CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM FRAMING THE STUDY
3.2.3 CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Central to CDA is the term ‘critical’, which not only describes and explains linguistic features, but analyses the ‘how’ and ‘why’ these linguistic features work to serve ideological goals (Machin & Mayr, 2012). It is this critical analysis of social and political practices (Huckin, 1997) that separates the critical paradigm from the interpretive paradigm. An interpretive theory is oriented towards understanding and explaining society, in contrast to a critical theory which is oriented towards a social critique and possible ways of social change (Wodak &
Meyer, 2009). Critical linguists first used the term ‘critical’ in their approach to demystify social events which, through language as an ideological means, would otherwise conceal and hide (Fowler et al., 1979; Hodge & Kress, 1979; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Therefore, in order to reveal the hidden connotations, absences and assumptions in texts, language has to be critically “denaturalised” (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Language also needs to be critically analysed to expose the hidden links between language and ideology and power (Fairclough, 1989), because the reader may understand what concept is being communicated but may not
43
be aware why and how this is done. In exposing these linguistic stratagems, CDA analysts can better understand, expose and challenge these power relationships (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
Unger, Wodak and KhosraviNik (2016), in their chapter on critical discourse studies and social media data, outlined their three postulations of the term ‘critical’. A critical analysis of language “means making explicit the implicit relationship between discourse, power and ideology, challenging surface meanings, and not taking anything for granted” (Unger et al., 2016, p. 3). They also opine that in the interrogation of data critical analysts are also simultaneously involved in self-reflection and self-criticism. Their third understanding of the term ‘critical’ is based on the distinction put forward by Reisigl and Wodak (2001), who distinguished between “text‐immanent critique”, “socio‐diagnostic critique”, and “prospective (retrospective) critique” (p. 32). This involves an initial transparent analysis of the selected text, then interpreting the textual analysis in the context of the socio-political structure, and finally building on the two prior levels to identify spheres of social concern which can then be addressed by wider audiences. Reisigl and Wodak (2001) conclude that ‘critical’ is being distant to the data, setting it in its social context, adopting an explicit political stance and focusing on scholarly self-reflection.
Discourse refers to the words we use to express something, and given the importance of what is transmitted in textbooks, CDA can be used to describe, interpret and analyse the grammar and semantics in a text to discover the concealed ideologies in discourses (Van Dijk, 1993;
Fairclough,1989; Wodak, 2001; Machin & Mayr, 2012). Thus the grammatical and semantic structure of a text can foreground particular ideologies while backgrounding and suppressing others. Discourse (Machin & Mayr, 2012) is created when grammar and semantics are played out in various arenas of society, culture and politics. So the broader ideas transferred by language forms in the text, create the text. Marx also viewed language as a “product, producer, and reproducer of social consciousness” (Fairclough & Graham, 2002, p. 201).
Discourse can also be construed as a way of interaction which is representative of facets of life (Fairclough, Mulderrig & Wodak, 2011), for example, globalisation versus protectionist discourses. Discourse, from the analytical viewpoint of CDA, is seen as a form of social practice. According to Fairclough et al. (2011) this infers that there is a dialectical relationship between a specific discursive occurrence and the social structures that surround it. This results in a mutual relationship: the discursive occurrence is formed by social structures, situations
44
and institutions, but it also shapes them. Discourse is “socially constitutive as well as socially shaped” (Fairclough et al., 2011, p. 358), and is constitutive in that it reproduces and sustains the status quo socially as well as in a sense transforming it.
However, in a dialectical realisation a particular construction of the social world is linguistically conceptualised because in language things are not merely named but conceptualised. It is through language that discourses, for example cultural or racial superiority/inferiority, are projected and through language that we in turn influence society (Fairclough, 2003). Discourse thus appears to be the use of language regarded as socially determined (Fairclough, 1989).Therefore discourse, because of its social significance (Unger et al., 2016), may give rise to issues of power, which in turn may have critical ideological effects – for example, the production and reproduction of unequal social class relations. Also, discursive practices can result in the transmission of ideologies. A neoliberal discourse may, for example, advance assumptions as common-sense notions.
Discourses differ in ways that they represent different perspectives or aspects of the world.
