argues that, at the least, participant observation is the
primary research tool for eliciting the data needed for an MDA. This argument is
in a strong ethnographic tradition. Even though observational methods play an
important role in MDA, this does not mean that Scollon excludes the residual
diversity of structured and unstructured methods:
1- To identify participants and mediational means relevant for the research question he even proposes surveys.
a. Scene surveys should narrow down the scope of the research to a few highly alient
places or scenes, in which the actions we are interested in are taking place.
b. Event and action surveys aim to identify the specific social actions taking place within the scenes we have
identified which are of relevance to the study of mediated action.
2- Focus groups should be identified and thoroughly analyzed. The purpose of such groups at this stage is twofold:
151
a.‘The researcher wants to know to what extent the identification of specific scenes, media, and actions have
reliability and validity for members of the group under study’, and
b.‘the researcher wants to understand how important or salient the categories which have been identified are for
the population being studied’ (Scollon 2001a: 158).
These methods need not necessarily be applied stepwise but also
simultaneously. Even media analysis has its place in Scollon’s methodology,
although ‘media content surveys’ and ‘what’s in the news’ surveys do not play
the crucial part that mass media coverage plays in other CDA approaches.
In a nutshell we might conclude that, with the exception of Scollon’s
MDA, there is little discussion about statistical or theoretical representativeness
of the material analyzed7. Although there are no explicit statements about this
issue, one might assume that many CDA studies (perhaps with the exception of
van Dijk and Wodak) mostly deal with only small corpora which are usually
regarded as being typical of certain discourses.
3.3. Methodology in Operationalization and Analysis:
The linguistic character of CDA becomes evident in the previous sections,
because in contrast to other approaches to text and discourse analysis (for
example, content analysis, grounded theory, conversation analysis; see Titscher et
al. 2000), CDA strongly relies on linguistic categories. This does not mean that
topics and contents play no role at all, but that the core operationalizations depend
on linguistic concepts such as actors, mode, time, tense, argumentation, and so
on. Nevertheless a definitive list of the linguistic devices relevant for CDA cannot
be given, since their selection mainly depends on the specific research questions
(Meyer 2001: 25).
Jager distinguishes between firstly a more content oriented step of
structure analysis and secondly a more language oriented step of fine analysis.
Within structure analysis a characterization of the media and the general themes
152
has to be made. Within the fine analysis he focuses upon context, text surface and
rhetorical means. Examples of linguistic instruments are figurativeness,
vocabulary and argumentation types. He takes into account both qualitative and
quantitative aspects of these features: Jager analyzes
 the kind and form of argumentation;
 certan argumentation strategies;
 the intrinsic logic and composition of texts;
 implications and insinuations that are implicit in some way;
 the collective symbolism or ‘figurativeness’, symbolism, metaphorism, and
so on both in language and in graphic contexts (statistics, photographs,
pictures, caricatures and so on);
 idioms, sayings, cliches, vocabulary and style;
 actors (persons, pronominal structure);
 references, for example to (the) science(s);
 particulrs on the sources of knowledge, and so on.
He (2001) provides an analytical guidelines for processing material. The
following list, proposed by Jager (2001: 54-6), incorporates a suggestion for the
analytical procedure:
1- Processing material for the structure analysis, e.g. of the entire selected
discourse strand of a newspaper/magazine
1.1-
General
characterization
of
the
newspaper:
political
localization, readership, circulation, etc.
1.2- Overview of (e.g.) the medium in question reviewing an entire
year of the selected theme
1.2.1- List of the articles covered which are relevant to the
theme with corresponding particulrs of the bibliographic
data: abbreviated note form on the theme; particulrs of
the kind of journalistic text, possible peculiarities;
153
particulrs of the section in which the article appears in
the case of weekly newspapers/ magazines, etc.
1.2.2- Summary of the theme addressed/covered by the
newspaper/ magazine; qualitative evaluation; striking
absence of certain themes which had been addressed in
other years of publication investigated; presentation,
timing and frequency of certain themes with a view to
possible discursive events
1.2.3- Allocation
of
single
themes
to
thematic
areas
(concerning the biopolitical discourse strand, for
instance, to the following sub-themes: ‘illness/health’,
‘birth/life’, ‘death/dying’, ‘diet’, ‘economy’, ‘bioethics/concept of what is human’ and to possible
discourse strand entanglements (for instance: ‘economy’,
‘fascism’, ‘ethics/morals’, etc.)
1.3- Summary of 1.1 and 1.2: determination of the discourse
position of the newspaper/magazine with regard to the theme
in question
2- Processing the material for the sample fine analysis of discourse
fragments of an article or a series of articles and so on, which is/are as
typical as possible of the discourse position of the newspaper
2.1- Institutional framework: ‘context’
2.1.1- Justification of the selection of the (typical)
article(s)
2.1.2- Author (function and significance for the
newspaper, special areas of coverage, etc.)
2.1.3- Cause of the article
2.1.4- In which section of the newspaper/magazine does
the article appear?
154
2.2- Text ‘surface’
2.2.1- Graphic layout, including pictures and graphs
2.2.2- Headlines, headings, subheadings
2.2.3- Structure of the article in units of meaning
2.2.4- Themes addressed by the article (discourse
fragments) (other themes touched upon, overlapping)
2.3- Rhetorical means
2.3.1- Kind and form of argumentation, argumentation
strategies
2.3.2- Logic and composition
2.3.3- Implications and insinuations
2.3.4- Collective symbolism or figurativeness, symbolism,
metaphorism, etc., in language and graphic contexts
(statistics, photographs, pictures, caricatures, etc.)
2.3.5- Idioms, sayings, cliches
2.3.6- Vocabulary and style
2.3.7- Players (persons, pronominal structure)
2.3.8- References: to (the) science(s), particulars
of the sources of knowledge and so on
2.4- Ideological statements based on contents
2.4.1- What notion of, for instance, the human
being, underlies the article/does the article convey?
2.4.2- What kind of understanding of, for
instance, society, underlies the article/does the article
convey?
2.4.3- What kind of understanding of, for
instance, technology underlies the article/does the article
convey?
155
2.4.4- What is the future perspective which the
article sets out?
2.5- Other striking issues
2.6- Summary: localization of the article in the discourse strand
(see 1.3 above); the ‘argument’, the major statement of the
entire article; its general ‘message’
2.7- Concluding interpretation of the entire discourse strand
investigated with reference to the processed material used
(structure and fine analysis/ analyses).
van Dijk generally argues, that ‘a complete discourse analysis of a large corpus
of text or talk, as we often have in CDA research, is therefore totally out of the
question’ (van Dijk 2001: 99). If the focus of research is on the ways in which
some speakers or writers exercise power in or by their discourse, the focus of
study will in practice be on those properties that can vary as a function of social
power. Van Dijk therefore suggests that the analysis should concentrate upon the
following linguistic markers:
1- stress and intonation;
2- word order;
3- lexical style;
4- coherence;
5- local semantic moves such as disclaimers;
6- topic choice;
7- speech acts;
8- schematic organization;
9- rhetorical figures;
10- syntactic structures;
11- propositional structures;
12- turn takings;
13- repairs;
156
14- hesitation.
He supposes that most of these are examples of forms of interaction which are
in principle susceptible to speaker control, but less consciously controlled or
controllable by the speakers. Other structures, such as the form of words and
many sentence structures are grammatically obligatory and contextually invariant,
and hence usually not subject to speaker control and social power. van Dijk
(2001) further suggests six steps in an analysis:
1- analysis of semantic macrostructures: topics and macropropositions;
2- analysis of local meanings, where the many forms of implicit or indirect
meanings, such as implications, presuppositions, allusions, vagueness,
omissions and polarizations are especially interesting;
3- analysis of ‘subtle’ formal structures: here most of the linguistic markers
mentioned are analyzed;
4- analysis of global and local discourse forms of formats;
5- analysis of specific linguistic realizations, for example, hyperboles, litotes;
6- analysis of context (quoted from Meyer 2001: 26).
In their studies of racist and discriminatory discourse Wodak and Reisigl
(Reisigl and Wodak 2001) developed a four-step strategy of analysis: after firstly
having established the specific contents or topics of a specific discourse with
racist, anti-semitic, nationalist or ethnicist ingredients, secondly, the discursive
strategies (including argumentation strategies) were investigated. Then thirdly,
the linguistic means (as types) and finally the specific, context-dependent
linguistic realizations (as tokens) of the discriminatory stereotypes were
examined.
In these studies the discourse-historical approach concentrates upon the
following discursive strategies:
1- referential strategy or strategy of nomination; where the linguistic devices of
interest are membership categorization (Sacks 1992, Bakker 1997),
metaphors and metonymies and synecdoches;
157
2- strategies of predication which appear in stereotypical, evaluative
attributions of positive or negative traits and implicit or explicit predicates;
3- strategies of argumentation which are reflected in certain topoi used to
justify political inclusion or exclusion;
4- strategies of perspectivation, framing or discourse representation use means
of reporting, description, narration or quotation of events and utterances;
5- strategies of intensification and mitigation try to intensify or mitigate the
illocutionary force of utterances (Ng and Bradac 1993).
This methodology aims to be abductive and pragmatic, because the categories
of analysis are first developed in line with the research questions, and a constant
movement back and forth between theory and empirical data is suggested. The
historical context is always analyzed and integrated into the interpretation,
although there exists no stringent procedure for this task.
Wodak (2001b: 93) summarizes the most important procedures to be used in
the analysis of specific texts:
1. Sample information about the co- and context of the text (social, political,
historical, psychological, and so on).
2. Once the genre and discourse to which the text belongs have been
established,
sample
more
ethnographic
information;
establish
interdiscursivity and intertextuality (texts on similar topics, texts with
similar arguments, macro-topics, fields of action, genres).
3. From the problem under investigation, formulate precise research questions
and explore neighbouring fields for explanatory theories and theoretical
aspects.
4. Operationalize the research question into linguistic categories.
5. Apply these categories sequentially on to the text while using theoretical
approaches to interpret the meanings resulting from the research questions.
6. Draw up the context diagram for the specific text and the fields of actions.
158
7. Make an extensive interpretation while returning to the research questions
and to the problem under investigation.
These steps are taken several times, always coming and going between text,
ethnography, theories and analysis. More importantly, the decisions that are
constantly required and taken, have to be made explicit and have to be justified.
The mediation between theories and empirical analysis, between social and the
text, will never be implemented totally. A gap exists, and hermeneutics and
interpretatory devices are always needed to bridge the gap.
In his MDA approach Scollon (2001a: 152-3) focuses on four main types of
data:
 members’ generalizations;
 neutral (‘objective’) observations;
 individual member’s experience;
 observer’s interactions with members (participant observation).
Within the approaches selected, Scollon provides the most detailed and
generalized analytical scheme, which is tightly linked to his theoretical frame.
Thus he (2001a: 162-81) analyzes firstly actions, secondly practices, thirdly
mediational means, fourthly nexus of practice and finally community of practice:
1- Action: what is the action? What chain or chains of mediated actions are
relevant? What is the ‘funnel of commitment’? What narrative and
anticipatory discourses provide a metadiscursive or reflective structure?
2- Practice: what are the practices which intersect to produce this site of
engagement? What histories in habitus do these practices have, that is what
is their ontogenesis? In what other actions are these practices formative?
3- Mediational means: what mediational means are used in this action? What
specific forms of analysis should be used in analyzing the mediational
means? How and when were those mediational means appropriated within
practice/habitus? How are those mediational means used in this action? In
what way are the semiotic characteristics of those mediational means
159
constraints on action or affordances for action? To answer these question
Scollon suggests methods of conversation analysis, rhetorical analysis and
visual holophrastic discourse analysis.
4- Nexus of practice: what linkages among practices form a nexus of practice?
How might the nexus of practice be recognized? To what extent is there a
useful distinction between nexus of practice as group, as situation, and as
genre?
5- Community of practice: to what extent has a nexus of practice become
‘technologized’? What are the identities (both internal and external) which
are produced by community of practice membership?
As outlined above, Scollon formulates a number of questions concerning each
of these analytical levels, but -consistently with the ethnographic tradition - he
does not provide any operationalizations or linguistic exponents which should be
analyzed.
In Gee’s point of view (1999), a discourse analysis essentially involves asking
questions about how language, at a given time and place, is used to construe the
aspects of the situation network simultaneously give meaning to that language.
Discourse analysis focuses on the thread of language (and related semiotic
systems) used in the situation network. Any piece of language, oral or written, is
composed of a set of grammatical cues or clues (Gumperz 1982a) that help
listeners or readers (in negotiation and collaboration with others in an interaction)
to build six things (in one sense of the word, these six things are interlinked
‘representations’, that is, ‘re-presentings’). Gee stresses that utterances are made
up of cues or clues as to how to move back and forth between language and
context (situation), not signals of fixed and decontextualized meanings. A
discourse analysis involves, then, asking questions about the six building tasks,
the tasks through which we use language to construct and/or construe the
situation network, at a given time and place, in a certain way (Gee 1999: 85-6).
Below, He (1999: 93-4) sketches out some of these questions:
160
Semiotic building:
1- What sign systems are relevant (and irrelevant) in the situation (e.g. speech,
writing, images, and gestures)? How are they made relevant (and irrelevant),
and in what ways?
2- What systems of knowledge and ways of knowing are relevant (and irrelevant)
in the situation (e.g. speech, writing, images, and gestures)? How are they
made relevant (and irrelevant), and in what ways?
3- What social languages are relevant (and irrelevant) in the situation? How are
they made relevant (and irrelevant), and in what ways?
World building:
4- What are the situated meanings of some of the words and phrases that seem
important in the situation?
5- What situated meanings and values seem to be attached to places, times,
bodies, objects, artifacts, and institutions relevant in this situation?
6- What cultural models and networks of models (master models) seem to be at
play in connecting and integrating these situated meanings to each other?
7- What institutions and/or discourses are being (re-)produced in this situation
and how are they being stabilized or transformed in the act?
Activity building:
8- What is the larger or main activity (or set of activities) going on in the
situation?
9- What sub-activities compose this activity (or these activities)?
10 - What actions (down to the level of things like ‘requests for reasons’)
compose these sub-activities and activities?
Socioculturally-situated identity and relationship building:
161
11- What relationships and identities (roles, positions), with their concomitant
personal, social, and cultural knowledge and beliefs (cognition), feelings
(affect), and values, seem to be relevant to the situation?
12- How are these relationships and identities stabilized or transformed in the
situation?
13- In terms of identities, activities, and relationships, what discourses are
relevant (and irrelevant) in the situation? How are they made relevant (and
irrelevant), and in what ways?
Political building:
14- What social goods (e.g. status, power, aspects of gender, race, and class, or
more narrowly defined social networks and identities) are relevant (and
irrelevant) in this situation? How are they made relevant (and irrelevant), and
in what ways?
15- How are these social goods connected to the cultural models and discourses
operative in the situation?
Connection building:
16- What sorts of connections - looking backward and/or forward - are made
within and across utterances and large stretches of the interaction?
17- What sorts of connections are made to previous or future interactions, to other
people, ideas, texts, things, institutions, and discourses outside the current
situation (this has to do with ‘intertextuality’ and ‘interdiscursivity’)?
18- How do connections of both the sort in 16 and 17 help (together with situated
meanings and cultural models) to constitute ‘coherence’ - and what sort of
‘coherence’ - in the situation?
Fowler et al. (1979), whose linguistic orientation are that of systemicfunctional theory of language, explain that the structure of discourse and of texts
reflects and expresses the purposes and roles of its participants, these in turn
162
being products of the prevailing forms of economic and social organization. They
argue that "communication (thus language) is not just a reflex of social processes
and structures. In the expression of these processes and structures they are
affirmed, and so contribute instrumentally to the consolidation of existing social
structures and material conditions. Interpretation is the process of recovering the
social meanings expressed in discourse by analyzing the linguistic structures in
the light of their interactional and wider social contexts" (Fowler et al. 1979: 1956).
For critical analysis of language they (1979:198-213) offer their linguistic
checklist under five main headings:
 events, states, processes, and their associated entities: the grammar of
transitivity;
 the interpersonal relations of speaker and hearer: the grammar of modality;
 the manipulation of linguistic material: transformations;
 linguistic ordering: the grammar of classification;
 coherence, order and unity of the discourse.
Below, each of these headings will be discussed in detail:
1. The grammar of transitivity: Among the deeper semantic features of a
text, it is always revealing to see what kinds of predicates occur: these are words
for actions (‘run’, ‘raise’), states (‘tall’, ‘red’), processes (‘widen’, ‘open’), mental
processes (‘understand’, ‘sad’), usually appearing as verbs and adjectives in the
text, sometimes as nouns derived from underlying verbs or adjectives
(‘completion’, ‘sincerity’). Predicates (and their associated participants) carry the
main responsibility for representing the events and situations to which the text
refers. They are studied in relation to the roles of the nouns which accompany
them.
Within the grammar of transitivity there is a small number of highly significant
alternative ‘models’ for the presentation of events. Some questions to ask are:
1- Does the action affect one or more entities?
163
2- Does the action produce a new entity?
3- Is the action performed by the agent on him or herself?
4- Is the action initiated by the actor or by another participant?
These questions will reveal differing linguistic ‘dispositions’ of events. Over
and above these it is fruitful to ask who, if anyone, benefits from the action, what
other circumstances attend on the event and how they are connected to it,
spatially or temporally, instrumentally or causally.
What kinds of entities perform actions? The most straightforward type of agent
would seem to be animate, either human or animal. But there are other
alternatives, and it is always necessary to look for inanimates, abstractions and
names of organizations apparently performing actions. In some discourse all the
agentive participants are abstract nouns, often complex nouns which are derived
from sentences or parts of sentences by nominalization.
A subject+verb+object syntax suggests agency and transitivity; often this is
an illusion. The many apparent actions suggested by the syntax turn out to be
states or mental processes, or things which happen to rather than are done by
the participants referred to in the subject noun. Here the interest for the analyst
lies in the fact that an event of one type (involving just one participant) is
presented in the surface form of another event (involving two participants, one
the actor, the other the affected).
2. The grammar of modality: This covers linguistic constructions which may
be called ‘pragmatic’ and ‘interpersonal’. They express speakers’ and writers’
attitudes towards themselves, towards their interlocutors, and towards their
subject-matter; their social and economic relationships with the people they
address; and the actions which are performed via language (ordering, accusing,
promising, pleading).
A very simple feature is naming conventions (see Brown and Gilman 1972).
An individual may be addressed, or referred to, by any one of a range of choices
164
comprising various parts of his name, abbreviations, combined with a title or
without. The different possibilities signify different assessments by the
speaker/writer of his or her relationship with the person referred to or spoken to,
and of the formality or intimacy of the situation.
Personal pronouns always deserve notice. Starting with ‘I’, it is worth
reminding ourselves that every utterance has implicitly an ‘I’ or ‘we’ as a source,
but this is usually not present in the surface structure. Removal of the pronoun
associated with personal speech is felt to be appropriate to the impersonal
generalizing tone of newspapers, textbooks, and scientific articles. The ‘I’ of
action (as opposed to speech) is rare and limited to self-centered articles by
people not on the newspaper’s staff. The ‘I’ of action is also regular (but less
foregrounded) feature of signed investigative and eye-witness reporting, where it
seems to suggest exclusivity and authenticity.
The plural form ‘we’ displays the added complexity that the source claims to
speak of and for himself and on behalf of someone other than himself. The
simplest ‘we’ form is ‘exclusive we’: the writer refers to himself and some other
person(s) not including his addressees. An extension of this usage is what might
be called the ‘corporate we’: the text speaks on behalf of an organization,
differentiating it from the addressee but still personalizing the source. This
corporate ‘we’ is suspect, since the individuals it refers to cannot be identified
(not as suspect, however, as the generalized inclusive ‘we’ mentioned below).
And its effect is often alienating: if ‘we’ excludes the addressee, it can be
transformed into the institutional ‘they’: for example, ‘We know what’s best for
you’ is readily perceived as ‘They think they can push us around’.
The second meaning of ‘we’, ‘inclusive we’, implicates the addressee in the
content of the discourse and is therefore, ostensibly, more intimate and solidary;
but unless the persons involved are all known and the actions overt and verifiable,
it is potentially dangerous.
165
One other ‘we’ which makes even stronger assumptions, is the ‘we’ used by a
superior partner in an interaction, and which confidently, unquestioningly and
unchallengeably includes the other, inferior partner (e.g. doctor-patient, parentyoung child). This ‘we’ shows the power-difference between speaker and
addressee is large (see Ohmann 1976, Fowler 1977).
‘You’ is, as might be expected, complementary in meaning and usage to
‘I/we’; as every piece of language has an explicit or implicit source, so does it
have an implicit or explicit addressee. In spoken language, addressed to a present
person or persons, it may or may not appear in the discourse. Its occurrence, and
its frequency of occurrence, are measures of the speaker’s consciousness of, care
for, or, most often, desire to manipulate, the addressee. Written texts such as
personal letters may address, and name, a known individual ‘you’, but public
language is by definition addressed to a multitude of unidentifiable ‘you’s’.
‘You’ is largely absent from reporting sections, frequent in features sections
directed to the individual’s actions and his/her reflections on his/her own actions.
Predictably, ‘you’ forms claiming intensely particularized personal reference are
most insistently used in advertisements. At the other extreme from individual
reference, ‘you’ sometimes means ‘anyone’ (as in proverbs). This generalized
‘you’ is close in meaning to the generalized ‘we’ noted above. As a general point,
when two items seem virtually identical in meaning, an attempt to understand
why the speaker/writer has used one form rather than another needs to be made.
In this case, ‘you’ addresses someone, an individual or a group, who is or are
different from the speaker. The addressee is being told something. The collective
‘we’ on the other hand addresses the group, ostensibly from inside the group,
coercively eliminating any potential antagonism between speaker and addressee.
Finally, there is a good deal of third-person reference to classes of implied
individuals, often in overt or implied command structures. Such constructions are
akin to the mystified commands and deserve careful analysis.
166
Governing the use of the personal pronouns are factors which we can, in a
general way, describe as proximity and distance, directness and indirectness.
Specific but varying social factors underlie these general categories. It is an
immensely nuanced system; a metaphor to describe its function might be the
court of a feudal oriental potentate. The distance from the throne which any
individual has to observe is precisely regulated depending on his plane in the
social hierarchy. Some may look directly at the ruler, others must look to the side
or down. These things are precisely coded and observed verbally by speakers of
English. Terms of address and the pronoun-system are obvious areas in the
language to look for these meanings: but most of the linguistic system is in fact
responsive to these factors and expresses these meanings.
The most direct forms of speech acts are generally legitimized only when the
power-differential between participants is extremely great and can be openly
acknowledged - parents and children are (regrettably) the most familiar example.
Where the power-differential is less, or cannot be openly acknowledged,
indirectness and distance appear again. Hence most commands (using this as a
term to describe the intention of the speaker) do not appear in their direct
syntactic form, the imperative. Instead declaratives and interrogatives are used
(with modalizers of different kinds); and the indirectness of the speech-act, its
linguistic distance from the intended act, signals the social distance and the social
indirectness. Again, the kind of surface-form which is selected gives direct insight
into the meaning which is expressed; as before, the relation between intention and
surface expression is not conventional or arbitrary.
In speech-acts the major meanings are concerned with establishing linguistic
role-relations between speaker and hearer (as commander, informer, questioner,
and commanded, informed, questioned) and the consequent control of the
addressee’s behaviour. Degrees of distance and directness are signalled necessarily, but incidentally. There is, however, a range of linguistic forms which
are crucially concerned with the expression of proximity and directness either
167
between speaker and hearer, or between speaker and message (through the later
most often has the former function indirectly). Prominent among these forms and
frequently discussed are modal auxiliaries (see Halliday 1970).
In analysing modal auxiliaries, one needs to ask what meaning the modal verb
expresses (obligation, ability, possibility, necessity, expectation, etc.) and whose
authority is invoked. Closely allied to these auxiliaries are modal adverbs:
‘possibly’, ‘certainly’, ‘necessarily’. These often occur with the modal auxiliaries,
and the meaning of the full construction has to be established as a compound of
the meanings of the adverbial and the modal auxiliary, and of their joint effect.
