1 ) The attack is interdisciplinary. Problems in our societies are excessively complex to be studied from one position. This entails different dimensions of interdisciplinarity: theories draw on neighboring subjects and seek to incorporate other/new theories. Teamwork consists of different research workers from different traditionally defined subjects working together. Last. besides the methodological analysiss are adapted to the informations under probe. 2 ) The attack is problem-oriented. Social jobs are the points of research. such as “racism. individuality. gender. societal change” . which. of class. are and could be studied from multiplex positions. The CDA dimension. discourse and text-analysis. is one of many possible attacks. 3 ) The theories every bit good as the methodological analysiss are normally eclectic ; i. e. . theories and methods are integrated which are equal in understanding and explicating the object under probe.
4 ) Research in CDA should integrate fieldwork and descriptive anthropology to research the object under probe ( survey from the interior ) as a stipulation for any farther analysis and theorizing. This attack enables to avoid to `”fit the informations to exemplify a theory” . Rather. we deal with bottom–up and top- down attacks at the same clip. 5 ) The attack is abductive and retroductive: a changeless motion back and Forth between theory and empirical information is necessary. This is a pre necessity for rule 4. 6 ) Multiple genres and multiple public infinites should be studied. therefore both intertextual and interdiscursive relationships. Recontextualization is the most of import procedure in linking genres every bit good as subjects and statements ( topoi ) . 7 ) The historical context should be explicitly considered and integrated into the reading of discourses and texts. The impression of “change” ( see principle 6 ) has become built-in to the survey of text and discourse ; the construct of “recontextualization” is relevant to the analysis of societal alteration.
8 ) The classs and tools for the analysis are defined harmonizing to all these stairss and processs every bit good as to the particular job under probe. This entails some eclectic method. every bit good as pragmatism. Different attacks in CDA use different grammatical theories. although many apply Systemic Functional Linguistics in some manner or other. 9 ) The problem-oriented attack entails the usage and testing of middle-range theories. “Grand Theories” consequence in large spreads between structure/context and lingual realisations ( although some spreads must remain unbridgeable ) . 10 ) Practice and application are aimed at. The consequences should be made available to experts in different Fieldss and. as a 2nd measure. be applied. with the end of altering certain dianoetic and societal patterns.
Therefore. CDA might be defined as basically interested in analysing opaque every bit good as crystalline structural relationships of laterality. favoritism. power and control as manifested in linguistic communication. In other words. CDA aims to look into critically societal inequality as it is expressed. constituted. legitimized etc. by linguistic communication usage ( or in discourse ) . Most critical discourse analysts would therefore back Habermas’ claim that “language is besides a medium of domination and societal force. It serves to legalize dealingss of organized power. Insofar as the legitimizations of power dealingss. … . are non articulated. … . . linguistic communication is besides ideological” ( Habermas 1967. 259 ) .
The impressions of power. history and political orientation
In contrast to other paradigms in discourse analysis and text-linguistics. CDA focuses non merely on texts. talk or written. as objects of enquiry. A to the full “critical” history of discourse would therefore necessitate a theorisation and description of both the societal procedures and constructions. which give rise to the production of a text. and of the societal constructions and procedures within which persons or groups as social-historical topics. create significances in their interaction with texts ( Fairclough & A ; Kress. 1993. 2ff ) . Consequently. three constructs figure indispensably in all CDA: the construct of power ; the construct of history ; and the construct of political orientation.
Power dealingss are a battle over involvements. which are exercised. reflected. maintained and resisted through a assortment of modes. extents and grades of explicitness ( we distinguish between overt and covert power dealingss. such as physical force and expressed gate-keeping processs versus latent webs. for illustration ) .
Political orientations are [ cognitive ] representations of patterns formed from peculiar positions in the involvement of keeping unequal power dealingss and laterality. ( Fairclough & A ; Wodak 1997 )
The Discourse-Historical Approach ( Reisigl and Wodak 2001 )
( Summary of some processs of analysis ) :
The specific discourse-analytical attack is 3-dimensional: after ( 1 ) holding established the specific contents or subjects of a specific discourse. ( 2 ) the dianoetic schemes ( including debate schemes ) are investigated. Then ( 3 ) . the lingual agencies ( as types ) and the particular. context-dependent lingual realisations ( as items ) are examined ( 4 ) .
There are several dianoetic elements and schemes which. in our discourse analytical position. deserve to have particular attending. We orientate ourselves to five constituent inquiries:
How are individuals named and referred to linguistically?
What traits. features. qualities and characteristics are attributed to them? By agencies of what statements and debate strategies do specific individuals or societal groups try to warrant and legalize the inclusion or exclusion of some? From what position or point of position are these labels. ascriptions and statements expressed? Are the several vocalizations articulated overtly. are they even intensified or are they mitigated?
Harmonizing to these inquiries. we are particularly interested in five types of dianoetic schemes. which are all involved in the positive self- and negative other-presentation. The dianoetic building of “US” and “THEM” is the basic basis of discourses of individuality and difference.
By “strategy” we by and large mean a more or less accurate and more or less knowing program of patterns ( including dianoetic patterns ) adopted to accomplish a peculiar societal. political. psychological or lingual purpose.
Table 1: Dianoetic schemes for positive self- and negative other representation
Feminist CDA ( FCDA )
For feminist CDA. the focal point is on how gender political orientation and gendered dealingss of power are ( rhenium ) produced. negotiated and contested in representations of societal patterns. in societal relationships between people. and in people’s societal and personal individualities in texts and talk ( Lazar 2005. 11 ) .
The matrimony of feminism with CDA. in amount. can bring forth a rich and powerful review for action” ( Lazar 2005. 5 )
Suggested rules for research in FCDA ( Wodak 2005a ) :
1 ) Interrupting up dualities!
2 ) Distinguishing the scope of gendered individualities!
3 ) Associating gender to other individualities. such as ethnicity. societal category. profession. civilization. political association. etc. ! Interdisciplinarity necessary! 4 ) Analyzing gender in socio-political. situative. synergistic and historical contexts! ( Gender maps as one interpretive class in all contexts ; gender enters as a societal relation into all contexts ) 5 ) Theorizing and analysing the peculiarly insidious and oppressive nature of gender as an omni-relevant class in most societal patterns ( in the interplay with 4 ) . 6 ) Raising as debatable the impression of scientific neutrality ( all cognition is socially constructed! ) 7 ) Sing gender as ideological construction.
8 ) Deconstructing the hegemony and symbolic force of gender in our societies! ( i. e. concentrating on the latent. covert mechanisms of favoritism ; patriarchal gender political orientation is structural. similar and to and combined with other prejudiced patterns in our societies ) . 9 ) Contesting the prevailing gender political orientation by doing it crystalline ; 10 ) Sing gender non merely as ramblingly constructed but holding a material base every bit good ( different wages for the same occupation for work forces and adult females. for illustration ) ; 11 ) Reflecting one’s ain research activities critically ( This entails. for illustration. including female bookmans from non-Western societies ; see Lazar 2005. 19ff. ) .