Discorse Analysis
Reading:
Iñiguez, L (2003) Análisis del Discurso (chapter 3). Editorial UOC. Very readable and avoids technical terminology.
Wetherell, M (2001) Themes in Discourse Research: the case of Diana. In Wetherell et al (eds) Discourse Theory and Practice London: Sage Comprehensive and clear.
Discourse Analysis
"Discourse analysis" means many things to many people.
One thing they all agree on is that the analyst's first focus must be on language, and what it does in the world. So far, CA agrees.
The next thing they agree on is that the analyst must 'go beyond' the data itself. The analyst has to interpret by appeal to a theory (e.g. a theory about society, or power, or culture). At this point, DA splits off from CA, which is against interpretation of that kind.
DA then starts to divide into various traditions.
The most general, the one that people tend to refer to if they just say "Discourse Analysis", is a linguistic approach to talk and text that tries to see how the speakers' or authors' choice of words "constructs" a social object. When the data are spoken, this approach is sometimes called "interactional sociolinguistics". Critical DA people explicitly look for the workings of ideology, or power. We'll get to that later.
For the moment, here are two basic DA principles:
1. One of language's functions is to "do things" at the societal level (i.e. above the merely interpersonal)
What things does it do?
It is 'constitutive': some things, at least, are set up and constructed out of language. A good example is The Law: the law in any one society is constituted by all the statutes that Parliament has passed, all the regulations that are written inthe Constitution, and so on. All these are 'just words', but they constitute something very real.
It promotes someone's (or some group's) interests. The Law is a good example again. Discourse analysts want to say that the Law is actually not neutral or impartial (though it claims to be). The language in
Iñiguez, L (2003) Análisis del Discurso (chapter 3). Editorial UOC. Very readable and avoids technical terminology.
Wetherell, M (2001) Themes in Discourse Research: the case of Diana. In Wetherell et al (eds) Discourse Theory and Practice London: Sage Comprehensive and clear.
Discourse Analysis
"Discourse analysis" means many things to many people.
One thing they all agree on is that the analyst's first focus must be on language, and what it does in the world. So far, CA agrees.
The next thing they agree on is that the analyst must 'go beyond' the data itself. The analyst has to interpret by appeal to a theory (e.g. a theory about society, or power, or culture). At this point, DA splits off from CA, which is against interpretation of that kind.
DA then starts to divide into various traditions.
The most general, the one that people tend to refer to if they just say "Discourse Analysis", is a linguistic approach to talk and text that tries to see how the speakers' or authors' choice of words "constructs" a social object. When the data are spoken, this approach is sometimes called "interactional sociolinguistics". Critical DA people explicitly look for the workings of ideology, or power. We'll get to that later.
For the moment, here are two basic DA principles:
1. One of language's functions is to "do things" at the societal level (i.e. above the merely interpersonal)
What things does it do?
It is 'constitutive': some things, at least, are set up and constructed out of language. A good example is The Law: the law in any one society is constituted by all the statutes that Parliament has passed, all the regulations that are written inthe Constitution, and so on. All these are 'just words', but they constitute something very real.
It promotes someone's (or some group's) interests. The Law is a good example again. Discourse analysts want to say that the Law is actually not neutral or impartial (though it claims to be). The language in