critical discourse analysis of education talks by sir ken robinson= phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán một số bài nói chuyện về giáo dục của ken robison

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
***

TRẦN THỊ LONG


A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE
EDUCATION TALKS BY SIR KEN ROBINSON
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN MỘT SỐ BÀI NÓI
CHUYỆN VỀ GIÁO DỤC CỦA KEN ROBINSON)

M.A. MINOR THESIS


FIELD : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE : 60220201





HA NOI, 2013


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES
***

TRẦN THỊ LONG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE
EDUCATION TALKS BY SIR KEN ROBINSON
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN MỘT SỐ BÀI NÓI
CHUYỆN VỀ GIÁO DỤC CỦA KEN ROBINSON)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

FIELD : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE : 60220201
SUPERVISOR : PROF. NGUYễN HOÀ



HA NOI, 2013
i

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled ―A Critical discourse analysis of the
education talks by Sir Ken Robinson‖ is my own study in the fulfillment of the
requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts at Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies,
University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University,
Hanoi.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For the completion of this work, I have been fortunate to receive many invaluable
contributions from many people.
First of all, I should like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Prof.
Nguyễn Hoà for his detailed instructions and valuable critical comments, without
which the work would not have been completed.
In addition, I give my sincere thanks to friends and classmates of the Post –
Graduate Studies for their encouragement and assistance in accomplishing my
paper.
I also would like to give my warmest thanks to my loving parents and my relatives
who have comforted and taken great care of me to help me finish my study.
Finally, due to the limited time to complete this work, it is unavoidable to have
mistakes; therefore I am solely responsible for them and would like to have
comments from others who concern to my study.

Hanoi, September22

nd
2013
Tran Thi Long





iii

ABSTRACT

The thesis is a critical discourse analysis of the talks ―schools kill creativity‖ and
―bring on the learning revolution‖ by Sir Ken Robinson in TED conferences. The
thesis aims at exploring the relations among language, power and ideology
manifested in two of these talks. Especially, the author wants to find out the
ideology embedded in the talks via vocabulary and grammatical features. At the
same time macro-structure and argumentative strategies of the talks are also
revealed to explain why these talks record the most view TED talks on the Internet.

To fulfill the above purposes, an overview of discourse, critical discourse analysis,
the relations among language, power and ideology are provided. Though there are
different approaches towards critical discourse analysis, the author chose the
framework suggested by Fairclough with three stages of analysis which are textual
description, interpretation and explanation, in combination with Hallidayan
Systemic Functional Grammar to analyze the chosen discourse.

The analysis of the discourse comes to the major findings that language is shaped
by society around it but it is also a powerful and effective tool to convey ideas, at
the same time affect the listeners/readers‘ opinions with those ideas, and then affect

society. Moreover, through the analysis of Ken Robinson talks, we learn that
sometimes we do not need flowery words to make our talks engaging and effective.



iv

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

List of figures
Figure 1: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119) 20
Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136) 21

List of tables
Table 1: Process types, their meanings and participants (Halliday, 1994: 143) 23

v

ABBREVIATIONS

CDA: Critical Discourse Analysis
MR: Members‘ Resources
SFG: Systematic Functional Grammar















vi

TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i
AKNOWLEDGEMENT ii
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES iv

ABBREVIATIONS v
TABLE OF CONTENT vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Significance of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 3
4. Aims of the study and research questions 3
5. Methodology 4
6. Background of the data 4
7. Design of the study 6
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6
1.1 What is discourse? 6
1.2 Critical discourse analysis 8
1.2.1 Concepts of CDA 8
1.2.2 Power in language 10
1.2.3 Language and ideology 11
1.3 Main approaches to CDA 13
1.4 Fairclough‘s analytical framework 15
1.5 Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) and its roles in CDA 22
vii

