Critical discourse Analysis.

The critical study of language Norman Fairclough

Critical discourse analysis is viewed as integrating (a) analysis of text, (b) distribution, and (c) sociocultural analysis of the discursive event as a whole (p.23). Social institutions have diverse ideological-discursive formations (IDFs). There is usually one dominant IDF. Each IDF is a sort of speech community. Institutional subjects may not be aware of ideological underpinnings of the norms. A dominant IDF has the capacity to naturalize ideologies, i.e. to win acceptance for them as nonideological common sense. Denaturalization of ideologies is the objective of a discourse analysis which adopts critical goals showing how social structures determine properties of discourse, and how discourse in turn determines social structures. Denaturalization requires a global explanatory framework; descriptive work in DA requires only non-explanatory or locallyexplanatory frameworks. (p.27) Adopting critical goals means aiming to elucidate naturalizations not in descriptive DA. Orderliness of an interaction feeling of participants in it that things are as they should be e.g. taking turns, politeness, appropriate lexicon. (p.28) Rape&policemen conversation ideological propositions a particular representation of some aspect of the world which might be alternatively represented, and where any given representation can be associated with some particular social base. These propositions have different degree of naturalization. (check Hall 1982: 75) Most naturalized are those which are taken as commonsensically given by all members of some community, e.g. as part of human nature. (p.31) Pupils&teacher/employee&employer conversations The more dominant some particular representation of a social relationship, the greater the degree of naturalization of its associated practices ideological practices. Four dimensions of participants knowledge base: knowledge of language codes knowledge of principles and norms of language use knowledge of situation knowledge of the world (p.33)

CONCLUSION: (a) ideologies may become naturalized = seen as commonsensical, based on the nature of people rather than interests of some groups

(b) naturalized ideologies and practices become part of the knowledge base activated in interaction, so the orderliness of interaction may depend on them (c) the orderliness of interactions as local events is dependent upon higher orderliness (an achieved consensus in respect of ideological positions and practices). Arguments for the adoption of critical goals in DA: verbal interaction is a mode of social action, so it incorporates a range of structures: social structures, situational types, lg codes, norms of lg use micro actions (verbal interaction) reproduce macro structures (p.35)

On institutions as social communities each institution provides its participants with an institutional frame that both facilitates and constrains social interactions (how they can and cannot act). Such a frame includes formulations and symbolizations of a particular set of ideological representations ways of talking are based upon particular ways of seeing Subjects members of an institution; have institutional roles and identities Clients an outsider; takes part in some institutional interactions in accordance with the norms set by the institution (p.38) Public messages are addressed to it; may interpret them with respect to the norms set by the institution, but do not interact with the subjects directly Ways of talking and ways of seeing are inseparably intertwined in that the latter constitute a part of the taken-for-granted knowledge base upon which the orderliness of the former depends (p.39) Institutional pluralism: discursive formation (DF) which in a given ideological formation () determines what can and should be said (Pecheux 1982: 111); there is a one-to-one relationship between IF and DF (p.40). Institutions have the property of constructing the subjects discursively and ideologically only if one IDF is dominant. Ideological/discoursal power the capacity to maintain an IDF in dominance. Not to be confused with status a group having the IDP may not be clearly status-marked (p.41). Naturalization gives to ideological representations the status of common sense and makes them opaque no longer visible as ideologies. It is due to: the process of subject construction the acquisition of the normative ways of talking () must simultaneously be the acquisition of the associated ways of seeing (ideological norms) the notion of an unanimous dominant IDF the norms will be perceived first as norms of the institution itself, and second as skills or techniques which

must be mastered in order for the status of competent institutional subjects to be achieved. The above are the origins of naturalization and opacity. If those who undergo the process of subjection are unaware of the functioning of the institution, then the institution will be seen in isolation and there will be no external basis for relativization or rationalization of the norms of a given IDF. Ideologies should not be confused with beliefs and views of an individual. (p. 42)

DISCOURSE REPRESENTATION IN MEDIA DISCOURSE (p.54)

Primary discourse (representing or reporting discourse) and secondary discourse (the discourse represented or reported). The way in which secondary discourse is interpreted may be controled by the way it is contextualized in primary discourse (check Volosinov!). Five parameters the comparison of texts or types of discourse with respect to discourse representation: 1) MODE Direct Discourse (DD) is converted into Indirect Discourse (ID) by: subordination of the secondary discourse (that-clause) shift from 1 and 2 person pronouns to 3 person pronouns shift from deictics (here becomes there) backshift of tense

2) BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE the extent to which the voices of primary and secondary discourse are kept apart or merged incorporation (secondary discourse is translated into the voice of the primary discourse changed to a high degree) dissemination (secondary discourse takes over the primary unchanged)

3) STYLITICITY - the extent to which the non-ideational, interpersonal meanings of secondary discourse are represented 4) SITUATIONALITY - the degree to which the context of situation of secondary discourse is represented 5) SETTING the extent to which and ways in which reader/listener interpretation of secondary discourse is controlled by placing it is a particular context or cotext.