I.

A few notes on the title: Difference between CDA and cda: CDA refers to the Critical Discourse Analysis advocated by Norman Fairclough, and cda refers to the general trend of critical discourse analysis in the course of the development of the said framework/study

Despite the many insights into language as a social practice, analyses of actual texts are lacking. So, Fairclough recommends the synthesis of the INSIGHTS and ANALYSES OF AUTHENTIC TEXTS. Seeing language as a social practice necessitates that we look at language as DISCOURSE. What does Fairclough mean by discourse? B. Discourse as used by Fairclough (spoken/written language + semiotic practices in other semiotic modalities) In his paper, Fairclough uses discourse to mean spoken or written languages and semiotic practices in other semiotic modalities. Semiosis refers to the process of meaning-making, and modalities refer to the ways or patterns by which messages are encoded for human understanding. C. Language as a social practice (language as a mode of action + action is socially and historically situated) Viewing language as a social practice

Marketization: roughly refers to the inclusion of marketing practices/conventions into otherwise unrelated domains

Public Discourse: roughly refers to these domains that include public practices such as teaching, interviewing, writing news articles, broadcasting, advertising, communicating with the community as a whole; this is in sharp contrast to a private discourse which might involve communication inside the family or with a close friend, etc.

The Universities: Fairclough focuses on the public practices within the universities, with particular interest in how marketing strategies/practices are applied to universities. Examples of which could be seen in pages 144 and 145.

II. III.

A few notes on the author (provide the handout) Outline: Under II, the fourth segment will require audience participation.

further necessitates that we look at language as a MODE OF ACTION. Fairclough stresses that this action is socially and historically situated, thus he concludes that language is socially shaped and shaping or constitutive. What does he mean by this? 1) Socially shaped and shaping/constitutive: Socially shaping (multifunctionality of language [Halliday] language socially shapes identities, relations and systems of

IV.

Objectives (show the slide): under his objectives, we see theory and praxis. Explanation of the theory comes first before the praxis.

V.

4 Main Segments of Faircloughs paper: I,II and III are all related to theory; the IV is the praxis.

VI.

Towards a Social Theory of Discourse (a condensed theoretical account of critical discourse analysis): Faircloughs overview of the segment will be retained at the top of the slides to remind us what this particular segment is all about.

knowledge and belief, shapes in conventional, socially reproductive ways/creative, socially transformative ways depending on the nature of the power relations) First off, it is imperative to establish that language is MULTIFUNCTIONAL in the

A.

How should texts be analyzed? (Insights into the social nature of language + actual analysis of texts) Fairclough begins with the question, how should texts be analyzed? He starts off by stating that the trend in studies of language now leans towards the SOCIAL NATURE of Language.

sense of Hallidays 3 metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual. The ideational metafunction is concerned with clauses as representations of the natural world. The interpersonal metafunction is concerned with clauses as exchanges in the

social world. The textual metafunction is concerned with clauses as messages or the flow of information in the verbal world. Thus, if we analyze a particular text, we take into consideration the 3 metafunctions (show slide). What does this type of analysis imply? That texts have many complex layers of meaning, and a big chunk of those layers belong to the realm of the social, that is, if we analyze texts, we can never separate our analysis of a text from its society. 2) Next, what does Fairclough mean by language is shaping or constitutive? This means language shapes (1) social identities, (2) social relations, and (3) systems of knowledge and belief. A concrete example would be naming. In a society, more often than not, it is your name that identifies you, that people remember you by, that you make your mark in a registry, and so on and so forth. Our names are language. At the same time, the way a person calls you shows your relationship to that person (son, mother, brother, etc.) Now, the name that you are given crystallizes your belief of who you are (your identity), who you must be (a daughter to a mother). Your identity and your relation to the rest of the society give you a particular world view: you must be one person and not another, but you also belong to a particular group, that is, a family. The idea of identity and family are actually world views. 3) Lastly, Fairclough emphasizes that the shaping quality of language could either be conventional, socially reproductive (that is, you maintain a certain standard all throughout) or creative, socially transformative (there is room for change or revision). It is important to note these qualities because the degree by which the shaping of language is conventional or creative depends on the RELATIONS of D.