Related to these linguistic items in function, but distinct in structure, are
utterances such as ‘You look tired’. paraphrase reveals the functional contiguity
of ‘look’, ‘seem’, with those discussed above: ‘You could/might be tired’. There
is a vast range of verbs to which propositions can be attached to convey different
stances by the speaker towards what he is saying, and through this, towards his
addressee. Verbs like ‘think’, ‘feel’, ‘want’, ‘wish’, ‘try’, ‘like’, ‘seem’,
‘understand’, all have distancing effects, though all of different kinds. In each
case, the meaning of the verb must be examined to understand what kind of
distance or indirectness is suggested8.
Finally, two other major linguistic distancing devices: time and place.
Anyone engaged in analysing the modal function of language will need to pay
the closest attention to tense: what is the effect of choosing one tense over
another, in conjunction with modal verbs or full verbs. In many cases the
explanation is other than time-reference. In such analyses it is important to
realize that ‘present tense’ is not a modally neutral form: it is one term among
others in this system, if anything a particularly powerful term which signals
certainty, unquestionableness, continuity, universality. Temporal ‘distance’
nearly always conveys modal ‘distance’. Similarly with locative expressions,
especially the so-called demonstrative pronouns, ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘these’, ‘those’,
168
‘here’, ‘there’. Again, in many cases the spatial ‘distance’ indicated points to
conceptual or modal distance (see Kress 1977, and Hodge & Kress 1979).
3. Transformations: Among syntactic transformations, two types have been
particularly rewarding in our studies: nominalizations and passivizations. They
have various, and overlapping, sets of consequences. To take nominalizations
first: here we mean nominals which (whether or not they are listed in dictionaries
as nouns) are derived from sentences or parts of sentences - to put it another way,
nominal expressions of concepts for which an expression involving a verb or an
adjective would have been available to the writer or speaker. The ‘stylistic’
effects of persistent nominalization are well known: in impressionistic terms, it
attenuates any feeling of activity in the language. It is generally discouraged by
writing handbooks which advocate a ‘direct’ style; it is particularly disfavoured
for narrative. It makes for ‘impersonality’ in style; this is an effect of the deletions
of participants, often the actor or the affected, which are possible with
nominalization. Personal participants in a nominalized process may be preserved,
marked with possessives and prepositions. More often in complex sentences in
written language, participants disappear completely and have to be ‘understand’
from the context.
Modality and tense disappear in nominalizations. Nominalization has two
further effects. The first is ‘objectification’, the rendering of a process as an object
(e.g. our new development). This in turn affects lexicalization, the provision of
words and phrases to code new concepts or consolidate existing ones.
Lexicalization fixes the object-as-process as a single habitualized entity.
The passive transformation has a similar range of consequences to those of
nominalizations, e.g. deletion of participants; lexicalization. An additional
function, sometimes achieved by nominalization as well, is thematization;
shifting a noun-phrase into the informationally significant first place in the
sentence. Passivization allow, noun denoting an affected participant, a non-agent,
169
to be placed in the subject position in the sentence, the left-hand noun-phrase slot
which is conventionally regarded as the theme or topic of the sentence. This
device allows a writer or speaker to emphasize his thematic priorities, to
emphasize what a text is ‘about’ even when the entities of the theme are, strictly
speaking, semantically subordinate (affected rather than agentive). A further
development is available, through the implicit connotation of agency which the
subject position carries: passivized objects may seem to be agents, despite their
real function as affected rather than affecting roles.
A very large number of transformations have been discussed by the advocates
of transformational generative grammar. Most of them correspond to ‘real’
linguistic processes and all of these carry specific meaning and would need to be
taken into account (see Akmajian and Heny 1975). Here we briefly draw attention
to three so-called ‘movement’ transformations: negative-raising, raising of nounphrases, and extraposition. Raising is a process by which a constituent in a
subordinate clause is ‘lifted’ from the subordinate clause to be a constituent in the
main clause. In all three cases what happens is that chunks of the utterance are
moved about so as to focus our attention, and to direct our perception, in certain
ways. In the use of the negative, to regard one item as negated rather than the
other; in the case of object- or subject-raising to re-orient our perception of the
syntactic relations in the utterance; in the case of extraposition to bring the verbal
or predicate element nearer to the perceptually crucial front position. Our
attention and the sequence in which we decode are here being directed,
manipulated, in complex ways; and any analysis of discourse needs to be
responsive to these processes.
4. Classification: Turning now to classification, the linguistic ordering of the
world, we look first at lexical features of texts - the words available to and chosen
by writers and speakers. We have found the processes of relexicalization9 and
overlexicalization generally revealing. Relexicalization is relabelling, the
provision of a new set of terms, either for the whole language or for a significant
170
area of the language; it promotes a new perspective for speakers, often in
specialized areas which are distinct from those of the larger social group. One
form of relexicalization is ’neologism’, the invention of new lexical items which,
by being visibly new, force the reader to work out the new concepts they signify:
‘skateboard’. The word is a linguistic challenge and it codes an apparently new
concept. But not all relexicalizations are so unfamiliar. Sometimes they involve
reorientations of the meanings of existing words; pointed, ostentatious inversions
of meaning. Slang provides many examples, e.g. American ‘bad’ = ‘good’.
Political language involving confrontations of factions, particularly confrontation
of an establishment culture with a deviant sub-group, provides excellent
illustrations of the process. In this case, familiar words are used to convey
deviant, parodic values.
Overlexicalization is the provision of a large number of synonymous or nearsynonymous terms for communication of some specialized area of experience.
The importance for critical linguistics of overlexicalization is that it points to
areas of intense preoccupation in the experience and values of the group which
generates it, allowing the linguist to identify peculiarities in the ideology of that
group.
In classification we find the positioning of adjectives and other modifiers
highly revealing. The major distinction is between ‘predicative’ and
‘prenominal’ positions for adjectives (and other modifiers) (see Smith 1961,
Whorf 1956, and Hodge and Kress 1979). Predicative adjectives are separated
from the noun they qualify by ‘is’ or some other variant of the copula (e.g.
They are all equally impressive). By contrast, the prenominal position
incorporates the adjective into the noun-phrase which it modifies (e.g. a totally
new approach). Predicative positioning, in English, necessitates preservation of
a copulative verb between the noun and the adjective, and this must express the
writer’s/speaker’s commitment to the evaluation he makes (for example, when
Clive James writes ‘is ... worse’ or ‘was ... literate’, his ‘is’ and ‘was’ declare
171
‘this is my judgment’). That element of modality is less overt when the
modifier is incorporated within the noun-phrase. Prenominal modification
tends to indicate classification rather than evaluation. Noun-phrases
incorporating modifiers seem to be whole lexical items, unitary rather than
analysed concepts.
5. Coherence, order and unity: The last topic on our checklist, coherence,
order and unity of the discourse, opens a whole new area of linguistic
investigation (see Halliday and Hasan 1976). In the construction of a coherent
discourse, the speaker or writer implements his conception of the inner order of
the materials which he is presenting. The interrelation of events, their respective
sequence, importance, interdependence are indicated in the structure of the
discourse as a whole.
Fowler (1985) considering the fact that the power relationship are not natural
and objective, but they are socially constructed intersubjective realities, indicates
that language is a major mechanism in the process of social construction. "It is an
instrument for consolidating and manipulating concepts and relationships in the
area of power and control" (Fowler 1985: 61). Seeing language as a practice that
contributes to inequality, rather than as an innocent medium that simply reflects
inequality, he (1985: 69-74) designed a linguistic checklist to direct the attention
toward parts of language that will probably repay close examination. The items of
his checklist are:
1. Lexical Processes: What concepts are furnished with names in the
discourse of a particular social group is of the utmost importance, since
vocabulary reflects and expresses the interests of the group. Provision of a term
for a concept is called ‘lexicalization’. Other relevant lexical processes include
‘over-lexicalization’ and ’underlexicalization’ (see Halliday 1978, Chap. 9).
Over-lexicalization is the availablility of many words for one concept, and it
indicates the prominence of the concept in a community’s beliefs and
172
intellectual interests (e.g., words for God in a Christian community). It is a
special case of a more general process, the presence in a sociolinguistic variety
of extensive sets of lexical items for systems of related concepts: technical
jargons, the slangs of in-groups, and the like. Underlexicalization is a converse
process: lack of a term that would neatly encode a concept; this is
communicatively and socially significant when a speaker laboriously expresses
a concept that is not fully in his power by a circumlocution.
Several distinctions between vocabulary items that have been traditionally
noticed by stylisticians are of relevance to the topic of language and power.
Referentially, words may be abstract (cognition, democracy) or concrete (spade,
brick), general (food, material) or specific (rice, silk). Etymologically, the origins
of words may be foreign (beige, semiology) or native (read, kinsman).
Morphologically, lexical items may be complex (revisionism, childishness) or
simple (apple, red). It would be broadly true to say that, for each of these
oppositions, the first category is associated with more formal settings and
relationships, with learning and with institutional power.
2. Transitivity: This is Halliday’s - rather untraditional - term for the kinds
of processes and participants that occur in clauses (see Kress 1976, Chap. 11).
A somewhat different analysis of the same phenomena has been proposed by
Fillmore (1968). Halliday and Fillmore focus on the predicates (usually verbs
and adjectives) that communicate action, processes, states, and so on, and the
roles performed by the entities participating in these processes (usually
designated by nouns). There are some fundamental distinctions made at the
level of transitivity, between, for instance, agents deliberately performing
actions, objects undergoing processes, instruments being used to effect actions,
experiencers undergoing mental states and mental processes, and so on.
In analyzing transitivity, it is important to note not only what roles of
participants go with what predicates, but also what kinds of entities are
173
categorized as performing certain roles. For instance, a government might play
down its responsibility by sheltering behind abstract terms used as pseudoagents:
‘Circumstances dictate the raising of taxes’ thoroughly mystifies the practice of
power.
3. Syntax: Traditional stylistics assumes that alternative syntactic phrasings
are available to express essentially the same meaning, with perhaps minor but
stylistically significant variations of focus, perspective, or emphasis (see Leech
& Short 1981, Chaps. 1 and 4). This view may be supported by the early
version of transformational-generative grammar; it is very difficult, however,
to give a precise theoretical linguistic characterization of this insight. It seems,
nevertheless, to be one of the necessary main working assumptions of the
sociolinguistics of language and power.
It is impossible to treat all the relevant areas of syntactic variability here. Three
broad categories are:
a) Deletion: There are numerous conventions for leaving out parts of
constructions. In ellipsis, a truncated second sentence relies for its
interpretation on the implication that some words from a preceding sentence
are relied on to complete the meaning (Halliday & Hasan 1976, Chap. 4).
Elliptical styles are clearly linked to ranges of sociolinguistic values
(different according to context): these include brusqueness, emphasis
(power) and intimacy, shared knowledge (solidarity).
Two sociolinguistically important constructions that permit deletion are
nominalization and passive. Nominalization is a rendering of the content of a verb
in the form of a noun. Nominalizations are endemic in authoritarian discourse of
all kinds: official publications, academic writing, legal language. Nominalizations
have two ideologically practical consequences. First, they are a source of new
nouns, codings of experience that can be transmitted to the appropriate social
groups by propaganda or education. Second, they permit deletion of both agency
174
and modality (words like must, shall), thus making mysterious the participants,
obligations, and responsibilities spoken of by discourse. Passive permits agentsdeletion, though not deletion of modality, so it is possible to fail to specify the
cause of an event. Passives and nominalizations are prominent, and interact, in
varieties of language that practice an ideology of impersonality, such as scientific
writing and constitutional documents (see Fowler & Kress 1979, Chap. 2).
b) Sequencing: A passive allows a different ordering of participant nouns
than its active equivalent. It is one of a number of reordering
transformations that are used to determine the order in which information is
released to an addressee, and to focus attention on topics of relatively great
importance. Topical importance may be signaled by taking a noun phrase
out of its normal position and placing it in an unusual and therefore
especially noticeable position, for instance an object noun phrase at the
beginning of a sentence. Interruptions of sequence by parenthetically
inserted phrases are also worth studying. All of these facilities for syntactic
reordering are strictly speaking rhetorical; that is, devices for manipulating
the addressee’s attention.
c) Complexity: In popular attitudes and in sociolinguistics, syntactic
complexity has traditionally been seen as related to social distinctions
involving power and prestige10 . Syntactic complexity can be crudely
measured in words per sentence, but it is much more revealing to study what
kinds of clauses and phrases occur in what relationships. An important
fundamental distinction is between subordination and coordination of
clauses. A high ratio of subordinate clauses per sentence implies complexity
of logical relationships among the clauses that modify one another;
coordination (and ... and, then ... then) implies a sequence of separate
propositions all of the same kind. There is an old distinction between
hypotactic and paratactic styles founded on subordination and coordination,
respectively: The latter is traditionally associated with naive or primitive
175
modes of discourse, for instance, medieval chronicles, children’s
storytelling, simple descriptive language. Complexity of noun phrases in
terms of what and how many premodifiers and postmodifiers occur is also
an index of stylistic and cognitive complexity.
4. Modality: The term ‘modality’ subsumes a range of devices that indicate
speakers’ attitudes to the propositions they utter, and to some degree to their
addressees. These attitudes fall into the areas of validity - the speaker expresses
greater or less confidence in the truth of his propositions; predictability - the
future events referred to are more or less likely to happen; desirability - practical,
moral, or aesthetic judgments; obligation - speaker’s judgment that another
person is obligated to perform some action; permission - speaker allows
addressee to perform some action. The connection of these last two modal
meanings with power is obvious, but the first three are also significantly
implicated: Frequent and confident judgments of validity, predictability, and
(un)desirability are an important part of the practices by means of which claims to
authority are articulated and legitimated authority is expressed.
Modality is signified in a range of linguistic forms: centrally, the modal
auxiliary verbs (may, shall, must need, and others); sentence adverbs (such as
probably, certainly, regrettably); adjectives (such as necessary, unfortunate,
certain). Some verbs, and many nominalizations, are essentially modal such as
(permit, predict, prove; obligation, likelihood, desirability, authority).
The other side of the coin is the modality of deference. An inferior addressing
a superior has many constructions available for signaling deference, lack of
overconfidence, acquiescence: softeners (such as sort of, you know); tentative and
unconfident use of past tense (I was wondering if ...); tag questions; rising
intonation patterns signaling unassertiveness; and so on (see Kress 1976, Chap.
13, Lakoff 1975).
5. Speech Acts: Utterances not only communicate propositional meanings
but also achieve action through speech: promising, requesting, commanding,
176
warning, and more (Austin 1962, Cole and Morgen 1975). These speech acts
work in relation to the communicative contexts in which they are uttered;
unless the circumstances are appropriate, they misfire.
Many of the conditions for the successful performance of speech acts relate to
the socially ascribed roles and statuses of speakers and hearers, so it is
understandable that speech acts are centrally implicated in establishing and
maintaining power relationships.
For some speech acts, utterance of exactly specified words is essential
(baptizing, naming ships, etc.), but for others considerable variability in phrasing
is possible. Such variations are of the utmost importance for the articulation of
power relationships. There are, for example, many finely discriminated forms for
making a request, graded according to degrees and nuances of politeness or
peremptoriness (see Fowler and Kress 1979, Chap. 2, Searle 1975).
6. Implicature: The term, introduced by Grice (1975), refers to unstated
propositions ‘between the lines’ of discourse. Grice shows how implicatures
are produced, often by apparent breaches of conventions for the cooperative
conduct of conversation (e.g., apparently irrelevant remarks that become
relevant when interpreted in the light of some unstated proposition). Two
points can be made about implicature in this context. First, an implicature is not
accidental, but the product of an intentional act. Presumably there are
conventions govenring who has the ‘right to implicate’ in terms of status and
authority. Second, the propositions that are implicated in any context may be
consistent with one another and add up to a semantic system, a set of
ideological commitments invoked to underpin the discourse - this would be a
way in which one speaker imposes an ideology on another (on underlying
propositions as a referential basis for discourse, see Labov and Fanshel 1977,
also see chilton 2004).
177
7. Turn Taking: Schegloff and Sacks (1999) and their associates have shown
that conversation is not a disorderly free-for-all but an ordered sequence of
contributions or turns. There are tacit conventions for the sequencing of turns; for
holding the floor, for interrupting, for opening and closing conversations. Quite
clearly, the question of who speakes when is closely bound up with power
relationship among participants, and the linguistic constructions that control the
ordering are well worth studying11.
8. Address, Naming, and Personal Reference: Brown and Gilman’s
pioneering study of pronoun usage (1960) tried to interpret the varying
distribution linguistic items in semantic and ideological terms. They tried to
establish what kinds of relationships determined choice of pronoun for the
different languages. Parents address their children as tu, soldiers address officers
as vous, and so on. Rather than simply listing such dyads in the communities
concerned. Brown and Gilman (1960) postulated two abstract underlying social
principles from the intersection of which the social semantics of any particular
system could be generated. These they call "power" and "solidarity": the former
has the dimensions ‘superior’, ‘inferior’, and ‘equal’, the latter ‘solidary’ and
‘non-solidary’. Given the theoretical terms, we can predict pronoun usage: equal
and non-solidary (e.g., businessmen from two firms) predicts vous; equal and
solidary (siblings of similar age, manual workers in the same trade) predicts tu.
‘Power’ in Brown and Gilman’s scheme matches our commonsense usage of
the term: It is an abstraction from such relationships as ‘older than’, ‘stronger
than’, ‘richer than’. ‘Solidarity’ is based on similarities that make for likemindedness or similar behaviour dispositions. According to Brown and Gilman,
solidarity can exist either between individuals who are equal on the power scale,
or between nonequals. Naming and address forms can predictably be related to
the same basic set of sociosemantic distinctions (see Brown and Ford 1964,
Ervin-Tripp 1972).
178
9. Phonology: Sounds and sound patterns, unlike, say, are intrinsically
meaningless, but any linguistic forms can have social values attached to them,
and this is certainly the case with phonology. Accent is traditionally and
popularly associated with social class: Research by Labov (1972a, 1972f) and
Trudgill (1974) shows how closely and predictably the distribution of
phonemes correlates with social stratification, and how speakers use
phonological forms to constitute themselves as members of certain statusconferring classes.
Corresponding to his three-layered model of discourse (text, discursive
practice, social practice), Fairclough (2001c:21) distinguishes three dimensions,
or stages, of critical discourse analysis:
 Description: the stage which is concerned with formal properties of the
text.
 Interpretation: which is concerned with the relationship between text and
interaction - with seeing the text as the product of a process of production,
and as a resource in the process of interpretation.
 Explanation: which is concerned with the relationship between interaction
and social context - with the social determination of the processes of
production and interpretation, and their social effects.
These three stages will be discussed in detail as parts of a procedure for doing
critical discourse analysis.
I. Description
In the case of description, analysis is generally thought of as a matter of
identifying and labelling formal features of a text (features of vocabulary,
grammar, punctuation, turn-taking, types of speech act and the directness or
indirectness of their expression) in terms of the categories of a descriptive
framework. Fairclough (2001c:92-3) lists ten main questions (and some sub-
179
questions) that can be asked of a text to find the set of textual features which tend
to be most significant for critical analysis.
A. Vocabulary
1. What experiential12 values do words have?
- What classification schemes are drawn upon?
- Are there words which are ideologically contested?
- Is there ‘rewording’ or ‘overwording’?
- What ideologically significant meaning relations (synonymy, hyponymy,
antonymy) are there between words?
2. What relational13 values do words have?
- Are there euphemistic expressions?
- Are there markedly formal or informal words?
3. What expressive14 values do words have?
4. What metaphors are used?
B. Grammar
5. What experiential values do grammatical features have?
- What types of ‘process’ and ‘participant’ predominate?
- Is agency unclear?
- Are processes what they seem?
- Are ‘nominalizations’ used?
- Are sentences active or passive?
- Are sentences positive or negative?
6. What relational values do grammatical features have?
- What ‘modes’ (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?
- Are there important features of relational modality?
- Are the pronouns we and you used, and if so, how?
7. What expressive values do grammatical features have?
- Are there important features of ‘expressive modality’?
8. How are (simple) sentences linked together?
180
- What logical connectors are used?
-
Are
complex
sentences
characterized
by
‘coordination’
or
‘subordination’?
- What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?
C. Textual structures
9. What interactional conventions are used?
- Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?
10. What larger-scale structures does the text have?
The significance and interest of each of these questions explained by
Fairclough (2001c:94-116).
II. Interpretation
The relationship between text and social strucure is an indirect, mediated one.
It is mediated first of all by the discourse which the text is a part of, because the
values of textual features only become real, socially operative, if they are
embedded in social interaction, where texts are produced and interpreted against a
background of commonsense assumptions (part of members’ resources) which
give textual features their values. These discourse processes, and their
dependence on background assumptions, are the concern of the second stage of
procedure, interpretation. The stage of interpretation is concerned with
participants’ processes of text production as well as text interpretation.
From the point of view of the interpreter of a text, formal features of the text
are cues which activate elements of interpreters’ members’ resources, and that
interpretations are generated through the dialectical interplay of cues and
members’ resources. In their role of helping to generate interpretations, we may
refer to members’ resources as interpretative procedures.
The following diagram gives a summary view of the process of interpretation:
181
Fig.3.3 Interpretation (from Fairclough 2001c:119).
In the right-hand column of the diagram, under the heading ‘Interpreting’, six
major domains of interpretation have been listed. The two in the upper section of
the diagram relate to the interpretation of context, while those in the lower section
relate to four levels of interpretation of text. In the left-hand column
(Interpretative procedures (MR)) are listed major elements of members" resources
(MR) which function as interpretative procedures. Each element of MR is
specifically associated with the level of interpretation which occurs on the same
line of the diagram. The central column identifies the range of ‘Resources’ which
are drawn upon for each of the domains of interpretation on the right. Notice that
in each case these resources include more than the interpretative procedure on the
left: there are either three or four ‘inputs’ to each ‘box’.
The upper section of the diagram relates to the interpretation of context.
Participants arrive at interpretation of ‘situational context’ partly on the basis of
external cues, but also partly on the basis of aspects of their members’ resources
182
in terms of which they interpret these cues. How participants interpret the
situation determines which discourse types are drawn upon, and this in turn
affects the nature of the interpretative procedures which are drawn upon in textual
interpretation. But we also need to refer to ‘intertextual context’: participants in
any discourse operate on the basis of assumptions about which previous (series
of) discourses the current one is connected to, and their assumptions determine
what can be taken as given in the sense of part of common experience, what can
be disagreed with, alluded to, and so on.
Now let us come to the ‘boxes’ in the central column in Fig.3.3 The figure
represents the ‘contents’ of each box as a combination of the various ‘inputs’
(identified by the arrows) which feed into it. Notice firstly that linking each box
with the domain of interpretation identified to its right is a double-headed arrow.
What this means is that, at a given point in the interpretation of a text, previous
interpretations constitute one part of the ‘resources’ for interpretation. This
applies for each of the domains of interpretation.
Notice, secondly, that the boxes in the central column are also linked vertically
with double-headed arrows. What this means is that each domain of interpretation
draws upon interpretations in the other domains as part of its ‘resources’. This
interdependence is in part obvious for the four levels of text interpretation: for
instance, to interpret the global coherence and ‘point’ of a text, you draw upon
interpretations of the local coherence of parts of it; and to arrive at these, you
draw upon interpretations of utterance meanings; and to arrive at these, you draw
upon interpretations of the surface forms of utterances. But there is also
interdependence in the opposite direction. For instance, interpreters make guesses
early in the process of interpreting a text about its textual structure and ‘point’,
and these guesses are likely to influence the meanings that are attached to
individual utterances, and the local coherence relations set up between them. We
may capture this by saying that interpretations have the important property of
183
being ‘top-down’ (higher-level interpretations shape lower-level) as well as
‘bottom-up’.
There is a similar situation with the relationship between interpretations of
context and interpretations of text: interpreters quickly decide what the context is,
and this decision can affect the interpretation of text; but the interpretation of
context is partly based upon, and can change in the course of, the interpretation of
text.
What has been said about interpretation can be summarized in the form of
three questions which can be asked about a particular discourse:
1.Context: what interpretation(s) are participants giving to the situational and
intertextual contexts?
2. Discourse type(s): what discourse type(s) are being drawn upon (hence
what rules, systems or principles of phonology, grammar, sentence cohesion,
vocabulary, semantics and pragmatics; and what schemata, frames and scripts)?
3. Difference and change: are answers to questions 1 and 2 different for
different participants? And do they change during the course of the interaction?
The stage of interpretation corrects delusions of autonomy on the part of
subjects in discourse. It makes explicit what for participants is generally implicit:
the dependence of discourse practice on the unexplicated common-sense
assumptions of members’ resources and discourse type. What it does not do on its
own, however, is explicate the relations of power and domination and the
ideologies which are built into these assumptions, and which make ordinary
discourse practice a site of social struggle. For this, we need the stage of
explanation.
III. Explanation
The objective of the stage of explanation is to portray a discourse as part of a
social process, as a social practice, showing how it is determined by social
184
structures, and what reproductive effects discourses can cumulatively have on
those structures, sustaining them or changing them. These social determinations
and effects are mediated by members’ resources: that is social structures shape
members’ resources, which in turn shape discourses, and discourses sustain or
change members’ resources, which in turn sustain or change structures.
The stage of explanation involves a specific perspective on members’
resources: they are seen specifically as ideologies. That is, the assumptions about
culture, social relationships, and social identities which are incorporated with
members’ resources, are seen as determined by particular power relations in the
society or institution, and in terms of their contribution to struggles to sustain or
change these power relations - they are seen ideologically.
The social structures which are in focus are relations of power, and the social
processes and practices which are in focus are processes and practices of social
struggle. So explanation is a matter of seeing a discourse as part of processes of
social struggle, within a matrix of relations of power.
Depending on whether the emphasis is upon process or structure
upon
processes of struggle or upon relations of power’ On the one hand, explanation
has too dimensions. discourses can be seen as parts of social struggles, and
contextualize them in terms of these broader (non-discoursal) struggles, and the
effects of these struggles on structures. This puts the emphasis on the social
effects of discourse, on creativity, and on the future. On the other hand, the power
relationships which determine discourses; can be shown these relationships are
themselves the outcome of struggles, and are established (and, ideally,
naturalized) by those with power. This puts the emphasis on the social
determination of discourse, and on the past - on the results of past struggles. Both
social effects of discourse and social determinants of discourse should be
investigated at three levels of social organization: the societal level, the
institutional level, and the situational level. This is represented in Fig.3.4
185
societal
societal
institutional
MR
discourse
Stitutional
deterninants
MR
institutional
Stitutional
effects
Fig.3.4 Explanation (from Fairclough2001c:136).
We can summarize the stage of explanation in the form of three questions
which can be asked of a particular discourse under investigation:
1. Social determinants: what power relations at situational, institutional and
societal levels help shape this discourse?
2. Ideologies: what elements of members’ resources which are drawn upon
have an ideological character?
3. Effects: how is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the
situational, institutional and societal level? Are these struggles overt or covert? Is
the discourse normative18 with respect to members’ resources or creative19? Does
it contribute to sustaining existing power relations, or transforming them?
Following the conception of discourse which involves an interest in properties
of texts, the production, distribution, and consumption of texts, social practice in
various institutions, the relationship of social practice to power relations, and
hegemonic projects at the societal level, Fairclough (1992b) explains that
discourse analysis ought ideally to be an interdisciplinary undertaking. These
facets of discourse impinge upon the concerns of various social sciences and
humanities, including linguistics, psychology and social psychology, sociology,
history, and political science.
Considering the three dimensions of discourse analysis (i.e. (i) analysis of
discourse practices, (ii) analysis of texts, and (iii) analysis of the social practice of
186
which the discourse is a part), he (1992b: 225-238) suggests a guideline for doing
discourse analysis as follows:
(i) Discourse Practice: Each of the three dimensions of discourse practice is
represented below. interdiscursivity and manifest intertextuality focus upon text
production, intertextual chains upon text distribution, and coherence, upon text
consumption (see Fairclough 1992b, Chap. 3-4).
 Interdiscursivity: The objective is to specify what discourse types are
drawn upon in the discourse sample under analysis, and how. If it is not clear
whether something is a genre, activity type, style, or discourse, The general
term of discourse type can be used . main way of justifying an interpretation
is through text analysis, by showing that one’s interpretation is compatible
with the features of the text, and more compatible than others (see Fairclough
1992b: 124-30).
- Is there an obvious way of characterizing the sample overall (in terms of
genre)? (if so, what does it imply in terms of how the sample is
produced, distributed, and consumed?)
- Does the sample draw upon more than one genre?
- What activity type(s), style(s), discourse(s) are drawn upon? (can you
specify styles according to tenor, mode, and rhetorical mode?)
- Is the discourse sample relatively conventional in its interdiscursive
properties, or relatively innovative?
Intertextual Chains: The objective here is to specify the distribution of a (type
of) discourse sample by describing the intertextual chains it enters into, that is,
the series of text types it is transformed into or out of (see Fairclough 1992b:
130-2).
- What sorts of transformation does this (type of) discourse sample
undergo?
- Are the intertextual chains and transformations relatively stable, or are
they shifting, or contested?
187
- Are there signs that the text producer anticipates more than one sort of
audience?
 Coherence: The aim here is to look into the interpretative implications of
the intertextual and interdiscursive properties of the discourse sample. This
could involve the analyst in ‘reader research’, that is, research into how texts
are actually interpreted (see Fairclough 1992b: 83-4).
- How heterogeneous and how ambivalent is the text for particular
interpreters, and consequently how much inferential work is needed?
(This leads directly to intertextual dimensions of the construction of
subjects in discourse: see ‘Social practice’ below.)
- Does this sample receive resistant readings? From what sort of reader?
 Conditions of Discourse Practice: The aim is to specify the social
practices of text production and consumption associated with the type of
discourse the sample represents (which may be related to its genre: see the
first question under ‘Interdiscursivity’ above) (see Fairclough 1992b: 78-80).
- Is the text produced (consumed) individually or collectively? (Are
theredistinguishable stages of production? Are animator, author, and
principal the same or different people?) - What sort of non-discursive
effects does this sample have?
 Manifest Intertextuality: Manifest intertextuality is a grey area between
discourse practice and text: it raises questions about what goes into producing
a text, but it is also concerned with features which are ‘manifest’ on the
surface of the text. The objective is to specify what other texts are drawn
upon in the constitution of the text being analysed, and how. Genres differ in
the modes of manifest intertextuality with which they are associated, and one
aim here is to explore such differences (see Fairclough 1992b: 117-23, 128).
 Discourse Representation:
- Is it direct or indirect?
- What is represented: aspects of context and style, or just ideational meaning?
188
- Is the represented discourse clearly demarcated? Is it translated into the voice
of the representing discourse?
- How is it contextualized in the representing discourse?
 presupposition:
- How are presuppositions cued in the text?
- Are they link to the prior texts of others, or the prior texts of the text
producer?
- Are they sincere or manipulative?
- Are they polemical (such as negative sentences)?
- Are there instances of metadiscourse or irony?
(ii) Text:
 Interactional Control: The objective here is to describe larger-scale
organizational properties of interactions, upon which the orderly
functioning and control of interactions depends (see Fairclough 1992b:
152-8). An important issue is who controls interactions at this level: to
what extent is control negotiated as a joint accomplishment of
participants, and to what extent is it asymmetrically exercised by one
participant?
- What turn-taking rules are in operation? Are the rights and obligations of
participants (with respect to overlap or silence, for example) symmetrical
or asymmetrical?
- What exchange structure is in operation?
- How are topics introduced, developed, and established, and is topic
control symmetrical or asymmetrical?
- How are agendas set and by whom? How are they policed and by
whom? Does one participant evaluate the utterances of others?
- To what extent to participants formulate the interaction? What functions
do formulations have, and which participant(s) formulate(s)?
189
 Cohesion: The objective is to show how clauses and sentences are
connected together in the text. This information is relevant to the
description of the ‘rhetorical mode’ of the text (see Fairclough 1992b:
127): its structuring as a mode of argumentation, narrative, etc. (see
Fairclough 1992b: 174-7).
- What functional relations are there between the clauses and sentences of
the text?
- Are there explicit surface cohesive markers of functional relations?
Which types of marker (reference, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical) are most
used?
 Politeness: The objective is to determine which politeness strategies are
most used in the sample, whether there are differences between
participants, and what these features suggest about social relations
between participants (see Fairclough 1992b: 162-6).
- Which politeness strategies (negative politeness, positive politeness, off
record) are used, by whom, and for what purposes?
 Ethos: The objective is to pull together the diverse features that go towards
constructive ‘selves’, or social identities, in the sample. Ethos involves not
just discourse, but the whole body. Any of the analytical categories listed
here may be relevant to ethos (see Fairclough 1992b: 166-7).
 Grammar: Three dimensions of the grammar of the clause are
differentiated here: ‘transitivity’, ‘theme’, and ‘modality’. These
correspond respectively to the ‘ideational’, ‘textual’, and ‘interpersonal’
functions of language (see Fairclough 1992b: 64).
 Transitivity: The objective is to see whether particular process types and
participants are favoured in the text, what choices are made in voice
(active or passive), and how significant is the nominalization of processes.
A major concern is agency, the expression of causality, and the attribution
of responsibility (see Fairclough 1992b: 177-85).
190
- What process types (action, event, relational, mental) are most used, and
what factors may account for this?
- Is grammatical metaphor a significant feature?
- Are passive clauses or nominalizations frequent, and if so what functions
do they appear to serve?
 Theme: The objective is to see if there is a discernible pattern in the text’s
thematic structure to the choices of themes for clauses (see Fairclough
1992b: 183-5).
- What is the thematic structure of the text, and what assumptions (for
example, about the structuring of knowledge or practice) underlie it?
- Are marked themes frequent, and if so what motivations for them are
there?
 Modality: The objective is to determine patterns in the text in the degree of
affinity expressed with propositions through modality. A major concern is
to assess the relative import of modality features for (a) social relations in
the discourse, and (b) controlling representations of reality (see Fairclough
1992b: 158-62).
- What sort of modalities are most frequent?
- Are modalities predominantly subjective or objective?
- What modality features (modal verbs, modal adverbs, etc.) are most
used?
 Word Meaning: The emphasis is upon ‘key words’ which are of general
or more local cultural significance; upon words whose meanings are
variable and changing; and upon the meaning potential of a word - a
particular structuring of its meanings - as a mode of hegemony and a focus
of struggle (see Fairclough 1992b: 185-90).
 Wording: The objective is to contrast the ways meanings are worded with
the ways they are worded in other (types of) text, and to identify the
191
interpretative perspective that underlies this wording (see Fairclough
1992b: 190-4).
- Does the text contain new lexical items, and if so what theoretical,
cultural or ideological significance do they have?
- What intertextual relations are drawn upon for the wording in the text?
- Does the text contain evidence of overwording or rewording (in
opposition to other wordings) of certain domains of meaning?
 Metaphor: The objective is to characterize the metaphors used in the
discourse sample, in contrast to metaphors used for similar meanings
elsewhere, and determine what factors (cultural, ideological, etc.)
determine the choice of metaphor. The effect of metaphors upon thinking
and practice should also be considered (see Fairclough 1992b: 194-8).
(iii) Social Practice: The analysis of social practice is more difficult to reduce to
a checklist, so the following heads should be seen only as very rough guidelines.
The general objective here is to specify: the nature of the social practice of which
the discourse practice is a part, which is the basis for explaining why the
discourse practice is as it is; and the effects of the discourse practice upon the
social practice.
 Social Matrix of Discourse:
The aim is to specify the social and
hegemonic relations and structures which constitute the matrix of this
particular instance of social and discursive practice; how this instance stands
in relation to these structures and relations (is it conventional and normative,
creative and innovative, oriented to restructuring them, oppositional, etc.?);
and what effects it contributes to, in terms of reproducing or transforming
them.
 Orders of Discourse: The objective here is to specify the relationship of the
instance of social and discursive practice to the orders of discourse it draws
upon, and the effects of reproducing or transforming orders of discourse to
192
which it contributes. Attention should be paid to the large-scale tendencies
affecting orders of discourse (see Fairclough 1992b, Chap. 7).
 Ideological and Politic al Effects of Discourse: It is useful to focus upon
the following particular ideological and hegemonic effects (see Fairclough
1992b: 86-96).
1- systems of knowledge and belief;
2- social relations;
3- social identities (‘selves’).
Fairclough (2003) draws together the various aspects of textual analysis and
illustrates how the various analytical issues and perspectives and categories can
be brought together in analysing a particular, text. In the following checklist, he
(2003:191- 4) has summarized in the form of the questions the main issues in
textual analysis:
1- Social Events:
- What social event, and what chain of social events, is the text a part of?
- What social practice or network of social practices can the events be
referred to, be seen as framed within?
- Is the text part of a chain or network of texts?
2- Genre:
- Is the text situated within a genre chain?
- Is the text characterized by a mix of genres?
- What genres does the text draw upon, and what are their characteristics
(in terms of Activity, Social Relations, Communication Technologies)?
3- Difference:
- Which (combination) of the following scenarios characterize the
orientation to difference in the text?
a) an openness to, acceptance of, recognition of difference; an exploration
of difference, as in ‘dialogue’ in the richest sense of the term.
193
b) an accentuation of difference, conflict, polemic, a struggle over
meaning, norms, power.
c) an attempt to resolve or overcome difference.
d) a bracketing of difference, a focus on commonality, solidarity.
e) consensus, a normalization and acceptance of differences of power
which brackets or suppresses differences of meaning and over norms.
4- Intertextuality:
- Of relevant other texts/ voices, which are included, which are
significantly excluded?
- Where other voices are included? Are they attributed, and if so,
specifically or non-specifically?
- Are attributed voices directly reported (quoted), or indirectly reported?
- How are other voices textured in relation to the authorial voice, and in
relation to each other?
5- Assumptions:
- what existential, propositional, or value assumptions are made?
- Is there a case for seeing any assumptions as ideological?
6- Semantic/ Grammatical Relations Relations Sentences And Clauses :
- What are the predominant semantic relations between sentences and
clauses (causal-reason, consequence, purpose; conditional; temporal;
additive; elaborative; contrastive/ concessive)?
- Are there higher-level semantic relations over larger stretches of the text
(e.g. problem-solution)?
- Are grammatical relations between clauses predominantly paratactic,
hypotactic, or embedded?
- Are particularly significant relations of equivalence and difference set up in
the text?
7- Exchanges, Speech Functions And Grammatical Mood:
194
- What are the predominant types of exchange (activity exchange, or
knowledge exchange) and speech functions (statement, question,
demand, offer)?
- What types of statement are there (statements of fact, predictions, hypotheticals, evaluations)?
- Are ther ‘metaphorical’ relations between exchanges, speech functions,
or types of statement (e.g. demands which appear as statements,
evaluations which appear as factual statements)?
- What is the predominant grammatical mood (declarative, interrogative,
imperative)?
8- Discourses:
- What discourses are drawn upon in the text, and how are they textured
together? Is there a significant mixing of discourses?
- What are the features that characterize the discourses which are drawn
upon (semantic relations between words, collocations, metaphors,
assumptions, grammatical features-see immediately below)?
9- Representation of Social Events
- What elements of represented social events are included or excluded, and
which included elements are most salient?
- How abstractly or concretely are social events represented?
- How are processes represented? What are the predominant process types
(material, mental, verbal, relational, existential)?
- Are there instances of grammatical metaphor in the representation of
processes?
- How are social actors represented (activated/ passivated, personal/
impersonal, named/ classified, specific/ generic)?
- How are time, space, and the relation between ’space-times’
represented?
10- Styles:
195
- What styles are drawn upon in the text, and how are they textured
together?
Is there a significant mixing of styles?
- What are the features that characterize the styles that are drawn upon
(body language, pronunciation and other phonological features,
vocabulary, metaphor, modality or evaluation-see immediately below for
the latter two)?
11- Modality
- What do authors commit themselves to in terms of truth (epistemic
modalities)? Or in terms of obligation and necessity (deontic
modalities)?
- To what extent are modalites categorical (assertion, denial etc.), to what
extent are they modalized (with explicit markers of modality)?
- What levels of commitment are there (high, median, low) where
modalities are modalized?
- What are the markers of modalization (model verbs, modal adverbs,
etc.)?
12- Evaluation
- To what values (in terms of what is desirable or undesirable) do authors
commit themselves?
- How are values realized- as evaluative statements, statements with
deontic modalities, statements with affective mental processes, or
assumed values?
During discourse analysis there is a constant alternation of focus from the
particularity of the discourse sample, to the type(s) of discourse which it draws
upon, and the configurations of discourse types to which it is oriented. Analysis
should be directed at both: it should show features, patterns and structures which
are typical of certain types of discourse, restructuring tendencies in orders of
196
discourse, and ways of using these conventional resources which are specific to
this sample.
There are always alternative possible analyses for discourse samples, and the
question arises of how analysts can justify the analyses they propose (how they
can ‘validate’ them). There is no simple answer, and all one can do is decide,
given alternative analyses, which seems to be preferable on the balance of
evidence available.
It was the goal of the preceding sections to give a brief outline of the core
procedures applied in the different approaches to CDA. Finally it should be
pointed out that, although there is no consistent CDA methodology, some features
are common to most CDA approaches: firstly they are problem oriented and not
focused on specific linguistic items. Yet linguistic expertise is obligatory for the
selection of the items relevant to specific research objectives. Secondly theory as
well as methodology is eclectic: both are integrated as far as it is helpful to
understand the social problems under investigation.
Considering all above mentioned models for doing critical discourse analysis,
in this research, we will follow more closely the models of Fairclough (1989,
2001c, 2003) for analyzing the written electoral materials from the 7th presidential
election in Iran.
3.4. Position of Analyst
Discourse analysis is a kind of microscope: it focuses in on different objects at
different levels of magnification, at the whim of the analyst. Discourse analysis
has its own version of the uncertainty principle: at the level of sub-textual
analysis, ’observers’ (i.e., people reflecting more than casually on texts and talk)
cannot exclude themselves from their observations (i.e., interpretations), these
being selective and potentially influenced by their ’position’ and interests. Such
197
effects cannot be avoided if the aim is an understanding of the links between
discourse and social processes at large, but they can be made explicit.
Discourse analysts too are political animals. Some of us in the past have felt it
important to give prominence to the point, to the extent almost of treating critical
discourse analysis as a mode of political action in itself. This approach has
focused on language as a part of society. Chilton (2004: 205) asys that “a
primarily critical approach is not going to give us new insights into language and
the human mind. However one’s political standpoint cannot be entirely
decoupled, nor should it be”. In fact, one could argue that it is impossible to
analyse political language behaviour unless one does exrcise one’s political
intuitions, which are by definition critical.
There are two implications of the line of thinking. One is focusing on the
processes of minds in order to enhance understanding of human nature, including
political nature. The second is by implication guardedly optimistic. If people are
indeed political animals, at least to some degree, and depending on how they
define political, then thay are also in principle, capable of doing their own
political critique. The important question is whether they are free to do so.
For critical analyst, the aim is to bridge the gap between analyst and participant
through the widespread development of rational understanding of, and theories of,
society. Participants do have, to varying degrees, their own rationalizations of
discoursal practice in terms of assumptions about society. But ‘how is the analyst
to gain access to the discourse processes of production and interpretation’? These
processes take place in people’s head, it is therefore not possible to observe them.
In order to access them, the analyst must draw upon her/his own members’
resources (interpretative procedures) in order to explain how participants draw
upon theirs.
But if analysts are drawing upon their own members’ resources to explicate
how those of participants operate in discourse, then it is important that they be
sensitive to what resources they are themselves relying upon to do analysis. At
198
this stage of the procedure, it is only really self-consciousness that distinguishes
the analyst from the participants she/he is analysing. The analyst is doing the
same as the participant interpreter, but unlike the participant interpreter the
analyst is concerned with explicate what she/he is doing (Fairclough 2001c:1389). For the critical analyst, moreover, the aim is to eliminate even that difference:
to develop self-consciousness about the rootedness of discourse in common-sense
assumptions of members’ resources. (However, self-consciousness is just as
important if one is to avoid importing untheorized assumptions about society, or
acting as if explanation could be theory-independent or theory-neutral).
Critical linguists and discourse analysts have an important auxiliary role to
play here (i.e. secondary to the role of people directly affected) in providing
analyses, and, importantly, in providing critical educators with resources of what
Fairclough (1995a: 221) and his colleagues called ‘critical language awareness’.
199
Endnotes:
1. Discourses are not phenomena which exist independently; they form the
elements - and are the prerequisite - of the existence of so-called
dispositives. A dispositive is the constantly evolving context of items of
knowledge which are contained in speaking/thinking - acting materialization. To visualize the concept of the dispositive in the form of a
figure, imagine a triangle or rather a circle rotating in history with three
central ‘transit points or transit stations’. These are:
1- discursive practices in which primarily knowledge is transported;
2- actions as non-discursive practices, in which, however, knowledge is
transported, which are preceded by knowledge and/or constantly
accompanied by knowledge;
3- manifestations/materializations which represent materializations of
discursive practices through non-discursive practices, whereby the
existence of manifestations (‘objects’) only survives through discursive
and non-discursive practices (Jager 2001: 56-7).
2. Once again a reference to Emile Durkheim: "The ideas of man or animal
are not personal and are not restricted to me; I share them, to a large degree,
with all the men who belong to the same social group that I do. Because
they are held in common, concepts are the supreme instrument of all
intellectual exchange" (Bellah 1973: 52).
3. This version of CDA is based upon a view of semiosis as an irreducible part
of material social processes. Semiosis includes all forms of meaning
making - visual images, body language, as well as language. We can see
social life as interconnected networks of social practices of diverse sorts
(economic, political, cultural, and so on). And every practice has a semiotic
element. The motivation for focusing on social practices is that it allows
one to combine the perspective of structure and the perspective of action - a
practice is on the one hand a relatively permanent way of acting socially
200
which is defined by its position within a structured network of practices,
and a domain of social action and interaction which both reproduces
structures and has the potential to transform them. All practices are
practices of production - they are the arenas within which social life is
produced, be it economic, political, cultural, or everyday life.
Let us say that every practice includes the following elements:
 productive activity;
 means of production;
 social relations;
 social identities;
 cultural values;
 consciousness;
 semiosis.
These elements are dialectically related (Harvey 1996). That is to say, they are
different elements but not discrete, fully separate, elements. There is a sense in
which each ‘internalizes’ the others without being reducible to them. So for
instance social relations, social identities, cultural values and consciousness are
in part semiotic, but that does not mean that we theorize and research social
relations for instance in the same way that we theorize and research language they have distinct properties, and researching them gives rise to distinct
disciplines.
CDA is analysis of the dialectical relationships between semiosis (including
language) and other elements of social practices. Its particular concern is with the
radical changes that are taking place in contemporary social life, with how
semiosis figures within processes of change, and with shifts in the relationship
between semiosis and other social elements within networks of practices
(Fairclough 2001a: 122-3).
201
4. Fairclough (1989: 30) provides the example of the role of conversation as a
discourse type. For example, conversation has no ‘on-stage’ role in legal
proceedings, but it may have a significant ‘off-stage’ role in informal
bargaining between opposing lawyers. In education, on the other hand,
conversation may have approved roles not only between classes and during
breaks, but also as a form of approved activity within some lessons. The
role of conversation on television is again quite different.
5. As mentioned, CDA places its methodology rather in the hermeneutic than
in the analytical-deductive tradition. As a consequence no clear line
between data collection and analysis can be drawn (Meyer 2001).
6. A general survey on sampling and the selection of texts is given by Titscher
et al. (2000). The advantages and disadvantages of different methods of
data collection are discussed from the point of view of the qualitative
tradition by Silverman (1997); Potter (1997) and Perakyla (1997).
7. For discussion about the representativeness of qualitative data see Titscher
et al. (2000: 31 ff.), Firestone (1993) and the articles in Ragin and Becker
(1992).
8. In the case of ‘think’, for instance, the proposition which follows that verb
is offered as part of a mental process of the speaker, with whatever degree
of seriousness the hearer then wishes to attach to the speaker’s mental
process. ‘Seem’, on the other hand, is an effect produced in the speaker by
external events of which he is merely an interpreter: ‘I think they have lost
...’ as against ‘they seem to have lost’ (Fowler et al. 1979: 206).
9. This term has been taken from Halliday, ‘Anti-languages’ (1976).
Halaliday gives three examples of this process. For other discussions which
make use of this concept see Hodge and Kress (1979); and Kress (1978).
