Social Discourse Analysis: Outlines of a Research Project

This volume presentsinterdisciplinary and internationalcontributionsto rele- vant issues debated in the Social Sciences, specifically in the field of Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. It also marks two celebrations. The first is the existence for about thirty years now of CDA and its forerunnerCrit- ical Linguistics. The second is the end of a six year research centre financed by the Wittgenstein Prize, awarded in 1996 to the first editor, Ruth Wodak, of the present volume, by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF)

2002

Contents Preface vii 1. The field of discourse analysis 1 2. Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory 24 3. Critical discourse analysis 60 4. Discursive psychology 96 5. Across the approaches 138 6. Critical social constructionist research 175 References 213 Index 223

Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso, 2021

This article aims to discuss how the (co-)construction of discourse genre shows disputes over the (re)construction of social reality. To accomplish this, a theoretical review is done, bringing the Bakhtinian postulates closer to those of Critical Discourse Analysis, in the formulation of Critical Genre Analysis. A socio-educational group session (sessão de grupo socioeducativo) for men who have committed violence against women is analyzed, illustrating the discursive dispute regarding the constituent frame of the genre’s theme. The data analyzed was generated over 12 months of ethnographic research field work. The discussion allows us to perceive the open nature of language and practices, made intelligible through critical analysis of discourse genres, and points to essential openings in the political struggle for social change.

CfP, 2019

In discourse studies, discourse is usually understood as the use of texts in various sorts of contexts (situational, historical, structural, institutional). From these practices of meaning production, different aspects of the social such as identities, believes, attitudes, institutions, social structures and new text production emerge. Despite this broad notion of discourse, the notion of ideology is often understood as sets of collective beliefs or mental representations. In contrast to such approaches, which see ideology as immaterial beliefs, in the last decade we observe a return of ideology critique in social and political philosophy, sociology and cultural studies. These interventions are considering specifically the material and practical dimensions of ideologies. Ideologies are seen therefore less as set of beliefs and representations but as practices related to an unsustainable social order and dominating power relations. Even if critical theory and discourse analysis have pointed to the crucial role of ideological aspects, both tendencies need deeper exchange and discussions on the role of ideology, discourse and materiality. Our understanding of ideology tries to bring together the analysis of society, understood as exploitive social order, with the analysis of practices that systematically reproduce this social order. Ideologies emerge from special contextualities as long as they relate texts to particular contexts, namely inequalities, exclusions and power structures. They contribute the reproduction of social order and ideological relations are at work in social struggles of change over hegemonic constellations as well. In this special issue we want to bring together critical discourse studies and critical theory in order to focus on the ideological dimensions of power, domination, inequality and injustices that are related to discourse production. In particular, the contributions of this special issue reflect on the material conditions of discourse productions. The authors will elaborate how language is related to the formation of hierarchies in discourses on gender, race and social class and to the specific cultural nature of human communication. We will furthermore elaborate how subject positions and subjectivities are formed by discourses in an unequal socio-material space, and we will reflect on the ideological role in these processes. A third group of contributions will discuss the relationship between ideology and critique. The research papers may include the following topics: • Update the notion of ideology and ideology critique bringing together social and political philosophy with discourse studies. • Articulate critical procedures to understand the complexity of ideology. • Discussion of the cultural nature and cultural diversity of ideology. • Focus specifically on the material conditions and practical effects of ideology. • Analyze the specific roles and functions of the ideological in different discourse setting. • Local, indigenous and multicultural perspectives on ideological systems. The editors: The editors are founding members of the international and interdisciplinary research group Discourse, Ideology and Political Economy (DIPE). Together they edited a special issue of Critical Discourse Studies on Marx and Discourse Studies and organized several winterschools and other academic events. Johannes Beetz is a doctoral researcher at the Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick. He studied sociology, philosophy, and American studies at the Johannes Gutenberg-University in Mainz, Germany. His research interests include Critical Theory & Marxism, Discourse Studies, and Post-Structuralist Theory. His publications include Materiality and Subject in Marxism, (Post-)Structuralism, and Material Semiotics(Palgrave 2016) and Material Discourse, Materialist Analysis – Approaches in Discourse Studies (with Veit Schwab, Lexington 2017). Benno Herzog is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, University of Valencia, Spain. He has worked and conducted research in Germany (Universities of Frankfurt and Mainz), the United Kingdom (University of Manchester, Open University, and University of Warwick), and Brazil (Federal University of Paraíba). His research focuses on social critique and critical theory of society, discourse theory and discourse analysis, and migration and discrimination. His latest book is Discourse Analysis as Social Critique(Palgrave 2016) Jens Maesse, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Giessen. His research focus is on discourse analysis, sociology of science and education, economic sociology and political economy. His publications include: “Austerity discourses in Europe: How economic experts create identity projects”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(1): 8-24 (2018). “The elitism dispositif. Hierarchization, discourses of excellence and organisational change in European economics”, Higher Education 73, 909-927 (2017).