CHAPTER 2: A CDA OF KEN ROBINSON’S TALKS 25
2.1. Textual description 25
2.1.1. Vocabulary analysis 25
2.1.1.1. Experiential value of words 25
2.1.1.2. The relational value of words 28
2.1.1.3. The expressive value of words 30
2.1.1.4. Metaphors 32
2.1.2. Grammar analysis 34

2.1.2.1. The experiential values of grammar 34
2.1.2.2. The relational values of grammar 38
2.1.2.3. Expressive values of grammar 44
2.1.2.4. Macro-structure and argumentative strategy analysis 46
2.2. Interpretation 49
2.2.1. Situational context 49
2.2.2. Intertexual context and presupposition 50
2.3. Explanation 53
PART C: CONCLUSION 55
1. Summary of findings 55
2. Conclusion 57
3. Suggestions for further study 60
REFERENCE 61
APPENDIX I


1

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale
Language has been playing a very important role in the development of mankind
through the history of society. We use language to communicate with others.
Language helps us to express inner thoughts and emotions, make sense of complex
and abstract thoughts. It also helps us to establish and maintain relationship.
Moreover, it is a tool to help us get what we want and need. Therefore we usually
use language with specific and clear purposes in our mind. We know we can
transmit our ideas and affect other people‘s mind through ideology embedded in the
language lexically and syntactically. Thus, it is undoubted that language and power
have a close connection. Language can be a tool for social change. On the other

hand, language is shaped by social structure.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an approach of discourse analysis which is
based on a speech act theory that says that language is used not only to describe
things but to do things as well (Brown and Yule, 1985). Therefore, CDA focuses on
language as it is used by real people with real intentions, emotions, and purposes.
According to this approach, there is a correlation between linguistic production and
social variables because people are members of the society and their speech is a
reflection of a set of experiential, relational, and expressive values (Fairclough,
1992). Through CDA, we can clearly see the close relations among language, power
and ideology. Moreover, Fairclough adds that CDA is an orientation towards
language, which associates linguistic text analysis with a social theory of the
functioning of language in political and ideological processes. By doing CDA, we
are identifying these processes which help to identify the internal building of
discourse and the connotations it implies.
2

In this paper, I will examine two talks delivered by Sir Ken Robinson at TED
(Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference which is a global set of
conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, under the slogan
―ideas worth spreading‖. These talks are also put online at the website
www.ted.com for those who may concern. Sir Ken Robinson, an educationalist
from England, supports teaching the arts in schools. He frequently criticizes the
current system for being too centered on math and language, and he argues
traditional schooling not only limits students‘ potential, but actually destroys their
creativity. He has spoken around the world on the subject – in Europe, America, and
Asia; and two of his most well-known presentations were at a TED conference in
2006 – titled ―schools kill creativity‖ and in 2010 – titled ―bring on the learning
revolution‖.
I will analyze these talks, using as a base, the framework for CDA described by
Fairclough (1989), which I feel provides a suitable set of analytical questions for the

data I have chosen. The speaker of these talks does not belong to authority system
as other speakers of political talks; thus he also has less power on the audience.
However, language is still an effective tool for him to transmit his ideas and affect
the audience. Therefore, when analyzing these talks I also focus more on the
relation between discourse and ideology.
2. Significance of the study
Political and social-matter-related discourses are considered to be the targets of
CDA. Plenty of speeches on these issues by George Bush, Barack Obama, Al Gore,
Hillary Clinton, etc. have been critically analyzed. However, there is no CDA of
speeches delivered by Sir Ken Robinson though he is a well-known speaker on
education in the world. Moreover, social-matter-related issues embedded in the
discourses which have been critically analyzed usually are globalization, nuclear
weapon, population and anti-terrorism war, environment, etc. There is rare analysis
3

on the issues of education, though education is also among the most concerned ones
today.
Therefore, the thesis hopes to discover and prove how effective language is used to
transfer ideas, affect people‘s perception about things in education in particular and
affect society in general.
3. Scope of the study
In this thesis, I only chose to analyze two talks delivered by Sir Ken Robinson at
TED conferences because they are not only among Robinson‘ most popular talks
but also have a considerably large number of views on Internet. In addition, I just
focus on the transcript of two talks. Hence, the spoken version (including non-
linguistic features, gesture, voice of speaking, stress, etc.) is temporarily neglected.
The thesis is a linguistic study rather than an educational one; thus not all
information surrounding education, creativity and innovation is explored. The thesis
only tries to explore the speaker‘s use of language first, then and more importantly
to make explicit his ideologies of education, creativity and innovation.