10. For example, Basil Bernstein’s well-known and controversial theory of
restricted and elaborated speech codes imputes syntactic complexity to the
middle class and simplicity to the working class (Bernstein 1971). This
202
theory is so loosely and tendentiously formulated that it offers no useful
basis for further work. But there is no doubt that complex syntax is a
property of the discourse of knowledge and authority.
11. Coulthard (1977) gives a clear introduction to these techniques, and to an
extension of the analysis to discourse within one power-laden context, the
classroom (see Sinclair and Coulthard 1975).
12. Experiental value is to do with contents, knowledge and beliefs. A formal
feature with experiential value is a trace of and a cue to the way in which
the text producer’s experience of the natural or social world is represented.
13. Relational value is to do with relations and social relationships. A formal
feature with relational value is a trace of and a cue to social relationships
which are enacted via the text in the discourse.
14. Expressive value is to do with subjects and social identities. A formal
feature with expressive value is a trace of and a cue to producer’s
evaluation of the bit of the reality it relates to. These are shown
diagramatically in the following diagram adopted from Fairclough (1989:
112).
Imensions of
Values of features
Structural effects
Contents
Experiential
Knowledge/beliefs
Relations
Relational
Social relations
Subjects
Expressive
Social identities
meaning
15. Critical discourse analysis oscillates between a focus on structure and a
focus on action - between a focus on shifts in the social structuring of
semiotic diversity (orders of discourse), and a focus on the productive
semiotic work which goes on in particular texts and interactions. In both
203
perspectives, a central concern is shifting articulations between genres,
discourses, and styles - the shifting social structuring of relationships
between them which achieve a relative stability and permanence in orders
of discourse, and the ongoing working of relationships between them in
texts and interactions. The term ‘interdiscursivity’ is reserved for the latter:
the ‘interdiscursivity’ of a text is a part of its intertextuality, a question of
which genres, discourses and styles it draws upon, and how it works them
into particular articulations (Fairclough 2001c: 124).
16. There are two modal auxiliaries, may not and must. May on its own as a
relational modal can signal permission (you may go), but with not the
meaning is ‘not permitted’ Must signals obligation (you are required to pay
the cost of replacement). Notice that the authority and power relations on
the basis of which the producers of this text withhold permission from, or
impose obligations upon, the people it is sent to, are not made explicit. It is
precisely implicit authority claims and implicit power relations of the sort
illustrated here that make relational modality a matter of ideological
interest (Fairclough 1989: 127).
17. Fairclough limits his comments on expressive values to expressive
modality (see Fairclough 1989: 128).
18. Normative relations to members ‘resources are associated with situations
which are unproblematic for participants. In such cases, members’
resources constitute appropriate norms (discourse type, interpretative
procedures) which can simply be followed.
19. Creative relations to members‘ resources are characteristic of situations
which are problematic. If there is a mismatch between the concrete
situation and familiar situation types, the participants draw upon the
resources which their members’ resources provide in preative ways in order
to cope with the problematic properties of the situation (see Fairclough
1989: 165).
204
Chapter 4
A Critical discourse analysis
of the election campaigns texts and
the development of the May 23 event
This chapter is focused on the analysis of the Islamic Republic Of
Iran (IRI) 7th presidential election campaigns texts by combining
the critical discourse analysis methods discussed in the previous
chapters in light of Fairclough's model (1989) at the three stages
of ‘Description’, ‘Interpretation’, and ‘Explanation’.
The
Description stage deals with the linguistic features of the texts at
semantic and syntactic levels. The Interpretation stage, which is
wider in scope, is concerned with the situational and intertextual
contexts seeking the common discourse in the speech event to
which the given text belongs.
Finally, the Explanation stage
focuses on the power relations behind the discourses, the way the
social structures restrict the discourse, and the mutual effect of
the discourses on the social structures and power relations.
205
206
4.1 Description
Description is the stage at which the critical analyst studies the formal
properties and linguistic features of the language at semantic and syntactic
levels taking into consideration the experiential, relational, and expressive
values. In effect, this stage has to do with the social identities that are
developed by the analyst. Nevertheless, as the speech texts are generally very
lengthy, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to do a sentence-by-sentence
linguistic analysis. Therefore, the discourse analysis in this study will be
concerned with the overall text coherence as a result of word choice.
To begin with, the 7th presidential election campaigns of Iran will be
reconstructed as follows.
4.1.1 The Election campaigns reconstruction model
The May-23 event (1997) is doubtless a turning point in the history of the PostRevolution Iran. The campaign was a challenge to the two opposing discourses.
The discourse model developed out of this political debate was full of new
concepts and border lines as well as new cultural, social, and political
perspectives. Another major outcome of this event was that the marginal nonofficial speeches crept into the territory of the official ones, and many
forbidden views began to be verbalized. Some relevant instances will be
presented later in this section.
As early as 1980s, the political order in Iran was defined within a major
discourse domain pioneered by Imam Khomeini. Like any other dominant
discourse, Imam Khomeini's discourse was inclusive enough to encompass
several discourses, and powerful enough to exclude several others from the
political debates. Thus, in Imam's time, there was the multiplicity of certain
political discourses which will be discussed in the following sections. Each of
207
the dominant discourses followed more or less the same pattern collectively
referred to as ‘the official discourse’. It was a center-oriented discourse that
presented a sacred view of the Post-Revolution Iran with a promising future. It
was concerned with the Development policies in light of ‘social justice’, and
sought to revive and spread the values of the Revolution and the imposed War.
During the 7th presidential election campaign (1997), some of the excluded
discourses found their way back to the political debates. The significance of the
point lies in the fact that the admission of a marginal discourse to the scene
would mean a serious challenge to the political order and the emergence of
costly political conflicts. The main [political] figures were not likely to
welcome such conflicts, as the participation of the marginal discourses in the
main field of political debates would lead to an unexpected situation for all
stakeholders. The main figures would rather settle their conflicts within the
dominant discourse framework so as not to pave the way for the opportunists
waiting behind the tight election campaigns. Now the question may be raised as
to how the May-23 (khordad the Second) event paved that way.
4.1.2 The political atmosphere in Iran prior to the
May-23 event (khordad the Second)
In the last few months of the year 1996, the political parties began to plan for
an active participation in the Iran’s 7th presidential election. The political
atmosphere was under the influence of some significant factors as follows.
1. After Hashemi Rafsanjani's second term of presidency, the political
parties began to expect a new era in the country's political challenges. In
the conventional presidency campaign, aside from the first presidential
election, there always used to be one distinguished political figure
among the candidates who was in the limelight and all parties kept
208
encouraging the public to participate in the election. This time, however,
no such a figure appeared on the stage to exclude the other parties, and,
therefore, all political groups seemed to have the opportunity to try their
chance in the campaign and encourage active public participation.
2. The so-called Right Party had more chances of success. Prior to the
Parliament's 5th election, they had gained the majority of the seats, and
in the second half of Hashemi's last term of presidency, the Party began
to expand its scope of influence. The majority of the MPs, the Assembly
of Experts, the Council of Guardians2, the Judiciary, some departments
of the Executive including the Ministries of Interior, Foreign Affairs,
and Islamic Culture and Guidance, The Revolutionary Army (Sepah
Pasdaran), The Militia (Basseej), and the Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting (IRIB) all took sides with the Right Party. Therefore, the
scope of the Right's power was growing in public view from 1994 on.
The opposition parties could at best take advantage of the election
campaigns to introduce themselves only, hiring the isolated political
groups with the purpose of finding an opportunity to appear on the
stage. As a result, the public had the impression that the Right would
definitely win the election.
3. Despite being strongly supported, the Right Party was lacking in a figure
that, character wise, could be comparable to the past popular candidates.
This was the Right's Achilles' heel, which the Left could take advantage
of during the political challenge. Based on the Parliament's 5th Election
results, the Left could predict that their active participation in the 7th
presidential election would lead to one of the following outcomes:
(a) The Right would narrowly win the election while the Left
remains a strong opposition group.
209
(b) The Right would sabotage the Left's effective participation which
the former would eventually pay for. The least serious outcome
of this sabotage could be little public participation.
4. The Parliament's 5th election disclosed a critical disintegration in the
established political front. Just before this election, a group of people in
the so-called Right Party who called themselves ‘The Construction
Agents’ branched out and were referred to as ‘The Modernist Right’
thereafter. In the late 1996, rumors were spread as to the coalition of
these two sub-branches. The coalition, however, failed, and the way was
eventually paved for the May-23 event in 1997.
The way each party appeared in the election campaigns were the indications of
their psychological state. Based on their perception of the election results, each
party adopted certain strategies, which will be discussed in detail in the
following sections.
4.1.3 The Left Party (Reformists)
Ever since August 1996, the Left unofficially introduced Mir-Hussein
Moosavi3 as their candidate, while the introduction of Nategh Noori had begun
months before by the Right. The Left considered Moosavi as the reliable prime
minister in Imam's time, a great support to the Islamic troops during the 8-year
Holy Defense, a true revolutionary, an expert, and a priceless asset to the
Revolution. He was believed to have an extra-party approach respected by most
parties as well as the Parliament4.
210
Moosavi's candidacy rightly empowered the position of the Left, and, in the
meantime, the Right did every attempt to make him change his mind. With
Moosavi's resignation from candidacy on October 29, 1996, the Left Party felt
politically empty. Pressed for time, the Left had no other alternative.
The significance of the Left Party's discourse from October 29, 1996 until
January 27, 1997 when Khatami's candidacy was officially announced lies in
its inclination toward the official discourse. The official discourse focused on
the Revolution and Leadership and was supported by the devoted parties with
the public in the margin.
After Moosavi's resignation, the Left adopted a special discourse to invalidate
the rival party and prove its own position as a rightful opposition party unfairly
suppressed. By claiming that honest revolutionaries such as Moosavi are forced
out of the political campaigns, they tried to provide evidence for the Right's
monopolistic strategies.
The Left Party were aware of the significance of their presence in the election,
as their active participation would be an exciting challenge to the Right.
Nevertheless, the Left wouldn't like to have a contribution to the rival party's
success by adding to the excitement of the challenge. On the other hand, any
chance of success for the Left would mean defeat to the Right, so the latter
appealed to any powerful resources to hold the former back. By the same
token, if the Left Party decided to give up, the Right would be worried as to the
possibility of negative outcomes due to lack of public participation. The Left
Party took advantage of this critical situation warning that they would not
participate. The Left's strategy could be likened to that of a player, who leaves
the field because he was not given a prestigious position, and therefore, tries to
either stop the game or make it look unfair or less exciting.
After long covert debates, the Left finally introduced Khatami, an attractive
political figure, who officially announced his candidacy on January 27, 1997 in
support of the Association of Clergy Crusaders (ACC), Imam's Followers, and
211
The Construction Agents. Khatami took several trips to different cities and
made many speeches from late January 1997 until May 19, 1997.
His
campaign speeches addressed two categories of people with the same purpose.
The first category included the intellectuals and the academic community,
while the second category included the mass. Speech wise, he addressed the
first category, and behavior wise, the second category. These features will later
be discussed in detail.
By addressing the academic community in his earlier campaign speeches,
Khatami appeared as a different persona. He presented a new version of the
official discourse. However, after the Council of Guardians' approval of his
candidacy, Khatami's discourse turned much similar to the official discourse.
The novelty found earlier in his speeches and his later shift toward the official
discourse could be observed in both the semantics and syntax of his discourse.
In next sections, Khatami's campaign speeches will be analyzed at both
semantic and syntactic levels in two parts: before and after the Council of
Guardians' approval of his candidacy. The purpose is to reveal how a marginal
discourse crept into the body of a main discourse, that of Khatami's, and the
shift of the latter toward the official discourse.
4.1.3.1 A new discourse in the election campaigns
Since late January1997 until May 1997 (when the names of the approved
candidates were announced), Khatami made several speeches that manifested a
different discourse in terms of both form and content. The novelty and
difference of his discourse lie in the following features:
1. As a religious thinker moving to the center stage, he was called an
armed intellectual by the neo-religious groups.
2. He
revolutionized
the
political
discourse
replacing
economic
development by political development.
3. He introduced a two fold discourse against the official discourse.
212
4. To him, political action was devoid of sanctity.
5. He combined national values with religious values.
6. He introduced a comprehensive discourse.
7. He introduced a new version of the common topics of the official
discourse.
8. His discourse was future-oriented.
4.1.3.1.1 A thinker rather than politician
Khatami was the first political figure who moved to the center stage as a neoreligious thinker. It should be pointed out that in the early years after the
victory of the Revolution, the country was dominated mainly by the political
figures and, therefore, scientific debates were confined to the intellectual
community. Politicians' speeches were just concerned with the Revolution's
achievements, prospective plans, and the enemies' conspiracies. The opposition
groups, however, talked about the philosophy of religion, the relationship
between religion and democracy, liberalism, etc., using philosophical jargons
prevalent in the academic communities only.
Khatami, however, extended his philosophical view to the election campaigns,
and this was why he sounded different among the educated people. His most
prominent speech was delivered on the night of Ramadan 21st in the Iranian
Students' Islamic Associations Union (Tahkim-e Vahdat Office). Extracts of his
speech are presented below:
(After Mostowfee's discussion about religious freedom (Falaah)
which relates to internal freedom and how it differs from modern
freedom which is external)… My point is the relationship
between Falaah as I perceive it, an old philosophical key concept,
and freedom referred to as liberto today. What is the relationship
between these two? Is there a contrast, or can they be reconciled?
213
I'd like to conclude my speech and offer my own interpretation
with reference to Imam Ali…. In the world of Islam and in the
world of Christianity, there emerged an extremist view of Man
and the World which led to some discrepancies between the
external freedom and the outside freedom. An extremist approach
held that attending to Man's spiritual values requires rejecting the
material values and the material world… If Islam is what the
extremist view of Sufism advocated (which, in my view,
dominated a major part of the world of Islam and was imposed on
Moslems), then no reconciliation is likely between religion and
Freedom (in its modern sense). Nor is it likely in the world of
Christianity in view of Self-denial. If we adopt a moderate
approach to religion whereby the material world is not totally
rejected and Man's rights in this world are recognized, the
modern view of freedom would sound acceptable…. Liberalism
cannot serve as a system of life, or of religious life, for that
matter. But, freedom, in its political sense, the one acknowledged
by the ruling system (which is also partly a pre-requisite for
Liberalism), can be considered as an appropriate religious
approach
(provided
we
modify
our
ontological
and
epistemological views). With reference to Imam Ali's words, I
will show how it is possible to conceive of the world as a factual
phenomenon among the goods, rather than the evils.5
The semantic relations between clauses and sentences are predominantly of two
types: elaborative and contrastive/concessive: a pattern repeated several times
in the development of a claim in an elaborative relation, which is in a
contrastive/concessive relation with another claim. Both of these semantic
relations are frequent in this text. The contrastive/concessive relation is marked
214
by the conjunction 'but'. There are also a few instances of other semantic
relations: additive (also) and conditional (if).
Grammatical relations between clauses are predominantly hypotactic. The
predominant type of exchange is knowledge exchange and the predominant
speech function is statement. There are three questions at the beginning of the
text. These are the questions which are answered as well as asked in the text,
but they give it a somewhat dialogical appearance. The grammatical mood is
predominantly declarative apart from the three questions, which are
interrogative.
Another important feature of this speech is its extra-religious approach, the one
developed in the intellectual community. The text refers to the different views
of religion and emphasizes the necessity of an appropriate approach with extrareligious values that would best suit the rational spirit of the era. Khatami
appears like a theorist who, from outside the territory of religion, thinks about
harmonizing Islam and freedom
_
the western ‘liberto’.
Both Khatami's
interpretation of religion and the western interpretation of freedom undergo
modifications in this speech so that the theoretical harmony would be met. The
discourse is clearly a reminder of the discourse of the religious intellectuals.
The frequency of the words ‘freedom’, ‘liberto’, ‘Liberalism’, ‘Man’, and ‘the
world’ are the indications of the speaker's tendency toward modernism (as
opposed to traditionalism). He, however, adopted a new version of modernism
as the words that frequently accompany the term 'modernism' in his speech are
religious in nature and directly related to Islam. Modernism is here introduced
in light of new interpretations of Islam based on two approaches: the extremist
approach forbids the material world, while according to the moderate approach,
the material world is not completely left aside, and Man's rights in this world
are acknowledged by religion. Based on the moderate approach, a certain type
of freedom that is commonly respected around the world will be accepted.
215
Rejecting the extremist approach, the above-mentioned text attempts to
reconcile Islam and Freedom, or, in other words, Traditionalism and
Modernism, respectively. While being faithful to the Islamic principles,
Khatami intended to highlight those aspects of Islam which have things in
common with modernism.
4.1.3.1.2 Revolutionizing the political discourse
Both parties were aware of the urgency and priority of the economic issues and
the public's living problems. Likewise, as people were concerned about the
increasing rate of inflation resulted from Hashemi's reform policies, it was
believed that using the relevant mottos would be more attractive to the public.
Khatami, however, did not mention anything about his future economic
programs in his speeches. Instead of making promises to solve the economic
problems, he talked about political development and the necessity of
empowering the civil society, freedom, and freedom of speech as indicated in
the following extract:
I believe that sustainable economic development will not be
achieved without political development, because participation is
the prerequisite for sustainable economic development and
should be encouraged. If the varieties are recognized in light of
the Constitution and Supreme Leadership, and are granted
freedom of speech, then we will have a stable civil society with
sustainable economic development.2
Conjunctions such as ‘because,’ ‘if’, and ‘then’ indicate that purpose is the
main focus of the semantic relations between the sentences and phrases. By the
same token, the conjunctions show the hypotaxis type of the grammatical
relations.
Aside from this, the collocations of political development and
economic development and the claim that economic development depends on
political development indicate the priority of the latter for Khatami.
216
Therefore, rather than using mottos about reducing economic problems,
Khatami spoke about political development and the significance of developing
the civil society, freedom, and freedom of speech. He actually introduced the
novel, unprecedented subject of political development in the official discourse
as the focal point of his own discourse.
4.1.3.1.3 Introducing a polarized political discourse
In his speeches, Khatami frequently referred to two models of ruling system,
namely, desirable and non-desirable, on the basis of the definition of freedom
and Law. The following extract, which is taken from Khatami's first speech, is
significant in terms of his polarized discourse:
… According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
the ruling system comes from God and takes effect through
people, and the nation have willingly accepted it. …
Acknowledging the Public's right to elect the government and
enjoy democracy, the Constitution prevents the imposition of the
worst type of dictatorship which comes into effect through certain
individuals or a certain class of people, and ignores Man's will by
claiming that government comes from God…. In Imam Ali's
view, the responsibility of the ruling system and the Leader is to
combat injustice and exercise justice…. Our ruling system is the
outset of a new system in the history of the oppressed Moslems in
general, and that of Iran in particular…. Under Imam Ali's
leadership, people have the rights to establish the ruling system,
to supervise it, to question it, and to express their opinions…. As
a reaction against their [the opposition groups'] offensive
behavior, Imam [Ali] would make efforts to correct them, in a
way that he even first tried to advise them when they declared
war…. The power to govern Man and the Universe is solely that
217
of God, a basic religious principle which would suit even the
worst types of dictatorship, but it underlies the approach which
our ruling system is founded on…. In these magnificent nights,
wish the best for the protection of the System, for the protection
of the Leadership, and for the nourishment and power of the
System on the basis of the [intellectual and spiritual] growth of
the individuals who live within this System.7
a) The main ideologically significant words and phrases in the text include
God, people, nation, will, rights to elect, democracy, exercise justice, combat
injustice, history of oppression, rights to supervise and question, right to
express opinions, right to establish the ruling system, worst type of
dictatorship, ignore man's will, attributing the ruling system to God, certain
class, the sole power governing the Universe, worst type of dictatorship,
protection of the System and the Leadership. The word "people" is more
frequent in the text (3 times), but it is repeated more times by its synonyms.
"Nation" and the other words accompanying "Man" in this text are synonymous
with ‘people.’ For example, in the phrases ‘ignoring man's will,’ ‘Under Imam
Ali's leadership, people have the rights to establish the ruling system,’ ‘on the
basis of the [intellectual and spiritual] growth of the individuals who live
within this System,’ man and individuals are synonymous with ‘people.’ Thus,
people can be considered as the core word in the relevant semantic domain.
Khatami refers to people's right to be the sole ruling power, which is bestowed
to them by God, and states that they have willingly given this right to the
authorities, and therefore, they have the right to establish the ruling system, to
supervise, to question, and to freely express their opinions. So, he ironically
likens his government to Imam Ali's Islamic ruling system, distinguishing the
former from the worst type of dictatorship which is formed under the veil of a
divine gift.
218
b) The text is IJAABI? as far as the syntactic structures are concerned. There
are no negative sentences in this text, and no political groups are under attack.
In light of the Constitution, Khatami refers to the distinguishing characteristics
of the Islamic Republic which is modeled on Imam Ali's ruling principles, and
considers it as a milestone in the history of the oppressed Moslems as well as
the history of Iran.
c) The SALBI? aspect of the text, however, could well be implied. The text is
organized in a way that it rejects the approach of the parties who ignore
people's free will, attribute the ruling power to God instead of the Public,
believe in exercising that power by a certain class of people, deny the Public's
right to establish the ruling system, supervise it, question it, and freely express
their opinions. These parties have abused the principle of God's absolute power
to govern the Universe, and have gone astray toward the worst type of
dictatorship.
d) The statement "Our ruling system is the outset of a new system in the history
of the oppressed Moslems in general, and that of Iran in particular" is also
historically significant: the history of the Moslems and the history of Iran show
oppression. Based on this historical narrative, Imam Ali's ruling system known
to have been based on the Public's free will is considered as the point of
departure: a system in which the people had the right to establish, supervise,
and question the government. This point of departure, however, was left behind
when the long history of oppression, as put by Khatami, began. The Islamic
Revolution and the Islamic Republic is the way back to this point of departure.
He considers this specific narrative of the Islamic Republic as true, and stands
against the narratives, which ignore that distinguishing feature.
Hence,
Khatami implicitly rejects the rival party's narratives for being in line with the
history of oppressions.
e) A bipolar view is adopted in this text with ‘we’ and ‘they’ as the two poles.
The ‘we’ as the positive pole is associated with ‘Law’, ‘people’, ‘nation’, ‘free
219
will’, ‘right to select’, and ‘[Imam] Ali-like ruling system’, while ‘they’ as the
negative pole is associated with ‘the worst type of dictatorship’, ‘ignoring
Man's free will by attributing the ruling power to God,’ ‘certain individuals or
class of people’, and ‘[Imam] Ali's opponents’. Two approaches to ruling
system are introduced both of which are rooted in God's ruling power: the
System which ‘we’ advocate, and in which people mediate God and the Islamic
ruler and the latter is, therefore, legitimized by the people. In the System that
‘they’ advocate, the Islamic ruler mediates God and the people (see Kashi,
2000: 153-4). The distinction between ‘we’ and ‘they’ in the text is the
outcome of the reformist discourse's antagonistic attitude to draw a political
borderline between ‘us’ and ‘others.’ The polarization of the desirable and
non-desirable models on the basis of political freedom limits is the hallmark of
Khatami's first campaign speech. This specific polarization distinguishes his
discourse from the official discourse and makes him sound different to the
public. The difference lies in the fact that polarization in the official discourse
is concerned with dichotomies such as dependence/independence, Islamic/nonIslamic, pro-western/anti-western (combating Imperialism), and the like.
Freedom in this discourse means independence from the foreign countries.
f) In this extract, like the previous one, the semantic relations between the
clauses
and
the
sentences
are
of
two
types:
elaborative
and
contrastive/concessive. The contrastive/concessive relation is marked by the
conjunction ‘but.’ Also, the grammatical relations are predominantly paratactic.
This type of discourse is clearly new in the realm of official discourse which
was center-oriented and pushed the people to the margin of political debates.
Khatami, however, moved the people to the center stage, and, using signifiers
such as Law, Freedom, and Civil Society creates a semantic system to attack
the conservatives' semantic structures and destroy their hegemony.
220
Khatami's discourse resembles the non-official discourse of the Left Party.
