Medium–sitter interaction discourse analysis a comparative and critical introduction by robin wooffitt

7 Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis In this chapter we will consider approaches to the analysis of discourse and communication which are markedly different from conversation analysis, dis- course analysis and discursive psychology, in terms of both methodology and substantive focus. First, we will discuss critical discourse analysis CDA, which has its roots in linguistics and sociolinguistics. Then we will assess a form of discourse analysis which emerged as a critical movement primarily within European social psychology, and which is influenced by the work of Michel Foucault among others; this can be termed Foucauldian discourse analysis FDA or the analysis of discourses, for reasons which will become clear. However, if CDA and FDA are so different from CA, why do we include them in this book which so far has focused on the close relationship between CA, dis- course analysis and discursive psychology? Both approaches are distinguished and established intellectual traditions. They offer rich and stimulating empirical accounts of the role of language in contemporary society. For these reasons alone it is important to provide a flavour of their theoretical orientations and empirical research, and to map their broader contribution to the study of discourse and interaction. But more important, both critical and Foucauldian discourse analysis present a set of challenges to CA, in that they articulate an alternative approach to the study of interaction. A discussion of critical and Foucauldian discourse analysis allows us to outline some of the key areas of disagreement. Critical discourse analysis Critical discourse analysis is associated with researchers such as Norman Fairclough, Teun A. van Dijk and Ruth Wodak. Broadly put, it is concerned to analyse how social and political inequalities are manifest in and reproduced through discourse. In this section I will describe the general methodological and substantive orientation of CDA research. It is important to stress from the outset, however, that there is no one way of doing CDA. Unlike conversation analytic research, which adheres to a distinctive set of methodological principles, research in critical discourse analysis varies in style and focus. These different styles of analysis may reflect the diverse theoretical or philosophical orienta- tions of researchers, or even the traditions of research associated with partic- ular nations Meyer, 2001; van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 2001a. Before we address common themes in CDA research, it will be useful briefly to outline differ- ences in the positions of some of the key figures working in this area. Empirical work from this perspective largely draws upon what van Dijk has called a ‘solid “linguistic” basis’ 2001: 97, in that it often examines topics such as sentence structure, verb tense, syntax, lexical choice, the internal coherence of discourse, and so on. Unlike other approaches to discourse, critical discourse analysis extends its analytic focus to examine broader features of the production and consumption of discourse. So, for example, Fairclough adopts a broadly Marxist perspective on social conflict which emphasises the impor- tance of the means of production. For him, the task of CDA is to identify how inequalities and conflicts which arise from the capitalist mode of production are manifest in discourse Fairclough, 1989, 1995. Van Dijk is distinctive because he gives special attention to the role of cognition in the understand- ing and interpretation of texts and discourse practices. He argues that we need to understand the role of social cognitions and representations – ways of think- ing about the world which emerge from social activities – in order to under- stand how wider inequalities inform particular discursive or interpretative acts. Cognition is thus the theoretical interface between discourse and domi- nance van Dijk, 1993, 1996, 2001. In his 1993 account of CDA, van Dijk gives an example of why it is so important to focus on social cognition in an illustrative example of how racism may inform verbal interaction between a white and a black person. The production of ‘discourse structures that signal underlying bias’ van Dijk, 1993: 262, such as impoliteness, or the use of derogatory vocabulary, will be a consequence of the ‘activation’ of attitudes and mental constructs. See also van Dijk, 1991, for an account of the impor- tance of social cognition in studying racist aspects of newspaper reporting. By contrast, Wodak emphasises the importance of taking into account the wider context of discourse. For her, context has four levels: the actual or immediate use of language or text; the relationship between utterances, texts, discourses and genres; the extra-linguistic sociological and institutional context of dis- course; and the sociopolitical and historical contexts. Her research seeks to identify the operation of power and dominance in discourse across these four contextual levels Wodak, 2001b. Despite the clear differences in research styles, all critical discourse analysts try to explore the role of discourse in the production and reproduction of power relations within social structures. In particular, they focus on the ways in which discourse sustains and legitimises social inequalities. In this, CDA begins with a clear political agenda. 138 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS