Wednesday, June 21, 2006
"critical discourse analysis" according to Gee
In this chapter, Gee presents a distinction among discourse analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and critical discourse analysis.
One way to look at this is through a continuum. At one end, Gee presents discourse analysis as "anecdotal reflections on written or oral texts" (p. 20) and “patterns of social interaction” (p. 32). At the opposite end, critical discourse analysis can be related to political proselytism (p. 20). For Gee, CDA (with capital letters) is based on Fairclough's work and critical discourse analysis (with lowercase letters) is a more inclusive term: one that not only includes CDA, but also Gee's work on "models of grammatical and textual analysis ... sociolinguistics ... [and] literary criticism" (p. 20), as well that of as others.
Gee also adds that the combination of "sociopolitical and critical theory with ... analysis of language" even if it is not rooted in a "particular linguistic background" is too considered critical discourse analysis (p. 20). Later in this chapter, he states “[c]ritical approaches … treat social practices not just in terms of social relationships,” but also in terms of their implications to matters of politics, such as “status, solidarity, distribution of social goods, and power” (p. 33).
So, with this my quest has been completed. Discourse analysis can be critical and it can also be non-critical. What makes it critical is its relationship with the idea of politics, as in critical theory you may say. Finding patterns is not enough, anecdotal reflections is not enough either to make discourse analysis critical.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, pp. 19-50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
One way to look at this is through a continuum. At one end, Gee presents discourse analysis as "anecdotal reflections on written or oral texts" (p. 20) and “patterns of social interaction” (p. 32). At the opposite end, critical discourse analysis can be related to political proselytism (p. 20). For Gee, CDA (with capital letters) is based on Fairclough's work and critical discourse analysis (with lowercase letters) is a more inclusive term: one that not only includes CDA, but also Gee's work on "models of grammatical and textual analysis ... sociolinguistics ... [and] literary criticism" (p. 20), as well that of as others.
Gee also adds that the combination of "sociopolitical and critical theory with ... analysis of language" even if it is not rooted in a "particular linguistic background" is too considered critical discourse analysis (p. 20). Later in this chapter, he states “[c]ritical approaches … treat social practices not just in terms of social relationships,” but also in terms of their implications to matters of politics, such as “status, solidarity, distribution of social goods, and power” (p. 33).
So, with this my quest has been completed. Discourse analysis can be critical and it can also be non-critical. What makes it critical is its relationship with the idea of politics, as in critical theory you may say. Finding patterns is not enough, anecdotal reflections is not enough either to make discourse analysis critical.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, pp. 19-50. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Comments:
<< Home
Madeline, I am impressed with your work ethic. It sounds like you are on a steady path of learning. We miss you at UF and your desk says hi. I can't thank you enough for the thoughtful donation to my academic career :)
Post a Comment
<< Home