This is so because the particular worldviews that people have are dependent on their world positions, individual and social identities and communal relationships with others (Fairclough, 2003). Therefore Fairclough (2003) sees discourses not only as representative of the world but also as being projective of potential worlds which can be linked to schemes which try to steer society in a particular direction (Luke, 1996). It is this functioning and the machinations of ideologies which interests scholars of critical studies (Unger et al., 2016). As such, ideology needs discourse as its expressive medium (Hodge & Kress, 1979). Because we cannot directly study ideology, we can study discourse, as discourse reifies and reveals ideologies (Hodge &
Kress, 1979).
Luke (1996) corroborated this point by stating that in terms of representation, discourses encompass production, consumption, depiction and description. The subjectivity of texts then encompasses how one is positioned, described and referred to. Thus Fairclough (2003) reiterated that a discourse can be a resource used by people to relate to others, whether to co- operate, compete, keep separate or dominate. In so doing it develops into an instrument of ideology.
45
Of particular relevance to this study is Fairclough’s (2009b, p. 321) identification of five general claims about discourse as a facet of globalisation:
1) Discourse can represent globalisation, giving people information about it and contributing to their understanding of it.
2) Discourse can misrepresent and mystify globalisation, giving a confusing and misleading impression of it.
3) Discourse can be used rhetorically to project a particular view of globalisation that can justify or legitimise the actions, policies or strategies of particular (usually powerful) social agencies and agents.
4) Discourse can contribute to the constitution, dissemination and reproduction of ideologies, which can also be seen as forms of mystification, but have a crucial systemic function in sustaining a particular form of globalisation and the (unequal and unjust) power relations which are built into it.
5) Discourse can generate imaginary representations of how the world will be or should be within strategies for change which, if they achieve hegemony, can be operationalised to transform these imaginaries into realities, i.e. particular actual forms of globalisation.
Although all these claims are relevant to a certain degree to this study, the fourth claim is particularly relevant to this study, as it more substantially focuses on how discourse constitutes, disseminates and reproduces a particular view of globalisation.
This is where a detailed textual analysis of linguistic and visual features can be used to identify aspects of the representations of the world, and to ascertain the distinct angles or perspectives from which these aspects derive. An important methodological point is that in this study, CDA uses a linguistic and visual analysis to provide not only a social critique of current social issues but also to provide recommendations for possible strategies for emancipation (Blommaert, 2005; Keller, 2013). The linguistic analysis emerged historically from Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics (SFL). Halliday’s methodology was important for CDA as it provided a guideline to look at and analyse the relationship between discourse and society. Many CDA analysts have embraced SFL as an analytical tool because language is scrutinised in relation to its social functionality.
Meaning is construed as the result of the writer’s choice of linguistic forms based on three functions of language (Halliday, 1985; Halliday & Hasan, 1989; Heros, 2009):
(a) representational - how language functions to interpret the world,
46
(b) interpersonal - how relations are evinced in language in addition to feelings, attitudes and judgements of the writer, and
(c) textual - how discourse is created through the linguistic selection and manipulation of words.
An important part in undertaking a CDA of a text is an understanding of Halliday’s (1973) systemic functional grammar because grammar, according to this author, is the form of linguistics at the
level at which the various strands of meaning potential are woven into a fabric; or, to express this non-metaphorically, the level at which the different meaning selections are integrated so as to form structures. (p. 93)
Fairclough (1992) extended Halliday’s three functions of textual analysis into four parts:
vocabulary (mainly where meanings of words, wording and metaphors are dealt with), grammar (modality, transitivity and themes), cohesion (how clauses and sentences are linked), and textual structure (choice of topics and power relationships). Fairclough (2003, p. 129) theorised that the vocabulary of a text distinguishes the type of discourse as “discourses ‘word’
or ‘lexicalise’ the world in particular ways”. He also reiterated that a discourse can be realised if the focus shows a link between words. This is particularly relevant to this study, as distinguishing of the discourses of globalisation was realised through the identification of words which lexicalised particular concepts. For example, the discourse of ethnoscapes was identified through the usage of particular words and their synonyms which inferred the social arena, such as people, labour, labour force, and labour inputs.
