Public discourse from the perspective of critical discourse analysis

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”

Public discourse from the perspective of critical discourse analysis

Skichko A., PhD Student, Lecturer

Summary

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is studied the interdisciplinary connections between language usage and reproduction as well as social and cultural issues. Under the term “discourse” is understood the logically but not structurally organized text within which there are all markers of coherence and cohesion in order to pass and decode the received utterances. This approach deals with hidden meanings, positions, aspects, and values relating to race, identity, politics, social status, and gender. CDA itself is discussed in light of vast text or talk analysis jointly with sociopolitical context.

Researchers' interest in critical discourse investigation was broadly admitted in the early 1990s. It becаme the scope of world-known scientists as O. Holsti, W Downes, J. Potter and M. Wetherell, R. Bhaskar, A. Sayer., J.Habermas, N. Fairclough, J. Derrida, N. Luhman, etc. Taking into consideration the above statement, it is possible to make a conclusion that CDA is a relevant tool for public discourse investigation. Public discourse comprises to a greater or lesser extent political discourse and is viewed as the act of communication between the government and society or between famous persons and the public. To put it another way, all authorities, as well as celebrities, use their power, charisma, and credibility in order to obtain a social approval of their status as leaders and to move forward with the most interesting laws or ideas. Moreover, public discourse is developed on the basis of common interests from the side of government or public persons and separate individuals in order to find answers on the vulnerable topics that influence social welfare. Because of instant and undeniable changes that are happening every day within the society, public discourse has different platforms for its realization and implementation such as speeches, interviews, media, television, social media (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter), magazines, journals, radio, and even music.

Key words: critical discourse analysis (CDA), discourse, text, social pattern, public discourse.

Анотація

Скічко А. Дослідження публічного дискурсу за допомогою критичного дискурс-аналізу (CDA)

Критичний дискурс-аналіз (CDA) вивчає міждисциплінарні зв'язки між використанням і відтворенням мови та соціальними і культурними аспектами суспільства. Термін «дискурс» трактують як логічно, але не структурно організований текст, у якому наявні всі маркери когезії та когерентності для передачі та декодування отриманої інформації. Цей методологічний підхід має на меті дослідити приховані значення, позиції, аспекти та цінності, що стосуються раси, ідентичності, політики, соціального статусу та статі.

Критичний дискурс-аналіз дозволяє виконати обширний аналіз текстів або відтворених розмов та бесід, враховуючи соціально-політичний контекст. Інтерес дослідників до дослідження дискурсу у цьому ракурсі був широко помічений на початку 1990-х років. Це стало сферою діяльності всесвітньо відомих вчених: О. Холсті, В. Даунс, Дж. Поттер і М. Везерелл, Р Бхаскар, А. Сейєр., Дж. Хабермас, Н. Ферклаф, Дж. Дерріда, Н. Луман., тощо. Беручи до уваги вищенаведені твердження, можна зробити висновок, що CDA є ефективним інструментом для дослідження публічного дискурсу.

Публічний дискурс більшою чи меншою мірою включає політичний дискурс і розглядається як акт комунікації між владою та суспільством або між відомими особами та громадськістю. Інакше кажучи, усі політики, а також знаменитості використовують свою владу, харизму та авторитет, щоб отримати соціальне схвалення свого статусу лідера та просувати новоутворені закони чи ідеї. Крім того, публічний дискурс базується на основі спільних інтересів з боку влади або ж її окремих представників та відомих особистостей з метою пошуку відповідей на вразливі теми, які впливають на соціальний добробут. Завдяки беззупинним і швидким змінам у розвитку суспільства, публічний дискурс має різні платформи для реалізації та вербалізації: виступи, інтерв'ю, ЗМІ, телебачення, соціальні медіа (Інстаграм, Фейсбук, Твітер), журнали, газети, радіо і навіть музика.

Ключові слова: критичний дискурс-аналіз (CDA), дискурс, текст, соціальний аспект, публічний дискурс.

Statement of the problem

Set the stage by discovering that critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an efficient methodology for discovering the public discourse peculiarities. Nowadays, there are in round terms and round figures several papers that vastly analyze the gender, social, political, power, position, bias aspects of public discourse. On the ground of this, the attempt of public discourse investigating from the CDA perspectives is made in this article.

Research analysis. Beginning on the 1990s, the critical discourse analysis was in the research domain by such scholars as: O. Holsti, W. Downes, J. Potter and M. Wetherell, R. Bhaskar, A. Sayer., J. Habermas, N. Fairclough, J. Derrida, N. Luhman, V. Dijk, S. Torfing, J. Scollon, K. Hall, M. Bucholtz, etc. The history of the public discourse research dates back to the works of such well-known scholars as P Cap, M. Sellers, J. Habermas, etc.

