HOT MESS of a blog post...skimming advised! 8. 28.13

Discourse Analysis Blog post for 8.28.13

Chapters 1-3: Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method by Marianne Jorgensen and Louise Phillips

                Either this reading is dense, or I am – YIKES!  There were so many new terms and theories upon theories… I am hoping that taking some notes will bring things more into focus for me.  I don’t usually use my post as a place to take notes, but I think I need to today so that I come away with some sort of understanding.  I really did not get this!

                In the first chapter, the authors talk about how the 3 approaches (Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology) are similar.  According to Jorgensen and Phillips, they all have common views of language and subject and are “critical” forms of research (meaning that they look at power and are interested in social change).   All 3 approaches also began in social constructionism.   On page 3, the authors go into some of the key differences among the approaches. The approaches differ in the scope of discourse – “do they constitute the social completely, or are they themselves partly constituted by other aspects of the social?” – and in the focus of their analysis.   All 3 see the ‘subject’ as being created in discourses.

Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory

-          Discourse constructs the social world

-          Meaning is not permanently fixed – changing constantly as we change our discourse

-          Discursive struggle is a key word in this theory – different discourses struggle with one another to dominate – to create HEGEMONY

-          Follow’s Foucault (individual is determined by structures)

-          Discourse IS the world

-          Really about theory development and don’t have methods

Nodal points –  a privileged sign – all others are defined in relation to the nodal point

The field of discursivity- All the possibilities that the discourse excludes.  It denotes all possible, but excluded constructions of meaning.

Elements – signs whose meanings are not yet fixed…have many potential meanings (polysemic)

Closure – a temporary (never definite) stop to the fluctuations in the meaning of the signs.

Moments – all signs in a discourse (knots in the net – different positions)

Articulation – every practice that establishes a relationship between elements and changes the identity of the element.

Floating signifiers – elements that are open to a variety of possible meanings.

L and M  - look at analyzing HOW the structure (through discourse) is constituted and changed.

Do not distinguish between discursive and non-discursive phenomena – physical objects exist but we understand them through discourse.  We give these objects meaning through our discourse.

Power isn’t something people have, but it produces the social interactions – power creates knowledge, identity and how we related to others.

Society is partly structured – but only partially and temporarily...

We act like society exists in totality…and speak about it in totality.

Discourses decide positions people will take up (as subjects)

People can shift in a variety of positions.

Individual is not a “whole self”.

Master signifiers within identity – like gender or race.  Through discourse, behavior is determined within the signifier.

“Identities are accepted, refused and negotiated in discursive practices.”  Identity is social.

P. 43 for summary points on Laclau and Mouffe’s Discourse Theory

Group identity functions in a similar fashion as individual identity

Group identity is understood as a reduction of possibilities.

The logic of equivalence and logic of difference?

Groups come to be through discourse.

Theory and abstract phenomena

Critical discourse analysis

-          How discourse constructs the social world

-          Fairclough – discourse is only one of many social practices

-          Fairclough – looks at change. 

-          Fairclough – intertextuality – how texts draw from discourses of other texts. 

-          New discourses come about because of combinations of various elements from different discourses.

-          People as master and slave of language (Roland Barthes)

Five common features of CDA – p. 60

1)      The character of the social and cultural processes and structures is partly linguistic-discursive

-          Social change takes place through discourse of everyday life

-          Discourse is visual, written, and spoken

-          Multi-modal texts

2)      Discourse is both constitutive and constituted

-          Discourse is social practice that constitutes the social world and is constituted by social practices.

-          Discourse reflects and shapes social structures

-          Discourse is a form of action that is situated in a particular context (historical and social)

3)      Language use should be empirically analyzed within its social context

4)      Discourse Functions Ideologically

-discourse creates unequal power relation

- CDA – wants to look at how discourse keeps status quo and unequal power relations.

5)      Critical Research

-          Committed to social change.

-          Takes the side of oppressed groups

Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis – 3 Dimensional Model

Principles of discourse:

1)      Language use as social practice – discourse is both constitutive and constituted

2)      Discourse is understood as the kind of language used within a specific field

3)      Discourse is used as a count noun – a way of speaking that gives meaning to experiences from a particular perspective (ex. Feminist discourse)

Three dimensional model

1)      It is text (speaking, writing, visual)

2)      It is discursive practice

3)      It is social practice

Main aim is to look at the links between language and social practice

General purpose of the model is to provide an analytical framework

Intertextuality – refers to the conditions whereby all communicative events draw on earlier events.  Influence of history on a text.

Interdiscursivity – is a form of intertextuality

Manifest intertextuality – texts draw upon other texts – by citing them.

 

OKAY>>> This is a piece I can actually talk about and not ‘note about’.