In addition, this is a CDA research and ―critical‖ here could be understood as
―having distance to the data… and having focus on self-reflection as scholars doing
research‖ (Wodak, 2002: 9). That means critical discourse analysts have to take a
clear stance or explicit position in understanding and analyzing discourse.
Therefore, in this thesis I take a social view to look at the two talks by Ken
Robinson because the main themes of both talks are related to social – matter issues.
However, as stated above, the main object of this study is still linguistics, not social
matters.
4. Aims of the study and research questions
By doing a critical discourse analysis of these talks, the author aims at discovering
the relations among language, power, and ideology, especially the relations between
4

language and ideology, then finding out the ideas of the speaker implied by the
language he uses, and prove how he can use language as a tool of action.
To fulfill these purposes, the following questions should be answered:
1. What and how is Robinson‘s ideology (and/or power) reflected lexically and
syntactically in the talks?
2. What is the relationship between texts, their producers and consumers and
the social environment in which text production and interpretation occur?

5. Methodology
This study uses, as a base, the analytical framework of Fairclough. It includes three
discourse analysis stages: description, interpretation, and explanation. This
framework will be described in detail in part B, chapter 1, and section 1.4.
Quantitative and qualitative methods are also employed through three stages, with
the dominance of the later. Quantitative method will be used to analyze linguistic
features (vocabulary, processes, etc.). Qualitative method will be used in the
description stage to assess the effects of such linguistic features on expressing
ideology, and/or power, and the persuasiveness of the talks. This method is also

used in interpretation and explanation stage.
The data of the study, two talks, is collection from the website www.ted.com. Some
of his online articles on the websites of HuffingtonPost, The New York Time are
also collected to provide more insight in the production and interpretation of the
text.
To understand more about the background of two talks, including Sir Ken Robinson
– the speaker, TED conferences, and the main theme of two talks, an overview will
be provided in the next part.
6. Background of the data
5

Sir Kenneth Robinson, or Ken Robinson, (born 4 March 1950) is an internationally
recognized leader in the development of creativity, innovation and human resources
in education and in business. He was Director of The Arts in Schools Project (1985–
1989) which influenced the formulation of the National Curriculum in England,
Chairman of Arts work - the UK‘s national youth arts development agency (1985–
1989), Professor of Arts Education at the University of Warwick (1989–2001). In
1998, he led a UK commission on creativity, education, and the economy and his
report, ―All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture, and Education‖, was influential. He
was knighted in 2003 for services to education and in 2005 he was named as one of
Time/Fortune/CNN‘s ―Principal Voices‖.
He has served as advisor to a succession of high-profile public and private
organizations - including the governments of Hong Kong and Singapore, the
European Commission, and Paul McCartney's Liverpool Institute for Performing
Arts. He is currently senior advisor to the J. Paul Getty Trust in Los Angeles.
A popular speaker at TED conferences, Robinson has given two presentations on
the role of creativity in education – ―schools kill creativity‖ in June 2006 and ―bring
on the learning revolution‖ in May 2010, viewed via the TED website over 18
million times (2013). Robinson‘s presentation ―schools kill creativity‖ is the most
watched TED talk of all time (2013).

TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) founded in 1984 is a global set of
conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, formed to
disseminate ―ideas worth spreading‖. The two annual TED conferences with about
1200 participants, on the North American West Coast and in Edinburgh, Scotland,
bring together the world‘s most fascinating thinkers and doers such as Bill Clinton,
Jane Goodall, Malcom Gladwell, Al Gore, Gordon Brown, Bill Gates, Google
founder Larry Page, etc., who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18
minutes or less). They address a wide range of topics within the research and
6

practice of science and culture, often through storytelling. Since June 2006, the talks
have been offered for free viewing online through Ted.com.
7. Design of the study
This paper consists of three main parts:
Part A: Introduction. This part contains rational, significance, scope, aims, research
questions of the study and background of the data
Part B: Development. This part includes two chapters. Chapter 1 literature review
includes an overview of discourse, critical discourse analysis, the relations among
language, power and ideology, and Fairclough‘s analytical framework, including
systematic functional grammar‘s roles in CDA. Chapter 2 is the CDA of two talks
which consists of the textual description (vocabulary and grammar analysis, macro
structure and argumentative strategy analysis), the interpretation (situational
context, intertexual context and presuppositions) and the explanation.
Part C: Conclusion. This part includes the findings, the conclusion, and suggestion
for further study.

7

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
As the aim of providing theoretical background for the analysis of the talks, this
chapter will cover the overview of discourse, critical discourse analysis, the
relations among language, power and ideology, main approaches to CDA,
Fairclough‘s analytical framework and systemic functional grammar in CDA.
1.1. What is discourse?
Before discussing about critical discourse analysis, we should make clear what we
are analyzing because there are various definitions of ―discourse‖.
When using the term ―discourse‖ we are referring to the interpretation of
communicative event in context (Nunan, 1993). Sometimes the term ―discourse‖ is
also referred to text (both in written and spoken) which is often considered to be the
product of discourse.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997) states that texts are the only evidence for the
existence of discourses, one kind of concrete realisation of abstract forms of
knowledge; at the same time, they are interactive and influenced by sociolinguistic
factors. Therefore individuals internalise discourses that comprise the core of a
community of practice, in the sense that such discourses control and organise what
can be talked about, how it can be talked about and by whom. Social practices are
meaningful and coherent in that they conform to discourse principles.
In addition, according to Jager and Maier (2009), quoted in Wodak & Meyer
(2009), discourse is the manifestation of ideologies; thus, form individual and
collective consciousness, and consciousness influences people‘s actions. Through
the repetition of ideas and statements, discourse solidifies knowledge and reflects
shapes and enables social reality. Moreover, discourse can be defined by the

8

activities participants engage in, and the power enacted and reproduced through
them.
In Fairclough‘s view (2001) language and society has an internal and dialectical
relationship. Language phenomena are social phenomena of a special sort in the
sense that people communicate in ways which are determined socially, even when
people are most conscious of their individuality. On the other hands, social
phenomena are linguistic in the sense that language activity which goes on in social
contexts is not merely a reflection or expressions of social processes and practices,
but also a part of those processes and practices.
Moreover, when regarding language as social practice or a social process,
Fairclough (2001) use the term ―discourse‖ to the whole process of social
interaction of which a text is just a part. This process includes the process of
production, of which text is a product, and the process of interpretation, for which
the text is a resource. In the productive and interpretative processes, there exists the
interplay between properties of texts and a considerable range of ―members
‗resources‖ (MR), which people have in their heads and draw upon when they
produce or interpret texts – including their knowledge of language, representations
of the natural and social worlds they inhabit, values, beliefs, assumptions, and so
on. People internalize what is socially produced and made available to them, and
use this internalized MR to engage in their social practice, including discourse. At
the same time, people‘ MR are shaped by social convention which is formed by
social practice.
As a result, discourse can affect parts of society and at the same time is conditioned
by parts of society and obviously a sort of social practice. Therefore, seeing
language as discourse and as social practice, one does not only analyze texts or
processes of production and interpretation, but also analyze the relationship between
texts, processes and their social conditions, both the immediate conditions of the
9