Nevertheless, due to its religious tone and uses of religious symbols, his
discourse introduces a new narrative of the dominant discourse of the
Revolution and the Islamic Republic rather than a narrative outside the
principles of the ruling system.
4.1.3.1.4 Separating political activities from holy activities
In the official discourse, political activities are usually considered as [religious]
responsibilities assigned by a religious authority, whereas Khatami introduced
a rational narrative of political activities rather than one based on [religious]
duties. He claimed to have the intention to ‘let different views be expressed,’8
and pave the way for more discussions and more public participation, the
prerequisites for the desirable ruling system in which people take the center
stage.
Among Khatami's strategies for separating political activities from holy
activities is his modeling on non-political frameworks to describe political
measures. What follows is his speech delivered in the closing ceremony of the
2nd Athletic-Cultural Festival held at the Municipality of District 18, which will
be analyzed in detail.
… Our society is among the youngest societies. This young
society is undergoing a new experience. That is, our society is
young age wise. Today, more than 20 million children and young
adults are busy studying in the society.
Sports provide the best opportunities for youth to materialize
their talents. Today, sports, like industry, higher education, and
the like, is considered as one of the most important elements of a
dynamic society…. It is the most appropriate area for the youth,
and therefore, we should pay more attention to championship, as
sports can promote the position of a nation and a country besides
221
being an indication of construction, stability, dynamism, and
development.
…Unity is more observable in sports activities than other areas;
so, investment in this area would eventually benefit the country
and the nation…. A society will be prosperous if it paves the way
for good competition and discussions over different subjects. So,
a society is called prosperous when different parties, associations,
and groups find opportunities for competition. The area of sports
makes it possible for all people to participate in the society as
responsible individuals. It is impossible to expect to have a
society in which all people think alike. Variety and difference are
inherent in human nature. A society will be prosperous if it
admits and respects all the differences. We need competition in
our society; we should provide opportunities for the right
political, intellectual, and social competitions while being
cautious as not to let these competitions harm our national and
Islamic goals. A homogeneous society is a dead one. It should be
pointed out that sports provide the best context for the relevant
practice. For any one to win, they need rivals in sports, a
competition integrated with friendship. I believe that sports show
our youth, You are able, and you must compete, but this
competition should not harm your friendship and unity. Thus, it is
clear that investment in sports activities cannot be overstated. Of
course, care should be taken as not to abuse this opportunity.
Now that we are busy with construction, we should bear in mind
that just as we observe our own values and criteria in economic
construction, we should firstly consider sports as one of the
elements of construction and prosperity. Secondly, we should
take advantage of the attractions of the area of sports to the
222
benefit of our supreme goals, and not let this area keep the youth
detached from construction.9
a) The text comprises four semantic episodes. The first episode is concerned
with the young age of the Iranian society and is concluded by the view that the
area of sports is the best area for the youth in which they can materialize their
capabilities. In the second episode, the significance of the cultural-political
dimension of sports is emphasized in that it promotes the rank of a nation while
being an indication of a dynamic society. In the third episode, sports is
introduced as the most important potential area for national unity. The fourth
episode focuses on competition in sports, and defines a lively society as the one
which provides chances of competition. Episodes 2 and 3 have a cause-effect
relationship with episode 1, i.e., the young age of the Iranian society leads to
the importance of sports, which in turn results in other outcomes such as the
materialization of the youth's potentials, promotion of the country, and national
unity.
On the other hand, the relationship between episode 4 and other episodes is
rather metaphorical: the society is likened to the area of sports which requires
competitions. Competitions are followed by positive outcomes. A society in
which there are no chances of competition is a passive homogeneous one
lacking in variety.
b) According to this text, actions in the area of sports are not modeled on
cultural-political actions, but it is rather the other way round.
c) The key ideological concepts in the text include dynamic society (repeated 2
times), promoting the position of a nation, construction (4 times), stability,
development, unity (2 times), people, competition (7 times), prosperous society
(3 times), varieties and differences, national and Islamic goals, passive society,
prosperity, and supreme goals. The word competition is the most frequent
word among the ideologically significant words which the text is focused on.
Competition is an indication of a prosperous dynamic society heading toward
223
supreme goals, prosperity, construction, stability, and development. Such a
society is contrasted with a passive homogeneous society.
d) Homogeneous society implies the society organized within the rival party's
ethical framework which is solely concerned with performing [religious] duties
and pays little attention to the output. On the contrary, Khatami's competitive
framework
is
primarily
concerned
with
determination,
action,
and
materialization of competencies and potentials. In this semantic organization,
the agent believes in ‘You are able and you should compete’. Actions are
divided into efficient/inefficient rather than good/evil.
4.1.3.1.5 Prominence of nationalist values
A significant point about the text is the prominence given to nationalist values
as a distinguishing characteristic of Khatami's discourse. The text is explicitly
full of such values including nation, national unity, and national goals. More
specifically, Khatami considers sports as the best area for the manifestation of
unity, and therefore, thinks that investment in this area will contribute to the
welfare of the nation and the country. Thus, instead of basing his arguments
about the materialization of unity on ideological principles in general, and
religion in particular, Khatami has in mind that kind of unity which
encompasses all social groups and classes with all ideological orientations and
political interests. Regarding the significant role of sports in the promotion of
national unity in that period of time, this area remains a high priority for him.
This text suffices to show why Khatami gives serious consideration and
priority to national unity as being more comprehensive than religious
teachings.
While acknowledging the role of the religious people in supporting the
Revolution, in another speech, Khatami extended the criterion for unity beyond
religion and spoke about unity in light of being Iranian: "Referring to the
religious people who show more devotion to the Revolution, he said, 'Iran
224
belongs to all the Iranians who wish for the dignity and prosperity of this
nation, and public participation should be made feasible in this regard."10
The nationalist values in Khatami's speeches make his discourse inclusive as
opposed to the exclusive discourse of the rival party. The official discourse
underlying the Right's speeches is full of exclusive concepts. Value-based
words and phrases such as troops, devotees of the Sovereignty of the Religious
Leader (SRL), the nation that raises martyrs, and the like, are among the
exclusive vocabulary in the official discourse, which constantly move certain
groups of people outside the domain. These groups are referred to as the
western-oriented, anti-SRL, etc. On the contrary, Khatami makes use of a more
comprehensive diction to describe 'people.' Using such a comprehensive
diction and employing nationalist values are just two sides of the same coin.
This does not mean that the nationalist values are more comprehensive than the
ideological ones, but rather, it means that the former sounds more inclusive
compared with the exclusive religious discourse of the Right Party. National
unity as the foundation of religious integrity, government's power, and
citizenship is the key principle in Khatami's speeches. He frequently refers to
national values, which, along with religious values, empower the integrity:
Relevant extracts are as follows:
"Nothing can be considered as the origin of our national unity. Religion
has helped our nation to find its national identity."11
"The unity of Iran and Islam enriched the Islamic civilization in a way
that it is Iran which has opened a new horizon to the Moslems' history in
this uneasy world today."12
"It is important to find out what is behind the integrity of this society
despite the differences in opinions and views. It is our being "Iranian
225
Moslems" for sure, which we are proud of… A prosperous, free,
independent, and Islamic Iran that every Iranian wishes for, and the
President will also make every effort to materialize these wishes."13
"The Islamic Revolution empowered the nation and stabilized its
religious and national identity. All of us ought to do our best for the
honor of the Islamic Iran."14
Khatami makes frequent reference to the powerful government or ruling
system. Government or System explicitly or implicitly refers to the political
system based on national unity: "A powerful government is the one that makes
every effort to help the citizens enjoy their rights, promote national unity, and
safeguard the Land and the Revolution's principles by admitting the differences
and varieties."15
The word ‘citizen’ is also frequently used in Khatami's speeches contributing to
the inclusiveness of his discourse as opposed to the rival party's exclusive
discourse, which represents a society integrated with religious and ideological
criteria. Whereas, the comprehensive concept of ‘citizen’ shows a different
type of integrity in Khatami's discourse which both implicitly and explicitly
refers to national unity: "Every one in Iran enjoys citizen's rights and their
rights must be respected. Therefore, defending the law actually means
defending the recognized rights of all Iranian citizens."16
4.1.3.1.6 The comprehensive scope of Khatami's political discourse
So far, Khatami's discourse was studied on the basis of both implicit and
explicit points in his speeches. Reading beneath the lines, it could be inferred
that he adopted a peaceful compromising position. The vast scope of the
compromise encompasses different parties and groups including the rival party,
226
the bystanders, and the opposition groups not involved in the ruling system, for
that matter.
Adopting a comprehensive discourse, Khatami avoids many of the
requirements of an ideologically political discourse. He does not introduce a
highlighted discussion of right and wrong; he speaks very little about the
threats to the Revolution, and does not sound warning. Publicizing international
conspiracies and using epithets such as fanatics, monopolizing groups, westernoriented groups, Imperialist agents, etc. are not observed in his speeches. He
never takes advantage of the negative statements used by the political parties,
but, at the same time, he does employ the positive concepts and statements
found in the bipolar political debates. Such concepts including the heritage of
the martyrs' blood, Islamic troops, civil society, freedom, citizens' rights, etc.,
which sound contradictory in the official discourse, are found side by side in
Khatami's.
Khatami's comprehensive discourse addresses a wide range of audiences
including the rival parties affiliated with the ruling system, the groups pushed
aside, and even some opposition groups outside the ruling circle. There is no
black and white in his speeches. Black is only attributed to any party or
approach that tries to disturb this comprehensiveness. As mentioned before,
one of the linguistic features that distinguish such a comprehensive discourse
structure is the absence of negative statements in Khatami's speeches.
4.1.3.1.7 Introducing the common concepts in official discourse in a new
perspective
Ever since the beginning of his official election campaigns (in February 1997),
Khatami delivered his speeches in the intellectual and academic communities,
and could sound responsive to their expectations for radical changes. He started
his trips to different cities in March, and his audience now shifted to the
227
ordinary people. Therefore, the tone and topics of his speeches were getting
closer to those of the official discourse.
Khatami's insistence on being different by using the tone and topics pleasing to
the religious intellectuals would add to his attractions, but in the meantime, he
was likely to be disapproved and pushed aside for the same reason. As a result,
his speeches delivered in March were mainly concerned with the official
discourse topics, namely, the SRL, cultural attacks, the clergies' position, the
Islamic atmosphere at the universities, and the unity of the words. His oratory,
however, was impressive enough to show the difference of his approach despite
his use of the context of the official discourse. Khatami's approach toward each
of the above mentioned topics will be described below.
4.1.3.1.7.1 The Sovereignty of the Religious Leader (SRL or Valiye-faqhih)
In the official discourse, which was manipulated by the Right Party at the time,
unquestioning obedience to the valiy-e-faqhih is a fundamental principle.
According to the official discourse, the SRL is a sacred concept, which
surpasses any type of law or reasoning. In such a context, Khatami introduced
the central signifier of ‘Law’ and "obedience to Law’, and was concerned with
defending it in line with his political ideology, while making sure that it would
not be in conflict with the Principle. He not only rejected any conflicts between
the and his ‘Civil Society’ motto, but also tried to end the Right's monopoly of
the, and assume an extra-party position for the principle. The following extracts
bear witness to this claim:
‘A Civil Society is that which admits varieties in light of Islam,
Sovereignty of the Religious Leader, and the Constitution.’17
Khatami made reconciliation between the and the two principal mottos of
"political varieties" and "obedience to Law." His interpretation of political
varieties was rather inclusive as opposed to the Right's exclusive interpretation
228
of the same issue. Based on Khatami's interpretation, the should supposedly
have the capacity to make a comprehensive model for the human society. Thus,
monopolizing the SRL by a particular party will downgrade its position:
"No one can claim that My likes and dislikes are the same as the SRL's,
and consider all others as anti-SRL. This approach downgrades the
institution, which should make a model for the human society in
addition to the Islamic society of Iran. We all obey a system which is
based on the valiy-e-faqhih Principle."18
The extract shows Khatami's attempt to reject the binary opposition between
the pro-SRL and anti-SRL introduced by the Conservatives to push the
Reformists aside.
According to the ‘Obedience to Law’ motto, obedience to the SRL is a
requirement for acting within the law. In Khatami's view, the SRL is the
building block of the Constitution, and everyone wants to participate in the
political system must obey the SRL. The modal verb in his speeches indicates
this requirement:
"Every one in our political system must accept the Sovereignty of the
Religious Leader as the basis of the system."19
"This System is based on Islam and Koran, and is intended to make not
only the Moslems, but all human beings, feel safe in light of it….
Imam's view of the valiy-e-faqhih is no longer a mere Islamic
Jurisprudence; it incarnates the System. We should make efforts to
encourage the sense of belonging to the System, and institutionalize the
law which is based on the valiy-e-faqhih."20
Despite Khatami's attempts to show his acceptance of the SRL as the basis of
the System, there exist some instances of internal contradictions within the
arguments as exemplified in the following extracts:
229
"The perfect Sovereignty of the Religious Leader is the basis of the
System… It is legal, and is authorized to take measures."21
"One who considers himself as perfect is a polytheist. It is only through
criticism that perfection fades away and others are respected."22
In the first extract of the two above, the ‘perfect’ is accepted, but in the second
one, perfection is rejected as being equal to polytheism. So, the contradiction in
the Reformists' views of the perfection of the is beyond question. The only
solution to this contradiction is a different interpretation of the cause of the
contradiction. To this end, the Reformist discourse attempts to accept the while
introducing an interpretation that invalidates that of the Conservatives and is
more in line with obedience to Law and democracy.
4.1.3.1.7.2 The historical role of the clergies
In the official narrative of the history, the history of Iran and Islam is narrated
on the basis of the clergies' historical role. The clergies are referred to as Imam
Mahdi's23 (The 12th and the last Imam who shiaas believe to be ever living and
omnipresent) successors, and therefore, obedience to them is a religious duty.
By highlighting the clergies' role throughout the history and the relevant
justification on the basis of political reasoning, the Right Party emphasized the
guide role exclusive to the clergies on the one hand, and the people's duty to
obey them on the other hand. Such a narrative is in conflict with Khatami's
discourse. In fact, the question is how is it possible to believe both in the
clergies' historical role and the public as the center of political power
maintaining that the Islamic ruling is legitimized only in light of this central
power? He introduced the religious perception of the clergies as those who are
responsible for defending people's rights. The following extract shows a new
narrative of the clergies' historical role:
230
…By presenting a state-of-the-art picture of the clergies in Islam
and their role in the development of the Iranian Civil Society,
Khatami said, "Contrary to the Western societies in which the
concepts of nationality and civil society emerged after a complete
disregard for religion, the same concepts were developed in Iran
thanks to religion and the clergies." Khatami introduced the
religious perception of the clergies as those responsible for
defending people's rights, and maintained. "On the basis of the
Islamic orders, the clergies taught people how to choose the
ruling system."18
4.1.3.1.7.3 The cultural attacks
This is one of the key phrases in the Official discourse that the Right Party used
to accuse the intellectuals for their activities in dramatic arts and other areas. In
his election campaigns, Khatami considered this phrase to be coined by some
individuals within the country, and insisted on providing logical grounds for
religion—the justification used by the intellectuals:
"Justifying religion on logical grounds and making it more
attractive is the key factor in standing against cultural attacks.
When the youth consider religion as a positive factor in the
management of the society, they will be insured against cultural
attacks.’19
231
______________________________
* The 12th and the last Saint (Imam) who the Shiite Moslems believe to be ever living and omnipresent.
4.1.3.1.7.4 The unity of the words
Another key phrase in the official discourse is 'the unity of the words," which is
manifested in the national demonstrations. It is an indication of the society
whose members harmoniously follow the same view in the same words
(?…..?). However, Khatami admitted the importance of this concept in light of
the difference of ideas as a distinguishing feature of a Civil Society:
‘Unity of thoughts is the basic requirement for the development
of the country and the Islamic Revolution…. Unity does not
simply mean to have the same thought process and act in the
same way. There is no such a perfect homogeneity in the same
family, let alone in a large country with a variety of ideas and
attitudes. It is important to find the link that has sustained the
integrity of this society despite the wide range of differences in
views. We sure are proud of being Moslem Iranians.’24
4.1.3.1.7.5 The Islamic atmosphere at the universities
This concept first introduced by the Supreme Leader was meant to restrict the
activities of the intellectual professors and have the course books modified on
the basis of the religious principles. The concept was found in the official
discourse manipulated by the Right Party, and was a threat to the students and
academics who had no room to maneuver in that discourse. Khatami's
interpretation of the concept was different than that of the official discourse:
"Making the universities Islamic is similar to making the society Islamic.
232
Islamic universities are not simply those in which just prayers are held. Islamic
university is a place for scientific progress in light of the goals of the Islamic
Revolution."25
Thus far, two different discourses were identified in Khatami's speeches: One
which distinguishes him from others and is concerned with new topics and
novel approaches, and the other one which shows his new approaches to the
already known issues. There is also a third discourse which can be identified
within the official discourse, and will be discussed in the following section.
4.1.3.2 Khatami's discourse after the approval of his candidacy: a shift
toward the official discourse
Before the approval of Khatami's candidacy by the Council of Guardians, the
Left Party saw no chances in the presidential election, and took advantage of
the campaigns just to announce their views. Nevertheless, after the official
approval of Khatami's candidacy along with evidence for chances of winning
the election, the Left decided to mount the stage for election campaigns. In this
period of time, Khatami more or less used the same concepts and
interpretations found in the official discourse. His new discourse can be studied
under the following topics:
4.1.3.2.1 Discussing the economic issues
Contrary to the novelty found in Khatami's earlier discourse due to his move
from economic to cultural considerations, his speeches in this period of time
are mainly concerned with economic issues and hardships of living. The
following text is extracted from his first official campaign speech delivered on
the very first day of the election campaigns:
233
…Unfortunately, the main resource of income in our country is
Oil, while it is the taxes in the developed countries. Therefore,
too much insistence on privatization may be an attempt to make
this only source of income, which takes millions of years to
replenish, available at the service of the society.26
The same topics were the focus of his speeches also in the following days:
‘The main problem in the country basically relates to distribution, and
the market can well distribute the wealth evenly…. Exports should not
be in the hands of those who were not brought up in a noble culture….
A key point in historical identity is the relationship between the market
and the clergies.’27
‘It is not fair to see individuals who become rich over night in a society
where there are a number of poor people. The requirement for
construction and hard work is that the society enjoys complete
security.’28
‘Improper distribution of goods and increase in the number of mediators
cause inflation and prevent the realization of justice.’29
‘It is the Government's responsibility to pave the way for safe
investment in the country.’30
‘The future of the production centers in the country is promising.’31
4.1.3.2.2 Dealing with the youth's problems
234
General mottos about the youth's lives, solving their problems, and involving
them in all affairs, which are more or less found in the speeches of other
candidates, are also emphasized by Khatami:
Better future depends on solving the youth's problems. Our
society is the youngest and most talented of all societies, and
attempts should be made to help the youth materialize their
potentials in different areas…. Iran is a country which is not in
need of the power of any other country, and the young age of our
society is an asset in this regard; all political, cultural, and
economic programs should pay due attention to the youth."32
4.1.3.2.3 Removing bureaucratic problems
The official discourse is also concerned with people's problems in
administrative organizations. It is a common belief that dealing with this
subject is attractive to the public. The following extract shows Khatami's
consideration of the subject:
… A major part of the society complains about the administrative
sector; In this regard, the employees' salaries should be
increased… Everything is done on the basis of personal
relationships than rules and regulations; such discrimination
should be removed from the administrative sector."33
4.1.3.2.4 Ladies' participation in all areas
Another distinguishing characteristic of Khatami was his view of women. He
constantly predicted a bright future for women and their participation in all
235
social affairs.34 The possibility of appointing lady ministers in the cabinet,
which would be the first event of this type after the Revolution, the necessity of
women's participation in political and social affairs and competition and
equality between men and women were among the evidence for Khatami's
difference with other candidates. However, he paid due attention to women's
issues within the same framework of the official discourse:
"Women can compete with men in different social situations in
ladylike manners…. The Islamic Revolution provided a safe and
secure context for women to materialize their potentials. They
should believe in themselves, believe that they comprise half of
the members of the society, and they deserve to improve. Women
have been assumed certain rights and advantages, and they can
participate in different political, academic, and social areas….
Imam's view invalidated many wrong perceptions in the name of
Islam, and, now even the most religious families feel comfortable
about the social participations of their daughters. Assuming rights
for women is not enough; they should enjoy their rights…. There
is no religious consideration about women's cultural, social,
political, and top managerial activities, but they have few chances
of having top managerial positions."35
4.1.3.2.5 Supporting Hashemi Rafsanjani
One of the Right's key points in their election campaigns was supporting
Hashemi Rafsanjani, the then president. Insisting that only Nategh Noori could
continue Hashemi's Construction programs, the Right made every effort to
show similarities between Nategh and Hashemi to gain public support for the
former.
236
Earlier, Khatami used to defend Construction programs, but he was now
talking in support of Hashemi, which moved his discourse close to the official
discourse:
Hashemi has always had the lead role both before and after the
revolution. He has always been the first one to volunteer to help
and take responsibilities in hard times…. The number of
industrial units has increased from 70 before the Revolution to
1000 today, but there is still a large capacity left for more
development in this region.36
4.1.3.2.6 Self defense
In the last few days to the end of the election campaigns, Khatami was the
target of attacks from the Right Party, which made him resume his non-official
discourse and give harsh responses to the attacks. The following extract is an
example of his speeches at the time:
The Ashoora pictures the most tender and most magnificent
human thoughts against cruelty and ignorance. The Supreme
Leader's telling interpretation of Sovereignty (SRL) indicates that
the most prominent aspect of Sovereignty is the tender
relationship between the Leader and the Pubic. Ideologically, the
Islamic ruling system emerges from the people, and should make
efforts to provide for the public's religious requirements within
the framework ordered by God….What happened after Imam
Ali's martyrdom was a disaster, which was the origin of the
Moslem's misfortunes throughout history…. Two groups were at
the service of the Omavi Dynasty at the time: the first group
237
included the religious hypocrites who even recited the Koran, and
the second group included the religious fanatics and the mean
agents who pretended to administer justice among the people….
The catastrophe necessitated a serious measure, which was taken
by the greatest man of time, Imam Hussein…. If we view
Ashoora from a merely humanistic perspective, we see the most
tender and the most magnificent human thoughts and human soul
stand against cruelties, barbarian ignorance, and stupidity."37
The text implicitly shows the differences between the Reformists and the
Conservatives in terms of the difference between the genuine Islam and the
Omavi Islam. References to the confrontation of tender magnificent thoughts
with cruelties and ignorance, as well as uses of epithets such as religious
hypocrites who even recited the Koran and pretend to administer justice, all
could refer to the Right Party. Whereas, the serious measure that would put an
end to Moslems' misfortunes throughout history would imply the Left Party's
taking the floor.
The text also indicates Khatami's non-official discourse when he defines the
Islamic ruling system as the one which emerges from people and is at the
service of the Public within the law.
At any rate, Khatami's smart approach in publicizing his views could attract a
wide range of audience that differed in social, political, and cultural
backgrounds, and develop a powerful position which paved the way for the
May-23 event.
238
4.2. Interpretation
The belief underlying the interpretation stage relates to the writer’s and the
reader’s minds rich with the contextual discourse that govern the production
and interpretation of the text . The text is not suspended in vacaum as both the
producer and the interpreter ghove got member’s resources. Therefore, the
relationship between the text and these resources should be indicated at the
level of words and cacabularies as well as the other linguistic features of the
text to reveal which of the resources have been employed in the text . From
another perspective, the text by itself is not assumed to be integrated with the
social contexts or structures. Rather, it is part of a discourse through which the
text is related to such social structures.
In this stage, with the use of the use of the features highlighted in the
Description stage, the situational and intertextual contexts will be taken into
consideration and will be discussed that who are involved, in what relations, in
what event, and what is the role of language in what is going on.
239
240
4.2.1. The Right party's election campaign strategies:
This party was almost sure of its success in the election, and was mainly concerned with the
active participation of the existing political parties so that the number of voters would
increase. Despite the Right's success in Parliamentary elections, and Nategh’s success in
occuping the position of head of the parliament the Party was not satisfied with Nategh
Noori's weak position in decision making as the Parliament's Chair.80 Thus, the Right would
prefer him to improve this weak point in his position as the President. This is why the Right's
election campaign strategies are not as challenging as those of the left party. The Right
seemed more concerned with clarifying their candidate's views.