The aim of the article is to view the peculiarities of public discourse applying the critical discourse analysis (CDA) methodology.

Presenting main material

According to N. Fairclough “discourse analysis” is a broad analysis of any type of text in different forms of its realization: spoken, written, media transcripts, or interview, etc. He observes “text” as a contextually, lexically, grammatically, and stylistically enhanced semiotic unit that depicts specific social events [1, p. 916]. Weiss and Wodak define research within Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a diverse and unique theoretical background that is realized through appropriate data, fields as well as methodologies [2, p. 12]. Van Dijk [3] believes that CDA is not only a platform for studying and learning certain types of texts but it is also a great tool to discover discursive sources of power, prejudice, dominance, leadership, inequality and bias.

The Frankfurt School's Critical Theory and Jurgen Habermas' contributions are considered the most valuable input of CDA development. In consonance with the researches in this field by famous linguists like Fowler, Fairclough and Wodak, the language is regarded as a means of reaching specific aims by power groups [4, p. 19].

The main problem of Critical Discourse Analysis is the ambiguous variations of meaning that are not absolute. All types of visual or verbal information have their own unique meaning. However, there are not any means in order to verify it, since each meaning is coined through the individual person's perception of the world as well as his interaction. Modern science does not converse on the means that will be able to consolidate the meaning of things in real time and space. That is why, there are the only interpretations that will be able to analyze this social aspect of everyday life [5, p. 17].

The term discourse must be regarded not only within the language system but beyond its frames and evoke various social factors as the age of the interlocutors, marital status, nationality, the field of professional activities, beliefs, degree of education, etc. There are different approaches towards discourse studies as well as its definition. Mills [6] and Torfing & Howarth [7] in their researches develop dissimilar approaches towards discourse analysis. S. Mills has recollected and has analyzed Barne's and Foucault's works and concluded that each type of discourse comprises unwritten regulations and is under human control and subservient to social regulations [6, p. 49-56].

Van Dijk is persuaded that discourse is not only independent and ordinary text or dialogue with the same typology. It is necessary to view it as a communicative act that was created and formed regarding social context that is embodied into the context of a society with the active involvement of participants that reveal the cognitive and production processes [8, p. 2].

According to Foucault's study [9], discourses are about the verbalized expressions and thoughts that help speakers to introduce their idea to the public, as well as who is the mediator of communication and which power he has. He is persuaded that they include in structure the meaning and social pattern and create the linkage between subjectivity and power relations; and are “practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak. In addition, discourses are not about objects; they do not identify objects, they constitute them and in the practice of doing so conceal their own invention” [9, p. 49].

Scollon and Scollon [10] believe that any type of discourse that is attached to the moment of speaking as well can find its realization in the present moment. That is why, they reconsider each speaker as a doer of the action and to a certain point an actor who is a constituent part of any social groups [10, p. 172]. E. Hidalgo Tenorio assumes that the essence of their theory is to find a connection between personal behavior in the concrete situations and public discourse in order to comprehend how we depict this form through the social prism through the historical body of each speaker [11, p. 194]. According to the sociolinguist M.A.K. Halliday [12], there are visible connections between any type of text or discourse and its socio-semiotic background.

While J. Torfing determines three generations of the discourse analysis [13, p. 8-9]:

- The first-generation discovering discourse in the strict frames of spoken and written text O. Holsti [14], W. Downes [15], J. Potter & M. Wetherell [16];

- The second generation that broadens the body of the discourse with the help of social practices R. Bhaskar [17], A. Sayer [18], J. Habermas [19], N. Fairclough [20];

- The third generation proclaims that any type of discourse makes up for all social criteria J. Derride [21], N. Luhman [22].

Fairclough believes that discourse in each communicational act separates society and culture from the language and text [23, p. 60]. In order to better understand his idea, he proposed a table that depicts his thoughts. (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1. Fairclough's approach for discourse study

Firstly, the discourse has broadened the sense since it falls outside the language and in most cases is realized in spoken communication. Bloor and Bloor identify “discourse” as the highest unit of linguistic description; phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and texts are below [24, p. 6-7].

Like many fields of discourses, we have in the modern world as many types of discourses exist in linguistics. However, in this article we would like to discover the peculiarities of public discourse, which, in our opinion, are the most appropriate type of realization of the concept of motivation.