social context and the more remote conditions of institutional and social structures.
We will discuss more about this in the next part – critical discourse analysis.
1.2. Critical discourse analysis
1.2.1. Concepts of CDA
Since the late 1970s, we have witnessed the emergence of Critical Linguistics (CL),
which was developed by a group of linguists and literary theorists at the University
of East Anglia (Fowler et al., 1979, Kress & Hodge, 1979). They assume that
ideology is embedded in texts and this can manipulate the reader and/or mystify
textual subject matter, and their target was showing how ideology and ideological
processes are manifested as system of linguistic characteristics and processes,
whether or not intentional, by forming critical linguistics‘ analytical tools based on
Halliday‘s systematic functional linguistics.
Later the term Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are
used interchangeable. Recently the term CDA has been preferred and is being used
to denote the theory formerly identified as CL. However, CDA is seen as an
interdisciplinary approach, so there is no unitary definition of CDA. We will look at
the views of some famous scholars in this field, though.
According to van Dijk (1998a) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a field that is
concerned with studying and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the
discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality and bias. It examines how these
discursive sources are maintained and reproduced within specific social, political
and historical contexts. Van Dijk (2005) adds that CDA is discourse analysis ―with
an attitude‖; ―it focuses on social problems and especially on the role of discourse
in the production and reproduction of power abuse and domination‖ (2005: 96).
Hence, ―critical‖ in CDA does not imply ―judgmental‖ as many people may think.

10

CDA is understood to be critical in a number of different ways: Its explicit and

unapologetic attitude as far as values and criteria are concerned (van Leeuwen,
2006); its commitment to the analysis of social wrongs such as prejudice, or
unequal access to power, privileges, and material and symbolic resources
(Fairclough, 2009); its interest in discerning which prevailing hegemonic social
practices have caused such social wrongs, and in developing methods that can be
applied to their study (Bloor and Bloor, 2007).

In addition, ―critical‖ also implies that the analyst is to have his/her own personal
view or stance when analyzing discourse; although they are not politics and their
main object is discourse, they hope to make a social change by analyzing social
relationship embedded in the discourse (Nguyen Hoa, 2006). All this makes CDA
an example of research aiming for social intervention.

Similarly, Fairclough (1993:135) defines CDA as ―discourse analysis which aims to
systematically explore opaque relationships of causality and determination between
(a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural
structures, relations and processes, to investigate how such practices, events and
texts arise out of and are ideological shaped by relations of power and struggles
over power, and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse
and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.‖
Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-280) summarize the main tenets of CDA as
follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
11

6. The link between text and society is mediated

7. Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action
In short, CDA regards language as social practice. It seeks to describe language, and
at the same time provides critical linguistic resources to reveal hidden power,
ideology, etc. Hence, the scope of CDA is not only language-based but also requires
multidisciplinary research. Its critical perspective attracts scholars from various
disciplines, as well as activists.
As states above, power and ideology are important concepts in CDA; so in the next
part we will look at the relations among language, power and ideology.
1.2.2. Power in language
According to Teun Van Dijk (1998), power involves control, namely by (members
of) one group over (those of) other groups. Such control may pertain to action and
cognition: that is, a powerful group may limit the freedom of action of others, but
also influence their minds. Modern and often more effective power is mostly
cognitive, enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other
strategic ways to change the mind of others in one‘s interests. It is inevitable that
managing the minds of others is a crucial function of text and talk. Therefore
language and power has an intertwined relation.
Language is not powerful on its own but it is a tool of manipulating power; in other
words, it obtains power by the use powerful people make of it. It is entwined in
social power in a number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is
involved where there is contention over and a challenge to power.
Obviously, language obtains power by the use powerful people make of it or in
other words people are affected by the way other people use language. People‘s
ideas are expressed and adopted by others. According to Fairclough (1995),
discoursal practices are invested by ideology so far as they contribute to sustaining
12

or undermining power relations. However, ideology is more than that. Thus,
ideology is an important concept in CDA which should be considerably concerned