4.2.1.1. Who is Nategh Noori?
The Right described him in different speehos and meetings as follows:
a- He has a very clear record: He is brave and consistently participating. He graduated from
the Religious School (Hozeh), grew up among people, was involved in the revolutionary
actions, and faced the hardships of the Revolution. He always accompanied Imam Khomeini
and has a strong belief in the Sovereignty of the Religious Leader (SRL).
b- He is an effective manager with years of successful experience at different managerial
positions. His chairmanship at the Parliament is a milestone among his managerial
experiences.
c- In foreign diplomacy, He is a determined opponent of the world Imperialism and the US,
and his perseverance vouchsafes this revolutionary position.
d- He is famous for his extra-party position. This position is a response to his opponents who
accused him of power abuse and excluding all parties except for his favorite party during his
future presidency. But he told the press that he would let in whoever was dedicated to the
SRL with the following characteristics:
1. Being faithful to Islam;
2. Having strong belief in Sovereignty of the Religious Leader;
3. Being efficient;
4. Being cooperative with others81.
4.2.1.2. Why did he register for candidacy? \
This was one of the most frequently asked questions during the election campaigns. Nategh
Noori repeatedly contended that the clergies (i.e., the Association of Clergy Crusaders (ACC)
241
and the Association of Clergy Instructors (ACI)) have approved of his competence for
presidency, and he had to perform his duty as ordered by the clergies82. Nategh Noori's
reference to the issue as 'performing a duty' implies two points. First, he would take the floor
just to perform a divine duty. Second, if he had to obey the sacred order explicitly given by
the clergies, it would be implied that the public had to obey the order, for that matter.
4.2.1.3. What are the policies he is likely to retain and/or change?
Nategh Noori's election campaigns were indications of the policies he would retain and those
he would attempt to change. Hashemi Rafsanjani's economic policies were likely to be
retained, and the cultural affairs were going to be changed. Few economic reforms had been
taken into consideration such as the inclusion of social justice and attention to the poor within
the existing economic policies, reforming the tax system, curbing inflation, and supporting the
poor. In another speech, he mentioned the necessity of administrative reforms, combating
bribery, and punishing those who break the rules83. Just as retaining Hashemi's economic
policies was emphasized, so attempts were made to bring about radical changes in cultural
affairs. Universities are a case in point. The (Right) Party promised to make the universities
"Islamic" by firing professors who either did not believe in Islam or did not have strong
religious beliefs, revising course books, providing better opportunities for more participation
of the SRL's representatives, re-examining the academics' records, and making the Basseej
(Militia) culture and Hezbollah's ideology dominant in the universities by spreading out the
Militia across the higher education centers.
Furthermore, emphasis on resistance against cultural attacks as the major channel used by the
enemies implied that cultural changes were not confined to universities, and were going to
involve the whole social system84.
4.2.1.4.Nategh Noori's social behavior
The candidate's social behavior is among the major factors that affect the likelihood of victory
in elections and his/her political power and stability. To win the election, it is necessary for a
politician to be trustworthy to his/her party, be persuasive, and convince the mass of the
possibility of achieving what they want, and that s/he is the person who is determined to
achieve it .
There are several traits defined under personal characteristics in election campaigns that
would add to the candidate's prestige. and acceptability they include aesthetic factors such as
appearance and charisma, efficiency factors such as degree of success, literary and artistic
242
appreciation, thetoric style, body geasture, and social factors such as reasonable distance with
others while maintaining a friendly relationship with all.
Nategh Noori was the Parliament's Chair when he became a candidate for presidency. He took
trips to different cities which was considered to be a part of his election campaign. Although
as the Parliament's Chair he was always accompanied by body guards under strict security
measures in public, his behavior was similar to Hashemi Rafsanjani's as a typical president.
Being in attendance at starting the construction projects and his overseas trips are other cases
in point. He was welcomed by the Governor, Governor General, and other authorities of the
provinces. To make the welcoming ceremony more magnificent, the Province authorities
would provide special opportunities for the government employees including leave of
absence, and facilities like letting the citizens meet Nategh Noori and offering them
refreshments while his car was passing through the crowd.
His speeches were broadcast on TV and radio, which made him more popular in the country.
It also gave the impression that he was going to retain the status quo and was in a way
imposed on the public opinion.
4.2.2.The Left's election campaign strategies
Khatami's discourse also included election campaign strategies. Although Khatami seemed to
have little chance of winning the election, he could definitely affect Nategh Noori's number of
votes even if the election was over in one round. This would seriously threaten the political
balance. There was another threat on the part of the Right Party, and it was their possible
attempt to disturb the peaceful atmosphere of the election process. This threat depended on
the decision of the Council of Guardians as to the competence or incompetence of Khatami
for presidency. The Council could stop the debate by disqualifying Khatami. On the other
hand, even if his competence was approved, cheating by the Right would be another source of
worry to the Left. There were rumors about the likelihood of postponing the election if the
threats persisted.
In such a context, the Left's election campaign strategies like those of the Right can be studied
in terms of the following areas:
4.2.2.1. Who is Khatami?
243
a) He is a theorist well-known to both clergies and academics. His being a clergy as well as an
academic added to his attractions. His supporters emphasized that he was a theorist and
encouraged the public to use this as a measure to compare the candidates.
b) Khatami is a cultural architect. While his rival tried to introduce himself as the true
successor of the Pioneer of Construction (i.e., Hashemi Rafsanjani) and take advantage of this
epithet, Khatami's called him the ‘cultural architect’ or the pioneer of Construction in the area
of Culture. These titles were reminders of both the stability and instability of the past policies
giving a sense that Khatami would bring something new with him.
c) Khatami takes an extra-party position. This was a response to the Right's same claim about
Nategh Noori defending him against his opponents who accused him of favoring his own
Party. In such a context Khatami's and Noori's speeches could be compared to see which one
was more successful in confirming their "extra-party" position. and the discourse of which
party was more indusive rather than exclusive. Khatami insisted on "acting" in line with the
Principle of the Sovereignty of the Religious Leader (SRL) as a rule, while Noori was
concerned with the necessity of "strong belief and deep involvement" in the same Principle.
Thus, Khatami's claim sounded more indusive.
4.2.2.2. Why did he register for candidacy?
Khatami's purposes for his candidacy were "to introduce different views and provide people
with a range of choices,"85 and "to give a chance to all parties with different political interests
to participate in the campaign."86
4.2.2.3. What are the policies he is likely to retain and/or change?
a) The most prominent ideas in Khatami's speech were freedom of expression and
choice, and freedom to criticize. He sought to change the status quo to a democratic
system in which the public feel free to participate in governmental activities87;
b) Khatami attempted to institutionalize the Constitution and encourage public
participation: "The intellectuals should have the opportunity to freely express
themselves…. Attempts should be made to exercise rules in the society while
observing the basic principles such as the Islamic nature of the system, and the
position of Leadership and the public."88 In Khatami's speech, law and order would be
intended to control the government more than the public. On the contrary, to Nategh
Noori law and order was the symbol of the government's power and supervision
which would be manifested in controlling the prices and safeguarding social security;
244
c) Khatami's intention to change women's status, increase their participation in social
activities, and reduce the social pressures imposed on them was among the most
charming features of his speech which meant to change the status quo: "Iranian
women have been suffering from oppressions imposed on them in the name of
religion. Every one should put aside their misconceptions about women and stand
against such beliefs.89… All qualified individuals including both women and men
should be provided with opportunities to enjoy the privileges they deserve…. There
are definitely too many restrictions imposed on women."90
d) Khatami attempted to reduce ethnic discriminations. In the official discourse,
ethnicity and ethnic interests are taboos, especially in relation to Kurdish people. In
this type of discourse, unity is defined in terms of Islam and, therefore, there is no
concern for ethnic differences. In Khatami's discourse, however, unity is defined in
light of the Persian nationality and Islam while respecting ethnic differences.
Khatami's discourse sounded promising as far as the improvement of the lives of
ethnic groups was concerned.91
e) Khatami referred to feduction of tention at the international level and defending the
rights of the poor especially the Palestinians as one of the Islamic Republic of Iran's
strategies92 while emphasizing the disconnection of US-Iran relations as far as this
relation is like that of the “sheep and the wolf!”93 Thus, Khatami's discourse in terms
of foreign affairs was similar to the official discourse.
f) While there was no direct reference to his economic policies, Khatami's discourse
implied that he would continue Hashemi's reform programs with new measures to
reduce the pressures imposed on the disadvantaged.94
4.2.2.4. Khatami's social behavior
Khatami's social behavior can be discussed in light of his campaign trips. He had no critical
official position at the time of presidential election to prevent him from appearing in the
public. So, contrary to Nategh Noori's formal trips, Khatami took the regular intercity buses.
This was something new to the people who were used to the statesmen's formal trips.
Here is a report on Khatami's bus trips as his election campaigns published in Salam's special
issue (dated 1.2.76): Khatami has taken several short trips in eleven Provinces as by a bus
rented from a travel agency, and has been warmly welcomed by the people. The bus stops on
the road so that he can meet with the villagers who are expecting him. He gets off, the people
call him ‘Fatima's Son,’ and they make sacrifices for him…. The youth that comprise the
245
majority of his fans get excited when he makes a speech, and they talk to him like a friend.
When they find out that he feels for them, they see him off so warmly and follow his bus for
miles.
Despite the tight schedule and his fatigue due to the tiresome journeies, Khatami never misses
a single small village whose people impatiently expect him. His companies have rarely seen
him just wave hands to his fans and pass by them. Despite his fatigue, Khatami's face is
always sober and peaceful. He greets the old and the young people who are waiting for him in
miles-long lines before the city gates and kindly kisses them on their cheeks. He attentively
listens to the poems recited by the martyrs' children in welcome ceremonies and then kisses
their foreheads. With whatever they have at home, the people welcome Khatami as a familiar
traveler who they have been expecting for years.
This is the way Khatami used to appear in the public contrary to the other statesmen who
went among the people in luxurious cars. Khatami's bus trips as opposed to the statesmen's
formal trips questioned the authorities' ceremonials introducing him as a member of the public
and ‘the others’ as individuals outside the inner circle.
4.2.3. The announcement of the names of the candidates approved by the Council of
Guardians.
On the evening of May 8, 1997, the Council of Guardians announced the names of only 4
competent candidates for the 7th Presidential Election of the Islamic Republic of Iran rejecting
the other 234 applicants. The approved candidates included Ali-Akbar Nategh Noori,
Mohammad Mohammadi-Nik (Reyshahri), Seyed Mohammad Khatami, and Seyed Reza
Zavarei.
Although, contrary to the conventional procedures, the names were not announced in
alphabetical order, the approval of Khatami's candidacy had a great psychological impact on
the election programs of both parties that will be discussed in following sections.
4.2.3.1. The Left Party and their election compaign strategies:
Khatami seemed likely to be rejected by the Council of Guardians with regard to the Right's
propagandist attacks. So, to some extent, the Left Party was concerned with the position of
other political parties in the margin. However, after the announcement of Khatami's name
among the approved candidates, and regarding his popularity among the public, the Left
became the Right's arch-rival.
246
Before the approval of Khatami's candidacy, his speeches were specifically concerned with
introducing a new view of the official discourse. Not having much hope for victory in the
election, the Left took this opportunity just to announce its positions to the public. But after
the Council's approval, it was time for this party to begin its election campaign programs.
Now, a clear shift of focus could be seen in Khatami's discourse which is very similar to the
official discourse. The focus shifted from the area of culture to the area of economy. The
main topics in his speeches included the economic issues96, providing opportunities for safe
investment97, introducing future economic programs, and also dealing with the youth's
problems and calling for their active participations in all affairs98, which was mentioned by
other candidates as well.
Khatami used to talk about women's issues in prospect. He claimed that women are as
competent as men with high competencies for even ministerial positions and they should not
be isolated99. Khatami's different views increased his popularity among women and made
them to participate in his election programs.actively. However, after the approval of his
candidacy, Khatami's tone becomes similar to that of the official discourse referring to the
inevitable limitations to women's social positions100. Administrative problems and promises
for solutions101 are among the issues included in the official discourse which Khatami also
refers to at the time.
Talking in support of Hashemi Rafsanjani's policies was an important part of the Right's
campaigns. Making efforts to make Nategh Noori seem similar to Hashemi, the Right Party
was trying to win public support and convince people that only Nategh Noori can be
Hashemi's successor in the Construction Programs. Khatami's support of Hashemi brought his
discourse closer to the official discourse. However, although he made some speeches with
harsher words like he did before, the shift of his concerns toward those of the official
discourse is too clear to be ignored.
4.2.3.1.1.The Left's election campaign strategies
The two rivals began their official campaign just after they had advertised their key
principles. In a couple of days before the May-8, Day. Of Presidential Elections, both parties
seemed to be acting under serious psychological pressures. The atmosphere was full of
attacks, suspicions, and efforts to disclose the secrets about the rival party. Thus, what is
247
worth studying is the attacks on the candidates and defense mechanisms rather than the
discourse structure. The campaign strategies adopted by Khatami's party are as follows:
4.2.3.1.1. Establishment strategies:
In their election campaign, the Right Party pictured Khatami as ‘the other’ who was westoriented and an opponent of the Revolution. By the same token, the Left's defense
mechanism was to neutralize the accusation and prove that Khatami was an inner circle
member. Thus, many popular clergies in different cities published announcements
individually or in groups in support of Khatami. It should be pointed out that the clergies'
votes were among the defense mechanisms adopted by the Left Party. The views of the
religious authorities in newsletters and periodicals, and advertisements about Khatami as a
descendent of Prophet Mohammad were published at the same time when the Right's election
campaign centered around the clergies' support of Nategh Noori and the necessity of
obedience to their vote. The Left's publication of the clergies' same view about Khatami was
an attempt to show that consulting the religious leaders' votes is not specific to the
Association of clergy Instructors (ACC) or the Association of clergy Crrusaders (ACI) and
no evidence for Nategh Noori's better qualifications.
Khatami's position was officially established, but he was still supported by the marginal
parties as well, a reminder of his unofficial position. For instance, Ezzatollah Sahaabi, one of
the well-known members of the opposition parties, and Dr. Habibollah Peymann, the Leader
of the Moslem Crusaders Movement, who were both among the rejected candidates, openly
announced their support of Khatami and asked the public to "stand against all types of
monopoly by preventing the waste of the country's power and resources."102 Khatami and his
Party's silence on these campaigns would be interpreted as his satisfaction, which, in turn,
would support the ideas about his ‘otherness.’
4.2.3.1.2. The attack strategies:
The most important, and probably the most effective attack launched by the Left Party was
their claim about the Right's costly election campaign. They claimed that the Right were not
observing the rules and regulations and would even disregard the ethical considerations in
favor of their election campaign. They referred to the possibility of ballot rigging, the Council
of Guardians' announcement of the names of candidates, denial of the candidates'
248
representatives at ballot boxes, and the Police's intervention in ballot were the events that the
Left took advantage of in their election campaign. They will be briefly discussed below.
As put before, the candidates' names were not announced in alphabetical order neither in the
Council of Guardian's announcement nor in the Ministry of Interior's in which Nategh Noori's
name had come before Khatami's. The Left took advantage of this subject and questioned the
impartiality of the Council and other governmental organizations such as the Ministry of
Interior to show the injustice imposed on Khatami in the election campaign. On May 7, 1997,
the Parliament approved the proposal for the presence of the candidates' representatives at the
fixed and portable ballot boxes as well as the voting machines provided they would not
interfere with the supervision of the appointed personnel. The proposal was then submitted to
the Council of Guardians for final approval, but it was rejected by the council. This rejection
could be a support of the Left's claim about the Right's illegal measures and intention of ballot
rigging. The Organization of the Islamic Revolution's Mojahedeen considered the Council's
decision as a threat to the security of a fair election and an attempt to elect someone as the
President who would not be the one actually elected by the public103.
Another campaign attack on the part of the Left was made by the Sepah Pasdaran's (The
Revolution's Army) action. The Sovereignty of the Religious Leader’s (SRL) representative at
Sepah Pasdaran together with the Commander of Basseej (militia) at Sepah Pasdaran wrote an
official letter emphasizing the necessity of the obedience of Pasdaran and the Militia to the
votes of the Association of Clergy Crrusaders (ACC) and the Association of Clergy
Instructors (ACI) in the election as a religious duty. The participation of the Police force in
the election was not only an indication of the rival's weak position, but also of the threats of
the Police intervention, which would spread the idea of ballot rigging in the election.
4.2.3.2.The Right Party and their election campaign strategies
This party began its official election campaign at a time when the outcomes of the election
was no longer predictable. Khatami's candidacy had already disturbed the equation, and
Nategh Noori had to adopt new campaign strategies as the social contexts did not seem to be
promising for this party any more.
There were no traces of such new strategies in Nategh Noori's speeches in this period. The
same issues he had talked about before were recapitulated once more: economic affairs,
249
curbing inflation, youth's employment, priority of training human resources, exercising social
justice, and the revival of the Revolution's values. What sounded new in his speeches was his
self defense. He was confronted with oppositions during his election campaign trips, which he
referred to as the "poisoned atmosphere" or "fame terrorism." Thus, part of Nategh Noori's
speeches was concerned with self defense against those attacks. As there is no considerable
difference between his speeches in this period and the ones he made in the past, the following
section just deals with the Right's election campaigns.
4.2.3.2.1. Establishment strategies. The top key point in the Right's campaign was their
reliance on the support of influential organizations. Their efforts were focused on convincing
the public that Nategh Noori was supported by the Supreme Leader. By extracting certain
phrases of the Leader's speeches, the Party attempted to show that the Leader had taken sides
with Noori and the religious authorities' votes had to be respected. This was the dominant idea
until the Supreme Leader clearly denied the claims.104
4.2.3.2.2. Attacks strategies. The Right's attack strategies were primarily concerned with
defending the SRL as a divine gift. In his speech broadcast by the TV, Ayatollah Mahdavi
Kani said, "In Imam's time, no one would dare to claim that the Sovereignty of the Religious
Leader is legitimized by the public…,"105 attempting to ascribe the marginal discourse to the
non-official political parties and compelling Khatami to observe the distance with the margin.
In addition to these political speeches, Ressalat newspaper published an article to explain the
ideological framework of the divine nature of the SRL from the viewpoints of distinguished
religious leaders including Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, (One of the theoreticians of the Right
Party).
Another wide range of attacks on the rival party that included the most part of the Right's
election campaign was arranged as follows.
(a) Khatami is the second "Banisadr." 106 This was claimed by the Association of Clergy
Crusaders (ACC) of Tehran107 warning the public against the affinity of this candidate
(Khatami) with the first Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) president (Banisadr). Therefore, to
prevent the same experience, the public should make an informed decision with reference to
the religious authorities' views, and elect the most competent candidate.
250
(b) The atheists support Khatami. When Sahabi, Peyman, and Ali Farasati, the well-known
member of the Azadi Movement opposition party, the Leader of the Moslem Crusaders
Movement, and the ex-member of Monafeghin Organization from Paris, respectively,
announced their support of Khatami, the latter was faced with serious oppositions. The Right
likened the election to a war between Faith and Revolution on one side and Atheism on the
other side, a metaphor used by Imam Khomeini during the War between Iran and Iraq. The
Right considered Khatami's mottos to be in line with the purposes of the opponents of the
Government
(c) The happy Carnival in the evening of the Day of Ashoora in support of Khatami. This
refers to the people who got together in luxurious cars in an affluent area in the Northwest of
Tehran in the evening of the Day of Ashoora. With Khatami's pictures installed on their cars,
the drivers were blowing the horns with the headlights on showing their support of Khatami.
The supporters of the other party filmed these inappropriate scenes and broadcast it in public
places to reveal the nature of Khatami's supporters. This provided the necessary instrument
for the Right to direct their attacks to Khatami until the Election day.
(d) Khatami's record is under question. Khatami's resignation from his position of the SRL's
Representative in Keyhan Publications and his resignation from his ministerial position at the
Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance during Hashemi Rafsanjani's presidency provided
tools for the Right Party to use against Khatami in their election campaign.Right claimed that
when ever kharami faced with serious prdolems he resigned , so after being elected as a
president he may resigne when ever he faces a problem!
4.2.3.2.3. Defense strategies. The major focus of the Right Party was defending Nategh Noori
against the observable negative social attitude toward him. He had to constantly defend
himself against several accusations such as dogmatism.108
The Right generally aimed to convince the public that Khatami was not an
inner circle member. This insistence was grounded on two analyses. First, the
Right analysts believed that Khatami's "otherness" and the probability of the
promotion of the intellectuals and opposition parties in his term of presidency
would change public views against him. Second, the Right tried to inform the
251
high authorities of the threat of Khatami's election and encouraged them to
intervene in the process. This intervention would mean an official support of
Nategh Noori or a clear opposition to Khatami. It could also disturb the normal
election procedures which would be referred to as ballot rigging.
4.3 Explanation
Text is part of a social interaction. By blending the characteristics of the
discourse with the interlocutors' purposes at the Explanation Stage, the agents'
creativity, the application of linguistic strategies, the clever combinations of
contradictory discourses, and the like will be justified. The purpose of
explaining a text is to display it as part of a social process (Fairclogh, 1989).
Explanation reveals which power relations at institutional and social levels
work together to form a given discourse, in what ways the social structures
impose restrictions on the discourse, whether the discourse is meant to retain
the status quo or to change it, and which of the employed members' resources
are ideological in nature.
This section is concerned with the position of the Presidential Election
speeches in relation to the range of talks in social, cultural, and political
contexts. The purpose for this critical review is as follows.
As pointed out before, the 7th Presidential Election in the Islamic Republic of
Iran (IRI) was a political challenge to the two parties with their defined
principles discussed in the previous sections. The large scale study of these
talks will be conducted within the discourse analysis framework adopted in this
research.
As a matter of fact, the meaning of any given text depends on the relevant
contexts of speech as well as the intra-textual factors discussed in the
Description Stage. Taking into consideration that the text meaning cannot be
understood out of its larger context, the two patterns of Presidential election
252
discourses in the present research should necessarily be analyzed within the
larger networks of meanings governing a given text. The methodology could be
justified in light of the discourse of the political debates reviewed below.
1. Part of the speech challenges in the Presidential Election was related to the
interpretations that the two parties put on each other's speech. The Right
believed that Khatami's whole speech was far from the revolutionary ideals as
it seemed to be questioning the facts inherent in the Islamic Revolution, and
was a reminder of the bitter experiences during the Mashrooteh Revolution.
The Right argued that the discourse was west-oriented and full of negative
values seeking to retrieve the rules and relations which the Revolution meant to
demolish.
On the contrary, the Left not only considered their discourse as an inner-circle
talk within the values of the Revolution, but also insisted that they were
representing the Revolution's noble words. In their view, the other party's
speech was rather a religious dogma against the Revolution's values. Now,
regarding these political debates, a question may be raised as to whether the
pragmatics of these speeches can be understood within the context of the
Revolution. In other words, do both types of discourse belong to the discourse
of the Islamic Revolution, or is any of the two more likely to be an inner-circle
talk?
All in all, questions regarding the speeches of the rival parties in light of the
principles of the Islamic Revolution are a reminder of the quest for the
underlying meaning of both speeches within the Revolution's pragmatics.
2. Each pf the political parties argued that the rival principles did not
correspond to those of the Islamic Revolution trying to define the other party's
position outside the Revolution's circle. To the Right, Khatami's talks
253
represented the West-oriented intellectuals in Mashrooteh time. To the Left, the
opposing party was a religious replication of monarchy.
The arguments above highlight a variety of networks of speech besides the
Islamic Revolution's Discourse that govern all the networks within which both
the writer and the reader seek a common meaning. Therefore, to better analyze
and interpret the Presidential Election speeches in this study, the current social,
cultural, and political discourses will be reviewed, a model will be developed,
and the position of the two presidential speeches discussed thus far will be
determined in relation to the discourse pattern illustrated in the model.
4.3.1.The Islamic Revolution and the verbal challenges in social and
cultural contexts
The discourse dominating the Islamic Revolution until its victory could be
characterized by the speeches made by Shah's religious opposition parties
including the religious intellectuals and the clergies. However, the discourse
governing all these speeches was that of Imam Khomeini with its unique
features. The election talks of May 23, 1997 (Khordad 2, 1376) will be
analyzed and interpreted as follows, based on the relevant discourse and its
general trend after the Islamic Revolution.