Elaborating on the grammatical function, Machin and Mayr (2012) provided a tool to specifically draw out implied connotations from particular verb usage. They based their tool on the model offered by Caldas-Coulthard (1994), which systematically evaluated the implicit connotations in the use of verbs. The meaning potentials of quoting verbs (Caldas-Coulthard, 1994) were expanded on to include (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 59-60):
neutral structuring verbs like ask, tell, say, reply, which either do not evaluate a remark or can represent the speaker as being less personalised;
metapropositional verbs like urge, counter, and grumble, which are directive, assertive and expressive. These signal the writer’s intention of interpretation of a speaker;
47
metalinguistic verbs like quote and narrate to specify the type of language a speaker uses;
descriptive verbs like scream, mutter and whisper to signify attitude and classify the interaction; and
transcript verbs which signal the development of the discourse, for example add, repeat, and amend.
According to Fairclough (1989) CDA makes a progression from description (where the formal properties of the text are described), to interpretation (the examination of the text and viewing the text as a product and as a resource in the interpretative process), and then to explanation (which focuses on the relationship between interaction and its social effect – how the text shapes and is shaped by social events). Fairclough (1989) designed a three-dimensional framework which is commonly used by critical discourse analysts in the concrete analysis.
The first dimension, the central part of the analysis, is an analysis of the text where use is made of Halliday’s SFL (1973) and the three scopes of ideational (transitivity, types of verbs), interpersonal (mood and modality) and textual analysis (thematic structure) (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). This is the raw sample from the data corpus (Keller, 2013) wherein texts are analysed relating to their form, meaning and embedding in a context through strategic language usage.
Fairclough’s second dimension, discourse as discursive practice, focuses on the production, distribution or dissemination and consumption processes of the text, revealing the field, tenor and mode: how texts are written (created), read (interpreted) and reproduced and transformed (revealing concept of intertextuality). The third part, discourse as social practice, looks at the ideological effects and hegemonic processes in which the discourse is seen to operate (the social context in which the text is produced and consumed) (Huckins, 1997).
On the premise that Halliday’s (1973, 1978) SFL was deemed as occasionally difficult because of its highly technical linguistic terminology (Fairclough, 2003), Fairclough (1989, 1992, 2003) advocated a modified framework to guide the analysis procedure. This included defining the research problem, compiling the data and then selecting the sample from the corpus, analysis of the sample and interpretation of the textual context. Finally, the relationship between the micro-analysis (textual analysis) and the macro-analysis (social context) is explained. Also explained here are how identified power relations influence the social practice.
48
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) further included the possible solutions to eliminate or challenge relationships of power and hegemony in likely routes for social change.
In this study I adopted and adapted the methodology of CDA as interpreted by the founders and practitioners mentioned above. The study leaned heavily on the traditional linguistic approach as envisaged by Fairclough (1989, 1992, 2003, 2011), Huckins (1997), Locke (2004), Machin and Mayr (2012) and Keller (2013).
Using the above theoretical concepts I also simultaneously approached the analysis of the data using the lens provided by Appadurai (1990, 1996), particularly with reference to the vocabulary he adopted to describe the various discourses of globalisation, namely, ethnoscapes, mediascapes, financescapes, ideoscapes and technoscapes. Of methodological significance is that data analysis informed by data is called inductive analysis whilst analysis informed from themes, patterns and categories emanating from the data sample is called deductive analysis (Luneta, 2013). According to Luneta (2013) deductive analysis authenticates theory, and therefore in this study this stage of the analysis is deductive in nature. Appadurai (1990; 1996) identified these as global flows and saw them as follows: ethnoscapes (the movement of people in the world, in particular immigrants, tourists and mobile workers; social arena), financescapes (trade and investment, capital and mobile money; economic arena), technoscapes (technology and technological flows), mediascapes (images and ideas; cultural arena) and ideoscapes (ideas and practices of governments and institutions; political arena).
Appadurai used these terms to emphasise the vital role that these subjective concepts have in the process of globalisation, emphasising that people are just as important as the objective dimensions of finance and economy.
However, Heyman and Campbell (2009) disagreed with Appadurai’s concept of multiple flows as being disjunctive and causally equal when they argued that Appadurai undervalued the magnitude of finance and capital. They contended that finance and capital, more than the other concepts, have a greater impact on inequality globally (Heyman & Campbell, 2009).
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this study Appadurai’s emphasis that all discourses of globalisation are just as critical as the objective dimensions of finance and economy, was appropriated. The textual analysis was used to reveal the manner in which the different discourses of globalisation are communicated to the readers. Each type of discourse was identified through the use of a specific glossary relevant to that particular discoursal arena. For
49
example, the identification of ‘financescapes’ was facilitated through the use of certain keywords, such as capital, trade, investment and profit.