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: …, 2005

The contribution outlines a research programme which I have coined the "sociology of knowledge approach to discourse" (Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse). This approach to discourse integrates important insights of FOUCAULT's theory of discourse into the interpretative paradigm in the social sciences, especially the "German" approach of hermeneutic sociology of knowledge (Herme- neutische Wissenssoziologie). Accordingly, in this approach discourses are considered as "structured

2008

Este artigo examina a relação entre etnografia e análise de discurso. Começa delineando a variação considerável nos tipos de trabalho que se abrigam sob um desses termos. Similitudes e tensões entre essas abordagens são assim investigadas. O que tem sido descrito como a 'recente crítica radical de entrevistas' é usado como um modo de explorar as orientações colidentes de alguns tipos de etnografia e análise de discurso. Esta avaliação crítica está fundamentada em argumentos que podem ser encontrados dentro da etnografia, mas também têm sido motivados por algumas formas de análise de discurso. Na parte final do texto, sugere-se, que há boas razões para qualificar os argumentos construídos na crítica radical e que o valor da prática analítica discursiva é mais bem compreendida dentro de uma visão etnográfica menos restritiva. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: discurso, etnografia, entrevistas. * Uma primeira versão deste artigo foi apresentada em um seminário na Faculdade de Ciências Sociais da Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdã, Holanda, em outubro de 2004. Agradeço aos participantes naquele seminário e, especialmente, ao Harry van den Berg, por suas contribuições à minha reflexão sobre estas questões. Unido. Sua pesquisa inicial foi em sociologia educacional, no entanto, a maior parte de seu recente trabalho está relacionado a questões metodológicas em torno de pesquisa educacional e social. Atualmente, dedica-se a dois projetos de pesquisa, respectivamente, um relacionado com a representação de resultados de pesquisa na mídia de massa e o outro com a natureza de comunidades de pesquisa. Seus mais recentes livros

Discourse studies have been developing well both in Russia and abroad. The area might be considered quite theoretically and practically developed but I would like to claim that a very important aspect has been neglected, namely the “Time of Culture” of a particular discourse. The questions raised in my article pertain to the practical necessity of this new category of discourse analysis and the serious philosophic and linguistic background to the problem when the concepts of Zeitgeist by Hegel, the context of culture by Malinowski and the field by Halliday are used as a framework for the introduction of the new term. This article explores the aftermath of a number of events – the Newtown carnage at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in the USA, the finical crisis of 2008, the arrest of the famous whistleblower Julian Assange and the search for April Jones in an attempt to analyse how the changing semiotic landscape alters the interpretants of signs and shifts values. The essay argues that a new Time of Culture paves the way for a new discourse model and key signs which reflect the new intentionality and mentality of the general public. The wide scope of the article should not only appeal to linguists interested in discourse studies and pragmatics, but also to scholars and students in other scientific disciplines – PR studies, sociology, economics, cultural studies. A discursive profile of the ‘Time of Culture’ is built through examination of American and British electronic media data.

Cadernos de Linguagem e Sociedade, 2013

This article delineates the theoretical and conceptual framework ideology in Critical Discourse Analysis (ADC), more specifically at work of N. Fairclough, to undertake a reading that can problematize the term that justifies the critical of this approach the discourse. Based on the reconstruction the narrative of the negative concept of ideology, which converged to how the ADC searched think it, the research shows: definition, location, nature and analytical tract of the concept formulated in the discipline. Finally, the study indicates that the term, although essential to the political project of social transformation of ADC, means an epiphenomenon, whereby this discourse analysis is presented as a not ideological critique of ideology.

International thematic proceedings FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCHES, 2023

Critical discourse analysis cannot be defined as one-way, nor as a specific branch of linguistics that deals with discourse studies. In the paper, the authors advocate the thesis that critical discourse analysis is not a discipline or a theory, but that eclecticism is significant for it, as it is characterized by a non-unique theoretical framework and methodological apparatus. Or, on the other hand, it can be pursued within or in combination with any approach or sub-discipline of the humanities or social sciences. The paper presents the approaches of different authors (Vezovnik, Meyer, van Dijk, Wodak, Rasmussen, Ager, etc.) to critical discourse analysis, and through their analysis it is pointed out that critical discourse analysis is used by epistemological theories, general social theories, theories of the middle range and microsociological, social-psychological, discursive and linguistic theories. Approaches that are critically determined according to the analyzed texts are grouped under this name. Critical analysis is a key element by which critical discourse analysis approaches differ from linguistic style analyses, which do not consider language in relation to society, and therefore do not thematize the relationship between language, power and ideology. CDA critically approaches social problems by using language to expose power relations that are often hidden, while at the same time trying to reach practically relevant conclusions.