 

I loved the examples on pages 82 and 83.    I could both see and understand the differences in the Sheffield advertisement and the Newcastle University advertisement.  I thought it was interesting that the first was really about changing the status quo and the second was more about maintaining the status quo.   The first advertisement felt more “manipulative “ and less “true” to me, and the second was more straight forward it seemed.  The first was focused on identity formation and the relationship between the school and the individual and the second was just laying out qualifications of the applicant.

 

Discursive psychology (this was covered in the first chapter)

-          Looks at specific language instances and how language is used in social interaction.

-          Looks at social consequences of language use

-          “Discursive psychology is an approach to social psychology that has developed a type of discourse analysis in order to explore the ways in which people’s selves, thoughts and emotions are formed and transformed through social interaction and to cast light on the role of these processes in social and cultural reproduction and change.”

-          People are products of and producers of discourse (This makes much more sense to me than talking about constitutive and constructed for some reason!)

Discourse analytical approaches agree with the following:

-          Language doesn’t reflect a preexisting reality

-          There are many discourses and meaning changes between them

-          Patterns of discourse are both maintained and changed by discourse

-          Have to look at contexts in which language is being used to look at how they are maintained and transformed

-          In line with Roland Barthes’ idea that people are both masters and slaves of language

-          Discourse is fully “constitutive” BUT embedded in historical and social practices

 

Foucault

-          Major player “someone to quote, relate to, comment on, modify and criticize”

-          Archaeological phase vs. genealogical phase

-          Archaeological – rules that determine what is meaningful and true in a particular context

-          Knowledge is not just a reflection of reality

-          “the historical rules of the particular discourse delimit what it is possible to say”

-          Theory of power/knowledge

-          Power creates social world – determines dominate ways of talking and being (pushes out alternative ways)

-          No universal truth to access

-          “Truth effects” are created in discourses… Truth is “understood as a system of procedures for the production, regulation, and diffusion of statements”.

-          Genealogical – links truth and power in this phase (how is discourse organized to give pictures of “truth” or “falseness”?)

Rogers et al:

                This one was better – maybe because of the foundation laid in the first 3 chapters.  I saw some repetitive ideas and concepts.

                I bought Courtney Cazden’s Classroom Discourse book – mainly because she  and Marie Clay (RR) did some work together.  I need to find the article they wrote together.

I understand that CDA is concerned with who has power and privilege and how language use contributes to that.

I am not sure I understand this…(along with everything else)…p. 368 – another shared assumption is that one of the most powerful forms of oppression is internalized hegemony – which includes coercion and consent…this made me think of internalized homophobia…but maybe I am WAY off beam here!

 

The description of Fairclough’s framework was more clear for me here – or was it the reinforcement I needed?

Analyst has to describe relationships between texts, interaction, and practices.  The analyst then has to interpret the configuration of discourse practices.  And the analyst has to describe how social practices are changed and transformed.   TEXT – DISCOURSE- SOCIAL PRACTICE

(I am wondering if this framework could be used to look at RR practice – there is spoken and written text…there are particular ways of speaking – how language is produced, consumed and reproduced.  And there is definite social practice).   I guess I need to understand it first!

 

Ok, another something I understand  - I thought the authors did a good job of explaining the process of how they went about reviewing the data bases – yea for transparency! (p. 372)  They were also very clear in their analytic procedures.

A shift toward interactional data is occurring (not just textual data).

p. 377 Discusses a topic we have touched on in class – how much does context matter. For CDA, context is huge and analysis of interactional data should extend beyond the actual interaction and should include the historical and societal influences.  Conversational analysts, on the other hand, only look at interaction! 

I also understood this call for additional research – “More research is needed to investigate how shifts in discourse patterns can provide educators insight into the ways I which people of various ages learn.”  And, a call for more work in CDA focused on the primary grades.   And, I also see how research on historically oppressed groups needs to happen WITH them instead of ON them.  This statement made me think of Ann’s research and how she is going to great lengths to do the work WITH others.

This made me think of Reading Recovery “CDA can be sued to trace changes in discourse patterns over time and across contexts – changes that we might refer to as learning”…as the discourse patterns of both the child and teacher change over time in RR.

Data:

                For my data project, I would like to analyze a Reading Recovery lesson.  It is an old video (4 or 5 years), but is really interesting.    The little boy I taught had really severe speech articulation issues, and he and I constantly had to work to communicate.    I taped him often during his lesson series, because I was trying to find “the way in” to teach him to read and write. I would watch the videos and share them with his classroom teacher, who was also trying to figure him out.   Luckily, this little boy was a motivated and capable learner who took an active role in learning to be literate.  I have watched it so many times because he is just so fascinating to me.  I would like to look at it through another lens and feel like it would be an appropriate piece of data for this project.   

                For the text piece, there was a recently written newspaper article on the Reading Recovery program in Savannah, GA.  I thought it would be good since it is on the same topic and is recent.