As Lakoff stated “language not only has the ability to allocate political power for all of us as a society but also is the means and the medium by which we construct and understand ourselves as individuals... and also as members of a culture” [25, p. 21]. In consonance with K. Hall and M. Bucholtz, the well-developed and grounded linguistic practices do not occur and show up only in concrete models. Thanks to them, the distinct social terms appear and develop in the lexical system of language. In agreement with the ways of application, they can detect and characterize various aspects of social domains and impose a great influence on definitions [26, p. 175]. Under linguistics practices, the authors understand the means of implementation language usage in particular social domains in order to modify shades of meaning and adopt other types of these definitions or with the aim of highlighting the well- known truth or knowledge [27, p. 77]. critical public social cultural discourse

Nowadays, the notion “public discourse” is applied to the act of communication that is related to the public issues such as culture, concern, welfare that in most cases are capable of influencing each person or a specific group within a stated nation [28, p. 1].

It is regarded as a long-lasted conversation that covers the transaction of the information from speakers to the public or society and reveals its influence on them in a positive or negative way. There is the assumption that public and political discourses are on the same axis but their main differences between them are various aims and targets. In a political discourse in most cases, the speaker is a politician, who has the clear aim to explain or report about the governmental issues in order to keep the society informed. Whereas the moderator of public discourse can be not only famous politicians or governmental representatives but other public figures like inventors, the CEO of a well-established corporation that became monopolists, actor, filmmakers, writers, singers, bloggers and vloggers who communicate with a great range of audience on a daily basis. And speaking about the target aim of the public discourse, here the ultimate goal is to influence or motivate the listeners by their own success and trigger any type of changes in their consciousness.

In a wider sense, public discourse is realized in statements, speeches and publications that were made to a big audience in order to ensure the well-being of the population. Since the welfare of the public is a predominant aim of each government, the key target of giving the public speech is to outline the limits of the law as well as its requirements. However, there is a clear line between public and private discourse. Considering the public discourse, in the core of it, we find appeal to public policy as its crucial trait, while in most cases private discourse is used by non-political bodies who pursue their goals and aims and are eager to obtain social support and approval for promoting their own business. Sometimes it is hard to identify the clear differences between these types, because it is needed to examine the division of power between government and private citizens. “That which is not public is private, and vice versa, but it is public discourse itself' [29, p. 1].

Jurgen Habermas [30] in his book. The theory of communicative action describes “public discourse” as a set of various points of views on those branches of social and political life that are under close scrutiny of society. Those entities of political power who regulate and control social policy, for example, officials or even governmental organizations, reproduce the biggest part of public discourse. Habermas J. is persuaded that the strategy is the predominant trait of public discourse since producing speeches to a great audience aims to reveal and show the governmental interest linguistically [19].

However, speaking today about public discourse only from the retrospective of conducting a mutual dialogue between politicians and society is not enough in order to understand its typology and targets to a full extent. We suppose that its realization falls beyond the political domain because the term “public figure” should also consider famous persons, who have a great influence on the public through verbal means of communication as the main tools. In most cases, we speak about celebrities, bloggers, entrepreneurs, researchers, investors, CEOs of well-known companies, sportsmen and others. Nowadays, it is a trend to be a famous person and conduct a live dialogue between the audience in order to seek social approval and friendship, but instead, the viewers can receive a plethora of interesting information, not only the entertaining one but also informative and useful. Moreover, because of the constant observance of a successful career, significant results in new projects, always good-looking appearance, strong body and fashionable looks of public figures, the audience receive a good dose of motivation.

A social cognitive psychologist, A. Bandura [31], developed a social cognitive theory that proclaims that each human polishes his own character in accordance with behaviour, personal and environmental principles. That means that person can affect the environment with the help of his own actions and vice versa. Observance and imitation play a crucial role in cognitive, mental and learning processes. For example, each of us can find a so-called model in real life through which we will learn a new skill, study not yet know the theory, read a newspaper, change appearance, to become involved in discovering international projects or associations, in short, to imitate and observe the level of knowledge, behaviour, the body language, etc of others who can put a great influence with the help of a popular created image. The chosen model may be a close friend, parents, public figure, TV hero, any celebrity, etc.

In further works of A. Bandura, he puts an emphasis on motivation as a constituent part of social cognitive theory, therefore he developed the classification of it in order to better understand its nature:

- biologically based: shortage of cellular components and presence of aversive events provoke the creation of physical comfort;

- socially based: implementation of action through the detection of outer incentives;

- cognitively based: anticipation of the action outcomes through the setting of specific goals [31, p.69-71].

Regarding this theory, it is necessary to state that from the perspectives of cognitive psychology the observance of the public figures that give speeches on different topics or are interviewed on certain occasions can put a great influence on the audience as well as to motivate them.

In this article, the aim is to discover its application in public speeches and interviews of famous persons and innovators who are changing the course of history and with the help of their own example inspire to move on, never give up and reach planned goals and dreams. Since we work with speeches, we will reconsider different discursive strategies like collocations, explicit comparisons, metaphors, allusions, to poi, etc that make a successful presentation and can motivate others.