4.3.1.1. A review of Imam Khomeini's discourse and its general trend
In light of the new interpretation of Islam, i.e., the political Islam, that Imam
Khomeini introduced years before the Revolution, the Islamic Revolution's
Discourse emerged in 1979. The Discourse included both the Islamic tradition
and the modernist concepts which had nothing in common before the Islamic
Revolution. It could also provide a metaphorical space (Laclan, 1990) in which
many active political parties had the opportunity to seek their ideals.
254
The Discourse manifested in the political system of an Islamic Republic was
the articulation of two major components, namely, Islam and Republic. Islam,
clergies, and the Islamic Jurisprudence were rooted in 'traditionalism,' while
Republic, public, Law, and liberty were all the elements of 'modernism.'
Despite the inherent contradictions between the two major components, the
Islamic charisma brought them together in the metaphorical space of the
Islamic Revolution's Discourse. This union is illustrated in Figure … below:
Traditionism
Modernism
Clergies
Sovereignty of Leadership
Public
ISLAM
IMAM
Islamic Jurisprudence
REPUBLIC
Law
Liberty
Figure …: The Metaphorical Space of the Islamic Revolution's Discourse
in 1979
In Imam's discourse, the ruler and the public stand side by side. However,
although the Ruler as the first important person of the country stands at the top
of the ruling system, his relationships with even the poorest class of the society
is well defined on the basis of the Islamic principles. There is no trace of
domination in Islam's discourse. The Islamic ruler rules the country on the
basis of Islamic principles considering himself as a citizen leading a life similar
to the poor. In other words, the ruler is the performer of religious orders rather
than the single authority in the ruling system. The relationships between the
255
Islamic ruler, the public, and the Islamic principles are illustrated in Figure …
below:
Islamic Principles
Public
Islamic Ruler
Public
Figure …: Relationship between the Islamic Ruler, the public, and the
Islamic principles
After the victory of the Revolution and the establishment of the Islamic
Republic, Imam Khomeini had the impression that the revolution was over in
practical sense of the word, and it was time for the people, especially the poor,
to benefit from the results of the Revolution, experience Islamic justice, and
start to rebuild the country. His view, however, changed by the political
conflicts popping up across the country. The conflicts involved different
political parties and opposition groups. Oppositions ranged in form from street
riots to armed struggles against the government, such as those in Kurdistan for
the independence of the Province. The scope of the conflicts extended to
terrorist attacks against the authorities.
What the opposition groups had in common was their view of the government
as a fascist system and their calling for democracy and freedom. These protests
caused the focus of Imam's discourse to shift toward defining the extent of
freedom and democracy. Imam frequently emphasized that "We are still in the
256
middle of the way; the Revolution is not over yet…" warning against the
opposition groups which under charming names intended to bring back the past
regime. He believed that freedom would be achieved only within the Islamic
principles and values.
The public's material needs and requests was another issue besides the
opposition groups that added to Imam's concerns a few months after the victory
of the Revolution. After the fall of Shah, some revolutionaries addressed their
requests to the governmental organizations in quest of a better economic
situation. This was contrary to Imam's perception of the public expecting them
to become more attentive to spiritual needs19. The hardships that emerged after
the victory of the Revolution smashed the prediction about Shah's fall as the
solution to all problems and the pre-requisite for the establishment of Imam's
ideal Islamic Republic. In line with this ideal, Imam emphasized cultural
measures against the western names put on different places and factories as
well as necessary actions to reform the TV and radio programs in line with
Islamic tradition. These points were the indications of a religious model
governing the new disciplinary political system.
4.3.1.1.1.War, the cause of major shift in Imam's political discourse
The imposed was, which developed a general sense of unity, dedication, and
self-sacrifice in the nation, was the origin of a new discourse. This was the
retrieval of the same feelings during the Revolution that Imam advocated and
considered the Renaissance of theological consideration and attention to the
public's well-being. The War paved the way for regaining the spirit of the age
prevalent early after the victory of the Revolution in which the country tended
toward stabilization and attention to common needs.
257
Imam's tone of speech gradually turned mystic in the context of War: "Our aim
is and should be divine; we come from God and return to Him; whatever we
have are a bliss that God has left with us, and whatever we lose, we give away
for God, and it's nothing worth mentioning…."22
To vouchsafe the mystic spirit emerged in the battle fronts from the first few
days of the War, Imam ordered the training of the Militia (Basseej) troops:
"The Militia must show more obedience to Islamic Jurisprudence and remove
its shortcomings…. Make every effort to maintain the integrity of Islam and
clergies, and stand against the Moslems who stand against clergies."24
Imam's comments quoted above related more or less to certain political parties
with particular perceptions of Islam. All in all, the present study is concerned
with the prevalence of the discourse which was retained even after the removal
of the opposition groups from the scene, and was sustained as a model
discourse still after the War (see Tajeek 2000a, ch. 3).
Although the discourse of War is an important complicated type of discourse
that requires an independent study, it will be characterized below, as the
relevant evolution in speech trend in Iran has been partly in line with and partly
against this type of discourse.
1. Focus on Shiite Values. The most distinguishing characteristic of the
literature of the war is the religious aspect in light of Shiite values. Although
the literature of the Revolution is completely religion-oriented, the literature of
the War is more religious in nature with more focus on Shiite values:
employing Karbalaic symbols25, reconstruction of the War in terms of the
Ashoora26, naming the military operations and strategic locations after Shiite
titles, and the religious elegies27 in the battle fronts (see Akbari, 1998).
258
2. The epic nature. A major part of the War literature is epic in nature, which,
with regard to the epic poems written in this period, is influenced by the Shiite
values.
3. The mourning tone. The War literature is also famous for its mourning
tone. There is hardly any piece of work in War literature which is devoid of this
characteristic. The mourning tone was more prevalent than the epic features
indicating that the former was far more influential than the latter.
4. Conflict with common values in town. A distinguishing feature of the War
literature is picturing the conflict between the common values in city contexts
and the holy spirit of the battle fronts. The former was dominated by love of
self, family, and material things, contrary to metaphysical values, worship of
God, and martyrdom in the latter. The substantial difference is the sole
motivation that persuaded the troops to leave their home for the battle fields
(Kiasari, 1994:65).
5. Love of martyrdom. Love of martyrdom is the prevalent theme in War
literature and discourse, full of lamentations over the loss of soldier friends and
loneliness in the material world (see Sheikh Mohammadi, 1996: 75; 36).
6. Actions instead of words. The War literature is all about actions, fighting,
and bravery. It is the bravery and sacrifice that serve as the touchstone for
values like honesty. The fighting troops bravely move forward, and those who
do nothing but talk are left behind (see Sheikh Mohammadi, 1996: 111;
Kiasari, 1994: 146).
259
7. Encouraging self-denial and training one's self to avoid sins. The War
literature encourages purification of the soul and self-denial. The purification
of the soul is the key to God's acceptance of the deeds, and, therefore, the
troops should take special care of it. In war literature, the troops consistently
pray to God and ask to be forgiven thinking that their sins might deprive them
of the privilege of martyrdom (see Kiasari, 1994: 42, 25).
8. Care for afterlife. The war literature is concerned with degrading the values
of the material world and picturing the heavenly bliss in the Other World (see
Kiasari, 1994: 85).
4.3.1.2.The political discourse developed in the battle fronts
The battle fronts discourse was political in nature which had a great influence
in the justification and continuation of the War. The justification basically
related to the necessity of defending the Islamic country against a trespasser,
but it gained a wider scope in the course of War: Saddam Hussein was the
incarnation of blasphemy, and the War provided the opportunity for the postRevolution Islamic Iran to voice its longing for justice across the world in line
with defending the rights of the poor. Iraq was just one part of this world-wide
project, and the motto The path to Ghods crosses Karbala was an indication of
such a world mission. After the withdrawal of the Iraqi troops from the Iranian
borders, the same approach would justify the continuation of the War, and the
Peace Contract with Iraq was against all expectations.
In light of the above-mentioned approach, Saddam Hussein had no significant
position in War discourse. He just paved the way for a holy War in the history,
which made the Revolution and the revolutionary spirit prevalent in and out of
the country. Every advance in the War was an evidence for the global nature of
the Iranian Revolution.
260
The War discourse may be considered as the continuation of the Revolution
discourse. The only difference lies in the fact that the immediate outcomes of
the Revolution were expected inside the country, but it extraordinarily spread
across the world. The War discourse passed way beyond the battle fronts and
was manifested across the cities, troops deployment stations, mosques, local
Militia, military songs on TV and radio, martyrs' pictures installed in pubic
places, and their funeral ceremonies. These were all the indications of the wide
scope of the War. Thus, the War discourse was rather a framework for the
political system in the course of War. The advances of the Islamic troops in the
War years were the milestones of the political events in Iran. Just as the War
was a top priority in budget specifications, so was the same as the center of the
discourse of the day. The more or less strict discipline and peace dominant in
the political context of Iran in 1980s was also rooted in the same discourse.
The War discourse held true in terms of ‘acceptability’ and ‘victories.’ As long
as parts of Iran were occupied by the Iraqi troops, the War, even if lost, was
acceptable to the public. However, the acceptability and the military victories
together doubled the charm of the War so far as it was the dominating
discourse in the political discipline. With the withdrawal of the Iraqi troops
from the Iranian borders, the acceptability or legitimacy of the continuation of
the War was questioned by some parties. As long as Iran's military victories in
the battle fronts were concerned, this attitude was not pervasive. But with
decrease in the Iranian's victories, the War began to be the topic of arguments
and the source of conflicts in the country.
The second half of the 1980s witnessed a contradiction within the societal
discourses. There were arguments for the continuation of the War based on
ideological evidence which questioned the cease-fire. But on the other hand,
there were arguments against the War with regard to its unpleasant outcomes
261
including the economic problems and the large number of martyrs and
wounded soldiers.
The anti-War groups appealed to common sense lamenting over the
underdeveloped state of the country and arguing for the necessity of rebuilding
the country. The pro-War groups, on the other hand, emphasized loyalty to the
ideology of the battle fronts based on which the cease-fire would mean signing
a peace contract with Iraq, the symbol of atheism.
The War seemed no longer sacred and justified to some people, and the city
atmosphere seemed gloomy to the troops, for that matter. This gloomy
atmosphere was partly due to the diminishing care for the War and War
symbols and the citizens' preoccupation with daily life issues. The two-fold
policy of the government might well be accountable for this situation: In the
last few years of the War, attempts were made to keep the cities detached from
the unpleasant outcome of War so as to reduce public dissatisfaction. This in
turn increased the conflict between the battle fields atmosphere and that of the
cities.
Iran eventually agreed to sign the UN Resolution 598, and the War came to an
end. The conflict between the two discourses which was getting more and more
serious continued. The discourse developed in War years advocated respect for
the "Holy Defense" values after the War. The advocates of War discourse
sought to improve the social disciplines on the basis of those values without
which the city context was far from tolerable. Lack of women's respect for
Islamic dressing (Hijab), the relationships between boys and girls, introduction
of certain consumer's products in TV commercials and advertisements, the
production of some artworks and programs that were not in line with the Holy
Defense values, citizens' desire for profit making, the intellectuals who were
262
taking the floor, and the publication of periodicals with modern designing were
all the issues that the Militia (Basseej) and the troops had endured in the last
years of the War, but remained silent due to their preoccupations with War
issues. Now that the war was over, there seemed to be a good opportunity to
introduce the Holy Defense values into the city context.
On the other hand, the anti-War discourse that emerged in the last years of the
War had come a long way after the end of the War. The anti-War discourse
assumed that the end of the War would be an end to the discourse, which was
not justified and which was the main cause of the underdeveloped state of the
country. The serious conflict between these two types of discourse continued
but remained undercurrent as long as Imam Khomeini was alive. Imam's
important speech about the UN Resolution 598 was a reminder that the postWar atmosphere should not be in conflict with the earlier ideals of the War. He
predicted the persistence of the Islamic troops in the upcoming years, the time
when all affairs would center around bravery and martyrdom:
Yesterday was the Day of God's Test, and tomorrow will be the
Day for another Test… Do not let the intruders find their way to
the Revolution; Do not let the memory of the pioneers of
martyrdom fade away in daily life matters…. O You who never
leave aside your sacred pride… I am aware of your hard time, but
is your old Father not having a hard time, too?... But be patient,
because God is with the patient…. Keep your revolutionary sense
of revenge with you; watch your foes with fury, and be sure
Victory is yours. 29
263
Imam's passing away was the beginning of a new era in Iran, which Hashemi
Rafsanjani, the then president, referred to as "The Construction Era," and
considered himself as the Pioneer. This era is distinguished for its new
discourse, which was specialized, non-value based, and non-ideological (see
Gholamreza Kaashi, 2000:347-353).
4.3.1.2. The Discourse of Construction:
Hashemi replaced the discourse dominant in Imam's time with a new type of
discourse. Hashemi's era was characterized by the specialized human resources,
educated individuals, well-off groups, manufacturing companies, and the like.
The soldiers were highly respected, but they were remembered just as the
reminiscence of a golden age already passed. The dedicated soldiers, who spent
a long time in the battlefields, did not see any traces of the War time in this
new era and, therefore, Hashemi's ideas and future plans began to face
oppositions.
The Construction discourse, which was characterized by logic and reasoning,
was fairly a reaction against the War discourse, and it was thus welcomed by
most of the intellectuals, educated individuals, and the higher class. Hoping for
an era in which Iran would move toward development, abundance, relation
with western countries, and the like, Rafsanjani took over the presidency.
Changing the view of the cities is the typical example of the actions taken to
impress the public. Cleaning up the cities, building parks and new high ways,
starting new factories, constructing new dams, and increasing the production in
different areas seemed to be the indications of economic development with the
hope of a better future for the nation.
From another perspective, Iran was undergoing significant changes in social
and cultural affairs. Cultural changes included the building of cultural clubs,
264
TV entertainments, improvements in the area of music and dramatic arts,
publication of intellectual periodicals, etc. From a social point of view, the
availability of new products in the markets such as cosmetics, luxuries and
modern cars, new high rises, and the like, moved the country further away from
the spiritual atmosphere of the War years.
Hashemi Rafsanjani took a strong position advocating hard work, creativity,
and construction, while banning Hezbollah's extremes. He never opposed the
intellectuals' critiques arguing for their significant political role. Nevertheless,
his economic reform programs referred to as ‘Construction’ actually led to
inflation contrary to the future he had promised. He repeated his promises
reminding the public that the high prices and inflation would be followed by
fundamental reforms that would eliminate poverty in near future. But the public
gradually began to show distrust of Hashemi's promises for economic miracles.
All in all, Hashemi's government proved incompetent to materialize the postWar common sense discourse. It fell short of responding to the ideals of the
intellectuals and the youth who had just found their way to the system. In
Hashemi's second term of presidency, the sixth Presidential Election, the Right
Party began to take the floor, and the Construction discourse gradually gave
way to the Post-War discourse. Hashemi seemed to have lost common sense
charisma which was going to be manifested in a different political terms.
The Right's and the Left's discourse were both present in the political debate.
The Right advocates included the soldiers who had fought in the battle fronts.
The parties who were not allowed in Hashemi's Construction discourse were
ready to take the floor hoping to regain the principles in their ‘original’ form.
Arguing that it was time for spiritual reform after the Construction era, the
Right represented the above mentioned parties. Nategh Noori, the Right's
265
representative, did not disagree on the Construction discourse values. Rather,
he had brought with him a rival model which could combine construction with
spiritual values to come up with the values of the Holy defense.
On the contrary, the Left Party represented by Khatami was introducing itself
by the early 1990s discourse that belonged to the intellectuals. They adopted
an approach toward the post-War common sense attitude different from that of
the Construction discourse with democratic values that characterized the
content of their speeches.
By questioning the sacred nature of the religious teachings of the Islamic
clergies, by introducing a critical approach to religious teachings as opposed to
the pro-religious approach and referring to the verifiability of religious
knowledge and understanding, by giving priority to external rather than internal
religious measures, by criticizing many of the socio-political functions of
religion in terms of expectations from religion, by disqualifying the power of
religion through an ideological criticism of religion and defining religion in
terms of ideology and even more comprehensive than ideology (in Soroush,
stream, 1994), the Freedom discourse invalidated many conceptual frameworks
in light of which the Revolution was materialized and which the War discourse
was based on.
Khatami's Construction Discourse, however, was not meant to oppose the
Right's. Rather, it involved the relevant democratic values along with those of
Construction. Thus, the relationship between the discourses can be illustrated
as follows:
Construction Discourse
266
The Left's Presidential
The Right's Presidential
Discourse
Discourse
The Religious intellectuals'
The battle fronts'
Common sense discourse
value-based discourse
Figure ….: Kashi (2000: 361)
In this period of political instability when the Left did not seem to be in with a
chance, the Party brought forth another discourse not in line with the official
one. This new discourse was developed by the intellectual community in the
1980s and 90s. Dr. Soroosh , the pioneer in this type of discourse, introduced
logical arguments about religion and suggested extra-religious measures, which
downgraded the objective truth of the religious discourse developed in War
time to an evolutionary topic (see Soroosh, 1991; 1993a). He argued for a
Democratic Religious ruling system, which, despite its religious nature, had
much in common with western democratic system. It was a totally secular,
scientific, norm based, anti-fascist discourse with a general approach lacking in
support.
The discourse practically developed, and directly addressed the concept of
‘Sovereignty of the Religious Leader’ (SRL) (Velayat-e Faghih). To marginal
discourse adopted three defined strategies whereby attempts were made to
remove the sacred connotation of the concept for the justification of its power-
267
decentralization approach and introduce the relevant discourse in the political
debate. The three strategies are as follows.
1. To conceptually change SRL from a definite unambiguous fact to a
concept with multiple interpretations which would make possible the
presence of different rival parties;
2. To introduce arguments for the positive role of the Public in the
legitimization of the Islamic leader and thus, to limit the SRL's authority
within the principles of the Constitution;
3. To present the concept of Sovereignty of Religious Leader in light of the
modern conceptualization of National sovereignty. Claiming that
Sovereignty of Religious Leader is a divine gift and is thus bestowed a
decisive power, the Official Discourse assumes a sacred position for the
Leader. However, the Left considered the Religious Leader to have the
same position as any other political leader with similar charisma, and
therefore, degraded the religious status of the Leader to a social position.
Khatami's discourse bridged the gap between the marginal discourse and that of
the Left's which resulted in a new conceptualization. This does not mean that
the marginal discourse was dissolved in Khatami's. Rather, the Left's discourse
is characterized by its main body presented by Khatami, and a margin narrated
by the interpreters of the margin.
A distinguishing feature of this period is the integrity of the body and the
margin of the discourse. The discourse could be likened to a continuum on
which the official discourse would fade out by moving from the body to the
margin and would fade in otherwise. Khatami's discourse can be understood
only along with the marginal discourse. These two parts form a discourse
pyramid with the body at the top and the margin on the base. The discourse at
268
the top was designed with regard to the specific contexts, bans, and the status
quo in the political debate. It was designed in a way that it would please the
decision makers removing any possibilities of failure. The base of the pyramid,
however, addressed certain groups of people including university students and
the marginal political parties, and was designed to exaggerate the seriousness
of the political conflicts.
References
Akmajian, A. & Heny, F. (1975) An Introduction to the Principles of
Transformational Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Albrow , M. (1999) Sociology : The Basics . London : Routledge.
Althusser, L. & Balibar, E. (1970) Reading Capital. London : New Left Books.
Anthonissen, C. (2001) "On the effectiveness of media censorship:
linguistic, paralinguistic and other communicative devices of
media regulation." Ph.D. thesis: University of Vienna.
Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogical Imagination. Texas: University of
Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Texas:
University of Texas Press.
Bakker, C. (1997) "Membership categorization and interview accounting."
In D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and
Practice. London: Sage.
Bazerman, C. (1998) Shaping Written Knowledge : The Genre and Activity of
the
269
Becker, F., Gerhard, U. & Link, J. (1997) "Modern Kollektivsymbolik.
Eine
diskurstheoretisch
orientierter
Auswahlbibliographie."
Forschungsbericht
Internationales
mit
Archiv
fur
Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur (IASL), 22(1): 70-154.
Belsey, C. (1980) Critical Practice. London: Routledge.
Bellah, R.N. (1973) Emile Durkheim: On Morality and Society, Selected
Writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benke,
G.
(2000)
"Diskursanalyse
als
sozialwissenchaftliche
untersuchungsmethode." SWS Rundschau, 2:140-62.
Bennett, T. (1979) Formalism and Marxism. London: Methuen.
Bennett, T. (1998) Culture. London : Sage.
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T.N. (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary
Communication:
Cognition/Culture/Power.
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control. Vol 1. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Benstein, B. (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. London :
Routledge.
Bhaskar , R. (1986) Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London :
Verso.
Bhatia, V. (1983) An Applied Discourse Analysis of English Legislative
Writing. Birmangham: University of Aston Language Studies
Unit.
Bhatia, V. (1993) Analaysing Genre: Language Use in Professional
Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia V. (2004) Worlds of Written Discourse: London : Continuum.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. & Radley,
A.R. (1988) Ideological Dilemmas. London: Sage.
270
Birch, D. (1989) Language, Literature and Critical Practice. London:
Routledge.
Bjerke , F. (2000) Discursive Governance Structures.
Working paper,
Institute of social Sciences and Business Economics. Denmark:
Roskilde University.
Blakemore, D. (1992) Understanding Utterances : an Introduction to
Pragmatics .
Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, H. (2000) "Critical discourse analysis: An
overview." Annual Anthropological Review (forthcoming).
Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D.H. (1991) (eds.) Talk and Social Structure:
Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Oxford:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu , P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge : Polity Press.
Bourdieu ,P. & Wacquant, L. (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Brown, R. & Ford, M. (1964) "Address in American English." in D.
Hymes (ed.) Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper
and Row.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960) "The pronouns of power and solidarity."
In T.A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1972) "The pronouns of power and solidarity."
In
P.P.
Giglioli
(ed.)
Language
and
Social
Context.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
C. Schafner (eds.) Politics asTtalk and Text : Analytic Approaches to
Political Discourse. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
271
Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. & Coulthard, M. (1996) Text and Practice:
Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Calhoun, C. (1995) Critical Social Theory. London: Blackwell.
Carter, R., Goddard, A., Reah, D., Sanger, K. & Bowring, M. (1997)
Working with Texts: A core book for language analysis. London:
Routledge.
Chafe, M. (1979) "The flow of thought and the flow of language." In T.
Givon (ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Volume 12: Discourse and
Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Chandler , D. (2002) Semiotics : The basics . London : Routledge.
Chilton, P. (1990) “Politeness, politics and diplomacy”. Discourse & Society.
1(2): 201-24.
Chilton, P. (2004) Anlysing Political Discourse . London : Routledge.
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structure. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity:
Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Chouliaraki, L. (1995) Regulation and Heteroglossia in One Institutional
Context. The Case of a `Progressivist' English Classroom.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Lancaster.
Ciccourel, A. (1972) "Basic and normative rules in the negotiation of
status and rule." In D. Sudnow (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction.
New York: Free Press.
Cicourel, A. (1981) "Language and structure of belief in medical
communiction." In B. Sigurd and J. Svartvik (eds.) Processings of
AILA 81 Studia Linguistica, 5: 71-85.
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
272
Coulthard, M. (1977) Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London:
Longman.
Coulthard, M. (1985) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London:
Longman.
Coupland , N. & Jaworski, A. (2001) “Discourse”, In P. Cobley (ed.) Semiotics
and Linguistics . London : Routledge.
Coupland, N. & A. Jaworsk (eds.) Sociolinguistics : A reader and
Course Book. London : Macmillan.
Coupland, J. (1996) “Dating advertisements : discourse of the commodified
self”.
Discourse & Society. 7: 187-207.
Crystal, D. (1987) The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. (2002) Pragmatics and Discourse. London and New York:
Routledge.