besides power.
1.2.3. Language and ideology
In this part, we will look at some concepts about ideology, its relation to language
and how important it is in CDA.
In relation to power or hegemony and in term of the implicit and unconscious
materialization of ideologies in practices, Gramsci defines ideology as ―a
conception of the world that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic
activity and in the manifestations of individual and collective life‖ (quoted in
Fairclough, 1995: 76).
According to Van Djik (1995a), in the framework of a critical discourse analysis,
ideology is articulated within a conceptual triangle that connects society, discourse
and social cognition. In this approach, ―ideologies are the basic frameworks for
organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social groups, organizations
or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are both cognitive and social‖ (Van Dijk,
1995a: 17-18). Social cognition is defined as the system of mental representations
and processes of group members (Fiske and Taylor, 1991 in Van Dijk, 1995a: 18).
Part of the system is the sociocultural knowledge shared by the members of a
specific group, society or culture. Members of groups may also share evaluative
beliefs, viz., opinions, organized into social attitudes. Ideologies, then, are the
overall, abstract mental systems that organize such socially shared attitudes.
Van Dijk (1995a) also states that as systems of principles that organize social
cognitions, ideologies are assumed to control, through the minds of the members,
the social reproduction of the group. The cognitive functions of ideologies lie in the
way they organize, monitor and control specific group attitudes. Possibly,
ideologies also control the development, structure and application of sociocultural
knowledge.
13

Van Dijk (1995a) also assumes that ideologies more specifically control evaluative
beliefs, that is, social opinions shared by the members of a group. ―At this mental

interface of the social and the individual, however, ideologies and the attitudes and
knowledge they control, also - indirectly - influence the personal cognitions of
group members, e.g., the planning and understanding of their discourses and other
forms of (inter)action‖ (Van Dijk, 1995a: 19).
In short, language and ideologies have a mutual relation. Ideologies are manifested
in language. Language is a tool to express ideologies and makes them
understandable.

1.3. Main approaches to CDA
To have a broader picture of CDA, we will take an overview of different approaches
to CDA. Although all the approaches have the notions of ideology, critique, and
power in common, they could be distinguished in their theoretical foundations or
methodology. Generally, there are five main approaches to CDA

Van Dijk: Socio-cognitive Discourse Analysis
Van Dijk is one of the most influential CDA practitioners. What noticeably
distinguishes van Dijk‘s approach from other approaches in CDA is the cognitive
analysis. For van Dijk it is the sociocognition – social cognition and personal
cognition – that mediates between society and discourse (van Dijk: 2001). This
cognition is the lost segment of many critical linguistic studies and critical discourse
analysis; therefore he offers the triangle of society, cognition, and discourse. A large
part of van Dijk‘s practical investigation deals with stereotypes, the reproduction of
ethnic prejudice, and power abuse by elites and resistance by dominated groups.
Besides, he also regards discourse analysis as ideology analysis. ―Ideologies … are
the overall, abstract mental systems that organize … socially shared attitudes‖ (van
Dijk, 1995a: 18). Ideologies, thus, ―indirectly influence the personal cognition of
14

group members‖ in their act of comprehension of discourse among other actions
and interactions (van Dijk: 1995a: 19).

Wodak: Discourse-Historical Approach
What distinguishes this approach from other CDA approaches, especially from van
Dijk‘s is that it focuses on the historical contexts of discourse in the process of
explanation and interpretation. The general approach reflects sociolinguistics and
ethnography. Its central tenet is the importance of bringing together the textual and
contextual levels of analysis. The model of context used in this approach invokes
historical knowledge understood in terms of four layers: the linguistic co-text, the
intertextual and interdiscursive level, the extralinguistic level, the socio-political
and historical level (Wodak and Meyer, 2009). Another important feature of
Wodak‘s approach is that readers and listeners, depending on their background
knowledge and information and their position, might have different interpretations
of the same communicative event (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999).