Thus, in this article, we will consider public discourse jointly with its written variants that are represented in the form of transcripts in order to conduct more thorough research over the cohesion and coherence markers and discursive strategies that make spoken messages motivational and vivid.

Halliday M.A.K differentiates such notions for doing text analysis: field, mode and manner of discourse [12]. So, we can analyse the public discourse according to these criteria in order to discover its peculiarities. The field of public discourse is communication and interaction with the audience on governmental and private levels in order to gain social support and approval on a specific topic. If we speak about the state level, here the subject in most cases will concern the legitimize sphere, the so-called “sphere of law”. However, the private subtype of public discourse intends that the moderator can abort and discuss any topic that concerns his sphere of activities, tell some facts about own life and gain experience and in such a way to motivate someone to reach their goals. So, the first has strict frames and formal style, while the second one is totally informal but contains its messages, logical structure, specific lexical units, in some cases even the professional terms, etc.

The mode of public discourse has a lot of forms of realization since it is multifunctional. So, in most cases, we can observe its direct application in monologue, dialogue, interview, TV show, podcast, social network through the live meeting or stories. It is necessary to mention that social networks in modern life play a great communicative role between famous persons and society, even certain presidents use Twitter in order to show their opinions, point of view on international and state affairs.

Manner of discourse denotes a connection between interlocutor A and interlocutor B. Moreover, it also reveals the degree of formality between speakers which depends on the context and tools of verbal and non-verbal means of communications. The manner of public discourse can be formal and informal.

Observing the formal and informal spheres, here we can identify such pairs of speakers:

- public figure, reproducing monologue;

- public figure and journalists;

- public figure and audience;

- public figure and interviewer;

- public figure and mediator;

- public figure and newscaster;

- public figure and journalist;

- public figure and social representative (from organizations, private firms, volunteering networks, etc.).

Conclusions

Taking into attention the above-mentioned theoretical review, we can conclude that from the perspective of critical discourse analysis, public discourse has a lot in common with political and private discourse. Despite the fact that most scholars believe that public discourse is represented throughout the dialogue between officials and society, we are strongly persuaded that private individuals can also be its representatives. Since the main traits of public discourse are not only to build a strategy in order to legally represent some information but also to appeal to the audience in order to make contact, seek social support and friendship as well as represent some insights, new approaches. Bandura's theory of social cognitive theory proves that the audience can learn and be motivated through observing the successful life of the speakers.

References

1. Fairclough, N. (2005) Peripheral Vision: Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical Realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915-939.

2. Weiss, G., & Wodak R. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

3. Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. The handbook of discourse analysis, 349-371.

4. Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In Wodak, Ruth (ed.), New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

5. Kuhar, R. (2003). Media representations ofhomosexuality. Lublan: Peace.

6. Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. Routledge: London

7. Howarth, D., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2004). Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance. Springer.

8. Van Dijk, T.A. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

9. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.

10. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2000). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

11. Hidalgo Tenorio, E. (2011). Critical Discourse Analysis, An overview. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 183-210.

12. Halliday, M.A.K., & Ruqaiya, H. (1989). Language, Context and Text: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford UP.

13. Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. In Discourse theory in European politics, 1-32. Palgrave Macmillan

14. Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Reading: Addisson-Wesley.

15. Downes, W. (1984). Language and Society. London: Fontana.

16. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage Publications, Inc.

17. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A Realist Theory of Science. Brighton: Harvester.

18. Sayer, A. (1984). Method in social science: a realist approach. London

19. Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Bd. 1: Handlungsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung; Bd. 2: Zur Kritikderfunktionalistischen Vernunft. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt.

20. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193-217.

21. Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

22. Luhmann, K. (1995). Social Science. Stanford University Press.

23. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

24. Bloor, M., & Bloor T. (2007). The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis. An Introduction. London: Hodder Arnold.

25. Lakoff, R. (2000). The language war Berkeley: University of California Press.

26. Hall, K., & Bucholtz, M. (1995). Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self New York: Routledge.

27. Sun, Z. (2015). Linguistic Practice and Language. In Language, Discourse, and Praxis in Ancient China (pp. 77-90). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

28. Cap, P. (2017). The Language of Fear Communicating Threat in Public Discourse (1st ed. 2017.). Palgrave Macmillan UK.

29. Sellers, M. (2003). Ideals of Public Discourse. Civility and its Discontents.

30. Habermas, U. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: vols I-II. Cambridge: Polity Press.

31. Bandura, A. (1990). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. In R.A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Perspectives on motivation, 69-164. University of Nebraska Press.

Размещено на allbest.ru