DISCOURSE ANALYSIS GROUP V: Hj Ahmad Shahrin Sharbini – 11M1301 DygMasiryantiHjMashor – 11M1303 NurhamizahHassim – 11M1306 SitiRasyadahKhairiyahMuhdAmeer – 11M1307
Definition • Discourse Analysis (DA) refers to attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. • DA is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers. • DA is a part of the linguistic term in social sciences and the humanities which emphasizes the role of language in the construction of social reality.
Link for the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXT3Sma4-rg
CASE STUDY • Article 1: Analyzing Racism through Discourse Analysis • Article 2: Discourse Communities, Student Selves and Learning • Article 3: The Representation Of Non-Protestors In A Student and Teacher Protest. A Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Of News Reporting In A Greek Newspaper.
Article 1:Analyzing Racism Through Discourse Analysis • Participant: • White dominant group • Purposes: • Highlight some of the links (and the problems) between discourse structures and the socio cultural and political dimensions of racism. • Focus: • On the aspect of text and talk that are particularly suitable for use by elites in controlling the minds of others. • Aspect of text and talk including the participants’ speech, their social cognitions and the group(s) of which they are members.
Data Analysis of Article 1 • In the coding, the researcher analyzed the data based on discourse structures • Discourse structures: • Surface structures • Deep or underlying structures
Discourse Structures 1-Surface structures: • Usually associated with the forms of language use one can see or hear such as sounds, intonations, gestures, letters, graphic displays, words and the order of words in a sentences. • Typically accounted in such linguistic or semiotic sub-disciplines as phonology, morphology and syntax. 2-Deep or Underlying Structures • Usually associated with meaning or interaction and sometimes with cognitive phenomena such as mental representations or strategies of understanding and production.
Discourse Structures • Nonetheless, the researcher focus on meaning structure. • Reason: Meaning Structure have more direct and explicit link with ethnic knowledge, opinions, attitudes and ideologies that we assume to be controlled in discursive dominance.
Article 2: Discourse Communities, Student Selves and Learning • Participant: • Small Group of Grade 2/3 students (ages 7-9 years) • Setting: • In an urban area – Mid sized city on the Canadian Prairies. • Purposes: • To determine the different roles that students and teachers play, the different selves that are co-created and the possible impacts of these on student learning.
Data analysis: • Video taping. • Transcribed Verbatim. • Coding.
Article 3: The Representation Of Non-Protestors In A Student and Teacher Protest. A Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Of News Reporting In A Greek Newspaper • Participants: • Teachers and high-school students of Greece. • Purpose of study: • To analyze the reality constructed by a newspaper and its function. Its consequences and its position within the framework of the established and stereotypical discourse of protest.
Data Analysis of Article 3 • The data was drawn from Athens News, a Greek English language newspaper. Specifically, 59 news stories referring to the event. First was 12th Nov 1998 and last being 17th March 1999. • Analytical methods used: • Transitivity and Ergativity. They are descriptive tools which offer a systematic interpretation of the representational structure of a clause because they analyze experience in respect to “processes”, “participants” and “circumstances”. Each analyses clauses differently in terms of functions, labels, processes and participants but they both enable the study of the way non-protestors are depicted and how their interactions with protestors are portrayed.
Ethical Issues • There is an obligation to inform individuals that they are part of a research project- consent from them would ALWAYS be necessary. • Honesty about who you are and why you would require such information. • Ensuring the field notes and transcripts do not contain personal identifiers.
Strengths • DA treats interview data as piece of social interaction, and this means both the interviewers and interviewees responses are of equal interest. • Interviews provide the setting or the exploration of a range of topics and the collection of copious data. • DA has a relevance and practical application at any given time, in any given place for any given people: DA is context specific. • DA also enable the interviewer to guide the course of the conversation. Thus, maintaining focus on the topic of interest (Potter & Wetherell, 1995).
Limitations • Cause confusion for new researchers especially those who have no background in linguistic. • Collecting, transcribing and analyzing data is often laborious and time consuming. • It can also present technical difficulties (Potter & Wetherell, 1995). • Discourse analysis presents impracticalities in collecting naturally occurring data too.
Limitations Cont:- • During the analysis, coding is hard “obsessive work”. • According to Miles & Hurbamancoding can be divided into 2: • Manual- Coding you may have to revise codes or codebook numerous times. • Computer Software- Expensive and time consuming to learn.
The question of reliability in discourse analysis concerns whether different researchers would interpret the text in similar ways. According to Stratton (1997), there is no guarantee that such reliability is possible, given that researchers are likely to differ in their views on the topic being discussed.
References • Caroline Pontefract & Frank Hardman. (2005). The Discourse of Classroom Interaction in Kenyan Primary Schools. Comparative Education. Vol. 41, No.1, 87-106. • JamilaHakam. (2009). The ‘Cartoons Controversy’: A Critical Discourse Analysis of English-Language Arab Newpaper Discourse. Discourse & Society. Vol. 20(1), 33-57. • Janet Mc Vittie. (2006). Discourse Communities, Student Selves and Learning. Language and Education. Vol.18, No.6, 488-503. • Teun A. Van Dijk.(ND). Analyzing Racism Through Discourse Analysis; Some Methodological Reflections. 92-134.
Any questions? http://groupv2012.wordpress.com • THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!