Jager: The Duisburg School
The Duisburg School with the representative scholar – Jager, is heavily influenced
by Foucault‘s work. For Jager, knowledge is the basis of action and formative
action that shapes reality; so CDA is not only to analyze discursive practices but
also non – discursive practices and so-call manifestation/materializations and
relationship between these elements (Jager and Meier, 2009). The interplay of these
elements is called ―dispositive‖. This kind of approach, sometimes referred to as
Dispositive Analysis, draws on social constructivism (Laclau, 1980) and activity
theory (Leont‘ev, 1978), and claims that social selves are constituted in a semiotic
network that includes not only linguistic mediation of various kinds but also
architectural arrangements, legal practices, customs, rituals, modes of moral
thought, social institutions and so forth.

15

Scollon: Mediated Discourse Analysis

This approach highlights the role of ethnography and semiotics, emphasizes the
diachronic dimension, and texts are viewed as situated discourse (Scollon, 2003).
For Scollon, social matters are related to discourse. For example, the discourse on
TV or in newspapers is related to social issues such as unemployment, pollution,
security or drug abuse, etc. He describes the individual as an actor ―embodied in the
society of various social groups‖ (Scollon, 2003: 172). Subsequently, one of their
goals is to find the link between individual action and public discourse.

Fairclough
There is a prominent strand of CDA that advocates the use of Halliday‘s Systematic
Functional Grammar (SFG). This is the framework of linguistic description used by
Fairclough, as it was also by Fowler et al. (1979) and Hodge and Kress (1988). For
Fairclough, CDA ―brings social science and linguistics … together within a single
theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue between them‖
(Chuliaraki and Fairclough, 1999: 6). The linguistic theory referred to here is SFG,
which has been the foundation for Fairclough‘s analytical framework. Fairclough‘s
approach also draws upon a number of critical social theorists, such as Foucault (i.e.
concept of orders of discourse), Gramsci (concept of hegemony), Habermas (i.e.
concept of colonization of discourses).
In his approach, there are three analytical focuses in analysing any communicative
event (interaction). They are text (e.g. a news report), discourse practice(e.g. the
process of production and consumption), and sociocultural practice (e.g. social and
cultural structures which give rise to the communicative event) (Fairclough: 1995b;
Chuliaraki & Fairclough: 1999). For him, the term ―discourse‖ is also referred the
complete process of social interaction. Text is merely a sector of this process,
because he considers three elements for discourse as text, interaction, and social
context. In comparison to the three aspects of discourse, Fairclough (1989: 26-27)
identifies three dimensions for CDA: description, interpretation, explanation.
16

More detailed account of Fairclough‘s analytical framework will be discussed in the
next part because it is the framework I use in this study.

1.4. Fairclough’s analytical framework
Among different approaches to CDA, Fairclough‘s analytical framework is chosen
for it is one of the most comprehensive ones. In addition, it provides a suitable set
of analytical questions for the amount of data I have chosen. Moreover, it is based
on a linguistic foundation – Halliday‘s Systemetic Functional Grammar, which
makes the discourse analysis not only ―running commentary‖.

For Fairclough, the model for CDA consists of ―three inter-related processes of
analysis tied to three inter-related dimensions of discourse‖ (Rogers, Berkes,
Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005: 371). These three dimensions of discourses are: text
(description: formal prosperities of the text), discourse practice (interpretation:
relationship between text and interaction), and sociocultural practice (explanation:
social determination of the processes of production and interpretation and their
social effects).

The first analytical focus of Fairclough‘s three-part model is text. Analysis of text
involves linguistic analysis in terms of vocabulary, grammar, semantics, the sound
system, and cohesion-organization above the sentence level (Fairclough: 1995b).
Linguistic analysis is concerned with presences as well as absences in texts that
could include ―representations, categories of participant, constructions of
participant identity or participant relations‖ (Fairclough, 1995: 58). For him, any
sentence in a text is analyzable in terms of the articulation of these functions, which
he has relabeled representations, relations, and identities:
- Particular representations and recontextualizations of social practice (ideational
function) - perhaps carrying particular ideologies.