POWER that work within the process of shaping. Socially shaped: socially shaped not in monolithic or mechanical ways because (1) societies and institutions maintain coexisting, contrasting and competing discursive practices, and (2) complex relationship between discursive events and conventions governing language use) What does Fairclough mean by language is socially shaped? Simply, language arises out of what happens in the society. A simple example would be the Philippine use of the word salvage. In standard American/Brit usage, salvage is synonymous to rescue, but in the Philippines, it has become a euphemism for extrajudicial killings. The Filipinos have reworked/reshaped a term in order to fit a particular happening in the society. Fairclough stresses that language is not shaped in monolithic in mechanical ways because of two reasons: (1) societies and institutions maintain coexisting, contrasting and competing discursive practices, and (2) the relationship between discursive events and conventions governing language use is complex. If we analyze my example further, the use of the term salvage began during the Martial Law era ( Patricio P. Diaz Minda News(Mindanao, Philippines) (July 13) On Regrettables: During martial law, salvage came into use in the Philippines to mean to execute or dispose of a person summarily and secretly. ) Why use the term salvage? If we look at society then, the ruling POWER was Marcos, and if people openly used the terms murder or extrajudicial killing, chances are they might be salvaged as well. The press and mass media were under Marcoss control, and he thus openly tried to maintain his control. However, extrajudicial killings were abundant and they cannot be denied, so the masses, the ones under his control, although they cannot openly oppose the ruling power, try to oppose him covertly or at the very least expose

the truth about Marcoss regime by using terms such as salvage. We can see here the coexisting but competing and contrasting discursive practices of the Marcos regime and the people. At the same time, we also see the complex relationship of discursive event (the use of the term salvage), and the conventions governing language use (that is, its not just about the standard/original/American/Brit meaning, but its also about the meaning the society creates in the use of that term). This is why, it is important to view language in terms of ORDERS of DISCOURSE. E. Language as orders of discourse (why? complex relship between discursive event and convention: discursive events combine two or more conventional types of discourse; what? Totality of discursive practices within a particular domain, elements: discourses [as count noun: ways of signifying areas of experience from a particular perspective] and genres [uses of language associated with socially ratified activity types]; society consists of a number of local orders of discourse) What is an order of discourse? It is the totality of discursive practices within a particular domain. For example, the domain of the school would have the following discursive practices: d.p. in the classroom, in the canteen, in the playground, in the staff room, etc. The order of discourse of a society would include all these LOCAL orders of discourse, the o.d. of the school, the family, the community, etc. There are two key elements in an order of discourse: the discourses as count noun: ways of signifying areas of experience from a particular perspective] and genres [uses of language associated with socially ratified activity types]. Why do we look at language in terms of orders of discourse? The relationship between discursive events and conventions of language use is COMPLEX. Faircloughs example is the H. F.

discursive event of chat on television which is part conversation and part performance. A more local example would be Facebook, which includes the following genres: blogging, private messaging, status messaging, chatting, advertising, marketing, promoting advocacies, and gaming. It also includes several modalities such as photos, texts, videos and graphics. Boundaries and insulations are areas of conflict Within the boundaries of these orders of discourse, there is conflict. Within the elements of an order of discourse, conflicts could arise. Should, for example, the conversation (the text/the script) interfere with the spontaneity of performance? Should performance be limited by the script? In performance, is the actor or actress interpreting the text and to what extent can he or she interpret? Or in Facebook, why is marketing/advertising interspersed with connecting with people? Is the profile also a manifestation of self-promotion? G. Reflect wider social conflicts and struggles These inner conflicts reflect wider social conflicts and struggles. For example, in the level of the society, where does the role of the parent begin and the role of the teacher end in the education of a child? And still on a wider scale, to what

extent can the government mandate certain curricula and to what extent could the teacher deviate from these prescribed curricula? Speaking of policies concerning education, the prescription of certain curricula is often packaged in an authoritative yet academically objective, expert-advised tone. Take, for example, the recent policy on language education in the Phiilippines. (Show handout on Mother Tongue Language Education). Opacity of relationships of causality and determination between (1) discursive practices, events and texts, and (2) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes The tone of the policy indicates an opacity in the

relationship of causality and determination between discursive events and wider social structures. That is, the real agenda, the real reasons, are often hidden under a pile of authoritative, objective, research-based, expert-approved claims. This brings us to a discussion of IDEOLOGY and HEGEMONY. I. Investigation into the role of IDEOLOGY in shaping discourses and the OPACITY of the relationships of discourses and social structures as a means of solidifying and securing POWER and HEGEMONY. Ideology is a constructed knowledge that is propagated covertly through innocuous media such as schools, mass broadcasts, etc. Ideological state apparatuses control people not through force but through seemingly harmless ways such as education. Since ideological control is implicit, the control is not apparent. Thus, the OPACITY; the controller is not transparent in its control. This is in stark contrast to repressive state apparatuses, the police, the military, whose control is very explicit, very apparent, very transparent. You know that they are forces of CONTROL. The opacity of ISAs make them very effective tools of securing HEGEMONY, that is, implicit manipulation of and power over another. J. As a final note, Fairclough also ends with some answers on his initial question: How should texts be analyzed? He recommends the investigation of discursive events, texts, practices in light of POWER STRUGGLES, and of how the opacity of the relationships of discourse and society secures power and hegemony.

VII.