Dant, T. (1991) Knowledge, Ideology and Discourse : A Sociological
Perspective.
de Beaugrande, R.A. & Dressler, W.U. (1981) Einfuhrung in die
Textlinguistik. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
de Beaugrande, R.A. (1980) Text, Discourse and Process: Towards a
Multidisciplinary Science of Texts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Drew, A., Gerhard, U. & Link, J. (1985) "Moderne Kollektivsymbolik.
Eine
diskurstheoretisch
Auswahlbibliographie."
orientierte
Einfuhrung
Internationales
Archiv
mit
fur
Sozialgeschichte der deutschen Literatur (IASL), 1st special
edition: 256-375. Tubingen: Forschungsreferate.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional
Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
273
Dudley-Evans, T. (1994) "Genre analysis: an approach for text analysis for
ESP." In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis.
London: Routledge.
Dudley-Evans, T. (1995) "Genre models for the teaching of academic
writing
to
second
language
speakers:
advantages
and
disadvantages." Journal of TESOL France, 2(2): 181-92.
Duranti, A. (1997) Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1933) The Division of Labour in Society. G. Simpson. trans.
New York: Free Press.
Duveen, G. & Lloyd, B. (1990) (eds.) Social Representations and the
Development of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Eagleton, T. (1980) "Text, ideology, realism." In E.W. Said (ed.)
Literature and Society. Baltimore: John Hopkins.
Eagleton, T. (1991) Ideology . London : Verso.
Eagleton, T. (1994) Ideology. London: Longman.
Eco, U. (1985) Lector in fabula: la cooperazione interpretativa nei testi
narrativi. Milano: Bompiani.
economic development”. International Social Science Journal.155:29Eggins, S. & Slade, D. (1997) Analysing Casual Conversation. London:
Cassel.
Eggins, S. and Martin , J. (1997) “Genres and registers of discourse”. In
T.van Djik
English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S.M. (1972) "Sociolinguistic rules of address." In J. Pride &
J. Holmes (eds.) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
274
45.
Experimental Article in Science. Madison, Wis : University of
Wisconsin
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. 1st edn. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992a) "Introduction." In. N. Fairclough (ed.) Critical
Language Awareness. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992b) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992c) (ed.) Critical Language Awareness. London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1993) "Critical discourse analysis and the marketisation of
public discourse: the universities." Discourse & Society, 4: 133-68.
Fairclough, N. (1995a) Critical Discourse Analysis: the Critical Study of
Language. London: Longman.
Fairclough , N. (1995b) Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough , N. (1998). “Political discourse in the media”. In A. Bell & P.,
Garrett (eds.) Approaches to Media Discourse : Oxford:
Blackwell.
Fairclough, N. (1999) "Linguistic and intertextual analysis within
discourse analysis." In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.) The
Discourse Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Fairclough , N. (2000 a)” Discourse , social theory and social research :
the case of
welfare reform”. Journal of Sociolinguistics . 4:
163-95.
Fairclough , N. (2000b) New Labour , New Language? London :
Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2001a) "Critical discourse analysis as a method in social
scientific research." In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Fairclough , N. (2001b) “ The dialectics of discourse”. Textus . 14: 231-42.
275
Fairclough , N. (2003) Analysing Discourse. London : Routledge.
Fairclough, N. & Kress, G. (1993) "Critical discourse analysis."
Unpublished manuscript.
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997) "Critical discourse analysis." In T. van
Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction.
Volume 2. London: Sage.
Fairclough , N., Jessop, R. & Sayer, A. (2002) “ Critical realism and
Semiosis”.
Fasold, R. (1990) Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fillmore, C.J. (1968) "The case for case." In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.)
Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Firestone, W.A. (1983) "Alternative agreements for generalizing from data
as applied to qualitative research." Educational Researcher, 22:
16-23.
Firth, J.R. (1957) Papers in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foertsch, J. (1995) "The impact of electronic networks on scholarly
communication: avenues to research." Discourse Processes, 19:
301-28.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaelogy of knowledge. New York : Pantheon.
Foucault , M. (1979) Discipline and Punish : the Birth of the Prison. New
York : Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1981) History of Sexuality. vol.1. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books.
Foucault, M. (1982) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings by Michel
Foucault, M. (1984) "The order of discourse." In M. Shapiro (ed.)
Language and Politics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
276
Fowler, R. (1977) "Literature as discourse." In G. Vesey (ed.)
Communication and Understanding. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester
Press.
Fowler, R. (1981) Literature as Social Discourse. London: Batsford.
Fowler, R. (1985) "Power." In T. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. vol.4: Discourse Analysis in Society. London: Academic
Press.
Fowler, R. (1987) "Notes on critical linguistics." In R. Steele & T.
Threadgold (eds.) Language Topics: Essays on Honour of Micheal
Halliday. Vol.II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fowler, R. (1991) "Critical linguistics." In K. Halmkjaer (ed.) The
Linguistic Encyclopedia. London and New York: Routledge.
Fowler, R. (1996) Linguistic Criticism. Second edn. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fowler, R. (2001) (ed.) A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G. & Trew, T. (1979) Language and
Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Froman, C. (1992) Language and Power. London: Humanities Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1974) "On the origins of the term ethnomethodology." In R.
Turner (ed.) Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Garrett, P & Bell, A. (1998) “ Media and discourse : a overview”. In A.
Bell & P. Garrett (eds.) Approaches to Media Discourse .Oxford:
Blackwell.
Georgakopoulou, A. & Goutsos, D. (1997) Discourse Analysis.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
277
Giddens , A. (1991) Modernity and Self Identity. Cambridge : Polity
Press.
Girce, H.P. (1975) "Logic and conversation." In P. Cole & J. Morgan
(eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Volume 9: Pragmatics. New York:
Academic Press.
Girnth, H. (1996) "Texte im politischen Diskurs. Ein Vorschlag zur
diskursor-lentierten
Beschreibung
von
Textsorten."
Muttersprache, 106(1): 66-80.
Givon, T. (1979) "From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing
strategy." In T. Givon (ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Volume 12:
Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Givon, T. (1989) Mind, Code, and Context: Essay in Pragmatics.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goatly , A. (1997) The Language of Metaphors . London : Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York:
Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior.
New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goffman, E. (1983) "The interaction order." American Sociological
Review, 48: 1-17.
Graham , P.(2001)“Contradictions and institutional convergences : genre
as method” .
Grice, H. (1981) “ Presupposition and conversational implicature”. In P.
Cole (ed.)
Grice, H.P. (1957) "Meaning." Philosophical Review, 67: 377-88.
278
Grimes, J. (1975) The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Grimshaw, A. (1981) Language as Social Resource. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (1972) Directions in Sociolinguistics. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982a) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982b) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, J. (1977) Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1984) Theory of Communicative Action. vol.1. London :
Heinemann.
Hall, S. (1996) "The problem of ideology: Marxism without guarantees."
In D. Morley & K.H. Chen (eds.) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues
in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985) (1989) Language, Context and Text:
Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Ist & 2nd
ends. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970) "Functional diversity in language as seen from a
consideration of modality and mode in English." Foundations of
Language, 6: 327-51.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1970) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching.
London: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language.
London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1976) "Anti-languages." UEA Papers in Linguistics, 1:
15-45.
279
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotics:The Social
Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) (1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar.
First and Second edns. London: Arnold.
Hammersley, M. (1997) "On the foundations of critical discourse
analysis." Language & Communication, 17(3): 237-48.
Hammond , J. & Derewianka, B. (2001) “ Genre”. In R. Carter & D.
Nunan (eds.)
Haroche, C., Henry, P. & Pecheux, M. (1971) "La semantique et la
coupure sausurienne: Langue, langage, discours." Lanqgages,
6(24): 93-106.
Harris, Z. (1951) Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Harris, Z. (1952) "Discourse analysis." Language, 28: 1-30.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Hasan , R. (1996) Ways of Saying : Ways of Meaning . London : Cassell.
Hatch, E. (1992) Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hawisher, G. & Selfe, C. (2000) (eds.). Globals Literacies and the World–
Wide Web.
Hawthorn, J. (1992) A Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary
Theory. London: Edward Arnold.
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (1985) "Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production
of talk for an overhearing audience." In T. van Dijk (ed.)
Handbook of Discourse Analysis. vol 3. Discourse and Dialogue.
London: Academic Press.
280
Hoey, M. (2001) Textual Interaction: an Introduction to Written
Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Howarth, D. (2002) Discourse. New Delhi: Viva Books.
Hudson, R.A. (1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Hymes, D. (1962) "The ethnography of speaking." In T. Gladwin & W.C.
Sturtevant
(eds.)
Anthropology
and
Human
Behavior.
Anthropological Society of Washington.
Hymes, D. (1972) "Models of the interaction of language and social life."
In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics.
New York: Blackwell.
Hymes, D. (1974a) "Toward ethnographies of communication." In D.
Hymes. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic
Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, D. (1974b) "Why linguistics needs the sociologist." In D. Hymes.
Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, D. (1974c) "Linguistics as sociolinguistics." In D. Hymes.
Foundations in Sociolinguistics: an Ethnographic Approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, D. (1974d) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: an Ethnographic
Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Iedema, R. (1997) "Interactional dynamics and social change; planning as
morphogenesis." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Sydney.
Iedema, R. (1999) "Formalizing organizational meaning." Discourse and
Society, 10(1): 49-66.
281
Jager, S. (1993) Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einfuhrung. Duisburg:
DISS.
Jager, S. (1996) "Diskurstheorian." In H. Hierdeis & T. Hug (eds.)
Taschenbuch der Padagogik. revised and enlarged edn.
Hohengehren: Schneider.
Jager,
S.
(2001)
"Discourse
and
Knowledge:
theoretical
and
methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive
analysis." In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Jaquemet, M. (1996) Credibility in Court: Communicative Practices in the
Camorra Trials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (1999) "Introduction." In A. Jaworski & N.
Coupland (eds.) The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.
Jessop , B.(1998) “The rise of governance and the risks of failure : the case
of
Jorgensen, W. & Phillips, L. (1999) Diskursanalyse som Teori og Metode.
Roskilde: Samfunds Litteratur.
Journal of Critical Realism. 5(1) : 2-10.
Journal of Future Studies. 5(4): 1-30.
Kress, G. & Hodge, B. (1979) Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Threadgold, T. (1988) "Towards a social theory of genre."
Southern Review, 21.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of
Visual Design. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London :
Arnold.
Kress, G. (1976) (ed.) Halliday: System and Function in Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
282
Kress, G. (1977) "Tense as modality." UEA Papers in Linguistics, 5: 4052.
Kress, G. (1978) "Poetry as anti-language: a reconsideration of Donne's
`Nocturnall upon S. Lucies Day'." PTL, 3: 327-44.
Kress, G. (1985a) "Ideological structures in discourse." In T. van Dijk
(ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. vol.4. London: Academic
Press.
Kress, G. (1985b) Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural practice. Victoria:
Deakin University Press.
Kress, G. (1989) "History and language: towards a social account of
linguistic change." Journal of Pragmatics, 13(3): 445-66.
Kress, G. (1990) "Critical discourse analysis." Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 11: 84-99.
Labov, W. (1972a) (ed.) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972b) "The transformation of experience in narrative syntax."
In W. Labov. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972c) "Introduction." In W. Labov. Sociolinguistic Patterns.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972d) "Rules for ritual insults." In W. Labov. Language in
the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972e) "The social stratification of (r) in New York City
department stores." In W. Labov. Sociolinguistic Patterns.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1972f) Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania.
283
Labov, W. (1984) "Field methods of the project on linguistic change and
variation." In J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (eds.) Language in Use.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Labov, W. & Waletsky, J. (1967) "Narrative analysis." In J. Helm (ed.)
Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
Laclau, E. (1981) Politik und Ideologie im Marxismus. KapitalismusFaschismus-Populismus. Berlin: Argument.
Laclau, E. & Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Verso.
Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and
Row.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson , M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago :
University of Chicago Press.
Larrain , J. (1979) The Concept of Ideology . London : Hutchinson.
Leach, E. (1964) "Animal categories and verbal abuse." In E. Lenneberg
(ed.) New Directions in the Study of Language. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Leech, G.N. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G.N. & Short, M.H. (1981) Style in Fiction. London: Longman.
Leontjew, A.N. (1982) Tatigkeit, Bewusstsein, Personlichkeit. Cologne:
Pahl-Rugenstein.
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1967) Structural Anthropology. New York: Anchor
Books.
Link,
J.
&
Link-Heer,
Literaturanalyse."
U.
(1990)
Zeitschrift
"Diskurs/Interdiskurs
und
fur
und
Linguistik
Literaturwissenschaft (LiLi), 71: 88-99.
Link,
J.
(1982)
"Kollektivsymbolik
KultuRRevolution. 1: 6-21.
284
und
Mediendiskurse."
Lockwood, D. (1973) "The distribution of power in industrial society: a
comment." In J. Urry & J. Wakeford (eds.) Power in Britain:
Sociological Readings. London: Heinemann.
London : Routledge.
London : Routledge.
Luke, A. (1995/6) "Text and discourse in education: an introduction to
critical discourse analysis." In M. Apple (ed.) Review of Research
in Education, 21. Washington DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Macdonell, D. (1986) Theories of Discourse: An Introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Mann, M. (1983) Encyclopedia of Sociology. London: Macmillan.
Mannheim, K. (1955) Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harvest Books.
Martin , J.F. ; Christie, . & Rohthery, J. (1987) "Social process in
education" . In I.
Martin, J. & Hasan, R. (1989) (eds.) Language Development: Learning
Language, Learning Culture. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Martin, J. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
McCarthy, M. (1991) Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (2001) “Discourse”. In R. Carter and D. Nunan (eds.)
Teaching
McCarthy, M., Matthiessen, C. & Slade, D. (2002) "Discourse analysis."
In N. Schmitt (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics.
London: Arnold.
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001) Courpus Linguistics. Edinburgh :
Edingburgh University Press.
Merton, R.K. (1967) On Theoretical Sociology. New York: Free Press.
285
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. & Leep, W. (2000) Introducing
Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mey, J.L. (1993) Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Meyer, M. (2001) "Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of
the approach to CDA". In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.) Methods
of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Mills, S. (1997) Discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
Morley, D. (1980) "Texts, readers, subjects." In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A.
Lowe & P. Willis (eds.) Culture, Media, Language. London:
Hutchinson.
Morris, C. (1938) "Foundations of the theory of signs." In O. Neurath, R.
Carnap & C. Morris (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Unified
Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moscovici, S. (1981) "On social representations." In J. Forgas (ed.) Social
Cognition. Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. London:
Academic Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1995) Sociological Theory: What Went Wrong? Diagnoses
and Remedies. London: Routledge.
Muntigl, P., Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (2000) (eds.) European Union
Discourses on Un/employment. An Interdisciplinary Approach to
Employment
Policy-making
and
Organizational
Change.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ng, S.H. & Bradac, J.J. (1993) Power in Language. London: Sage.
Ochs, E. (1979) "Planned and unplanned discourse." In T. Givon (ed.)
Syntax and Semantics. Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax. New
York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E. (1988) Culture and Language Development. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
286
Ohmann, R. (1976) English in America: A Radical View of the
Profession. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paltridge, B. (1995) "Genre analysis and the identification of textual
bundaries." Applied Linguistics, 16: 288-99.
Parkin, T. (1971) Class, Inequality, Political Order. St. Albans: Paladin.
Parsons, T. & Shils, E. (1951) (eds.) Towards a General Theory of Action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pecheux, M. (1975) (1982) Language, Semantics and Ideology. London:
Macmillan.
Pecheux, M. (1988) "Discourse: structure or event?" In C. Nelson & L.
Grossberg (eds.) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture.
London: Macmillan.
Pecheux, M., Henry, P., Poitou, J-P. & Haroche, C. (1979) "Un example
d'ambiguite ideologique: Le rapport Mansholt." Technologies et
Pratiques, 1(2).
Perakyla, A. (1997) "Reliability and validity in research based on
transcripts." In D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research. Theory,
Method and Practice. London: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1970) Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.
Popper , K. (1962).The Open Society and Its Enemies. 2vols. London:
Routledge.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology.
London: Sage.
Potter, J. (1997) "Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally
occurring data." In D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research.
Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage.
Pugh, R. (1996) Effective Language in Health and Social Work. London:
Chapman and Hall.
Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
287
Rampton, B. (1995) Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among
Adolescents. London: Longman.
Reid (ed.). The Place of Genre in Learning. Center for studies of Literacy
ducation. Geelong, Victoria : Deakin University Press.
Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics
of Racism and Antisemitism. London and New York: Routledge.
Roberts, C., Davies, E. & Jupp, T. (1992) Language and Discrimination: A
Study of Communication in Multi-ethnic Workplaces. London:
Longman.
Robin, R. (1973) Historie et linguistique. Paris: Armand Colin.
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversations. Vols I and II. edited by G.
Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sapir, E. (1933) "Communication." Encyclopedia of the Social Science, 4:
78-81.
Sapir, E. (1949) Language, Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Saussure, F. (1959) (1974) Course in General Linguistics. London:
Fontana.
Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and Social Science. London : Sage.
Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H. (1973) (1999) "Opening up closings." In A.
Jaworski & N. Coupland (eds.) The Discourse Reader. London:
Routledge.
Schegloff, E.A. (1999) "Talk and social structure." In A. Jaworski & N.
Coupland (eds.) The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.
Schegloff, E.A., Ochs, E. & Thompson, S.A. (1996) "Introduction." In E.
Ochs, E.A. Schegloff & S.A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and
Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
288
Schiffrin, D. (1988) "Sociolinguistic approaches to discourse: topic and
reference in narrative." In K. Ferrera et al. (eds.) Linguistic
Contact and Variation. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sciences and Business Economics. Denmark : Roskilde University.
Scollon, R. (2001a) "Action and text: towards an integrated understanding
of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the
problem of social action." In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.)
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Scollon, R. (2001b) Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London:
Routledge.
Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1975) "Indirect speech acts." In P. Cole & J. Morgran (eds.)
Syntax and Semantics. vol.3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic
Press.
Searle, J.R. (1979) "The classification of illocutionary acts." Language in
Society, 8: 137-51.
Searle, J.R. (1989) "On conversation." In J.R. Searle (ed.) (On) Searle On
Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Seidel, G. (1985) "Political discourse analysis." In T. van Dijk (ed.)
Handbook of Discourse Analysis. vol.4: Discourse Analysis in
Society. London: Academic Press.
Sherzer, J. (1983) Kuna Ways of Speaking. Austin: University of Texas
Pres.
Silverman, D. (1997) (ed.) Qualitative Research. Theory, Method and
Practice. London: Sage.
Silverstone, R. (1999) Why Study the Media ? London : Sage.
289
Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View. London:
Routledge.
Sinclair, J. McH. & Coulthard, R.M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of
Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. (1961) "A class of complex modifiers in English." Language,
37: 342-65.
Spencer-Oatey, H. & Zegarc, V. (2002) "Pragmatics." In N. Schmitt (ed.)
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and
Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stilwell Peccei, J. (1999) Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
Strauss, A.L. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1983) Discourse Analsysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of
Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1996) Text and Courpus Analysis. Oxford : Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1997) "Whorf's children: critical comments on CDA." In A.
Ryan and A. Wray (eds.) Evolving Models of Language. Papers
from the 1996 Annual Meeting of BAAL, Milton Keynes:
Multilingual Matters.
Sumner, C. (1975) Reading Ideologies. London: Academic Press.
Swales, J. (1981) Aspects of Article Introductions. (Aston ESP
Monographs 1). Birmangham: Aston University.
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research
Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1982) "Oral and litral strategies in spoken and written
narratives." Language, 58(1): 1-21.
Tannen, D. (1984) Conversational Style: Analising Talk among Friends.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
290
Tannen, D. (1986) "Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and
American conversational and literary narrative." In F. Coulmas
(ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton.
Tansey , S.D. (2000) Politics : The basics . 2nd edn. London : Routledge.
Taylor, T. & Cameron, D. (1987) Analysing Conversation. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge:
Cambridge Uinversity Press.
Thomas, J. (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
London: Longman.
Thompson, J. (1984) Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge :
Polity Press.
Thompson, J.B. (1990) Ideology and Modern Culture. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Threadgold, T. (1989) "Talking about genre: ideologies and incompatible
discourses." Journal of Cultural Studies, 3.1.
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of Text
and Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Toolan, M. (1997) "What is critical discourse analysis and why are people
saying such terrible things about it?" Language and Literature, 6.
Trask, R.L. (1999) Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London:
Routledge.
Trew, T. (1979a) "Theory and ideology at work." In R. Fowler, R. Hodge,
G. Kress & T. Trew. Language and Control. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Trew, T. (1979b) "Linguistic variation and ideological difference." IN R.
Fowler, R. Hodge, G. Kress & T. Trew. Language and Control.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
291
Trudgill, P. (1974) The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, R. (1974) Ethnomethodology. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin.
University Press.
van Dijk, T. (1972) Some Aspects of Text Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, T. (1978) "New developments and problems in text linguistics."
In J. Petofi (ed.) Text vs. Sentence. vol.2. Hamburg: Buske Verlag.
van Dijk, T. (1981a) "Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension."
Discourse Processes, 2: 113-26.
van Dijk, T. (1981b) Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The
Hague/Berlin: Mouton.
van Dijk, T. (1985a) (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 4 Vols. New
York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. (1985b) "Introduction: the role of discourse analysis in
society." In T. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
Volume 4: Discourse Analysis in Society. London: Academic
Press.
van Dijk, T. (1985c) "Introduction: discourse as a new cross-discipline." In
T. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Volume 1:
Disciplines of Discourse. New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. (1986) Racism in the Press. London: Arnold.
van Dijk, T. (1988a) News Analysis :Case Studies of International and
National News in the Press. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawerence Erlbaum
Associates.
van Dijk, T. (1988b) News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Elbaum
Associates.
van Dijk, T. (1993a) "Editor's Foreword." Discourse and Society, 4(2):
131-2.
292
van Dijk, T. (1993b) "Principles of critical discourse analysis." Discourse
and Society, 4(2): 249-283.
van Dijk, T. (1997) (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary
Introduction. London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. (1998a) "Critical discourse analysis." In D. Tannen, D.
Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (eds.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
(in
prepration).
In
:www///http
/cj/progra~1/delrina/wincomm/download.
van Dijk, T. (1998b) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London:
Sage.
van Dijk , T. (1998c) “Opinions and ideologies in the press”. In A. Bell &
P. Garrett (eds.) Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford :
Blackwell.
van Dijk, T. (2001) "Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity." In R.
Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
van Dijk , T. (2002) “ Ideology : political discourse and cognition”. In P.
Chilton & van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983) Strategies of
Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
van Leeuwen, T. & Wodak, R. (1999) "Legitimizing immigration control.
A discourse-historical analysis." Discourse Studies, 1(1): 83-118.
van Leeuwen, T. (1987) "Generic strategies in press journalism."
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2): 199-220.
van Leeuwen, T. (1993) "Genre and field in critical discourse analysis."
Discourse and Society, 4(2): 193-223.
van Leeuwen, T. (1996) "The representation of social actors." In C.R.
Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds.) Texts and Practices:
Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Verschueren , J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics . London : Arnold.
293
Volosinov, V.N. (1973) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New
York: Academic Press.
Wagner, W. (1994) Alltagsdiskurs. Die Theorie sozialer Reprasentationen.
Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Webb, E.J. (1966) Unobtrusive Measures. Nonreactive Research in the
Social Sciences. Chicago: McNall.
Wernick , A. (1991) Promotional Culture. London : Sage.
Whorf , B.L. (1997) “ The relation of habitual thought and behaviour to
language”. In N.
Whorf, B.L. (1956) Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Widdowson , H.G. (1995) “ Discourse anlaysis : a critical views”.
Language and Literature. 4: 157-72.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001) (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, R. & van Dijk, T. (2000) (eds.) Racism at the Top. Parlimentary
Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European States. Klagenfurt:
Drava.
Wodak, R. (1989) "Introduction." In R. Wodak (ed.) Language, Power and
Ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (1996a) Disorders of Discourse. London and New York:
Longman.
Wodak, R. (1996b) "Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis." In
J. Verschueren (ed.) Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (2000) "Does sociolinguistics need social theory? New
perspectives on critical discourse analysis." Keynote speech at SS
2000, Bristol. April 2000.
294
Wodak, R. (2001a) "What is CDA about - a summary of its history,
important concepts and its developments." In R. Wodak & M.
Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage.
Wodak, R. (2001b) "The discourse-historical approach." In R. Wodak &
M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Sage.
Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
295