![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article argues for an increased emphasis on resistance in Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), thereby joining calls for more Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA), a branch of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focused on progressive—rather than oppressive—discourse that has been slowly gaining traction in international circles but remains largely unknown within U.S. communication studies. While CDS brings oppression and resistance together in theory, in practice it is overwhelmingly focused on deconstructing oppression, not reconstructing resistance. In spite of calls for more generative analyses focused on progressive discourses, PDA has not yet been established as a necessary complement to CDA. Thus, CDS’s potential as a lens for understanding resistance is underdeveloped. In an effort to push CDS in a more progressive direction, this article considers the role of design in CDS and outlines the aims, contributions, and challenges of PDA as a tool for emancipatory CDS research. A critical action implicative discourse analysis of neurodiversity discourse is provided as a model of PDA that may be useful for scholars interested in analyzing progressive discourse as well as disability rights activists interested in challenging cognitive ableism.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Karen Tracy and Robert T. Craig for the many conversations and critiques that were instrumental in enabling the development of critical action implicative discourse analysis as a method for PDA. The author is also grateful to Bernadette Barker-Plummer, Maria-elena Bartesaghi, Michael L. Bruner, Theresa Castor, Randa Garden, Jhucin Jhang, Susana Martínez Guillem, Kristine Mroczek, Craig Stewart, Christopher Michael Toula, Jill Tyler, and Leah Wingard for their insights into CDS and feedback on an earlier draft of this essay. Finally, the author would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions led to significant improvements to the final version.
Notes
1 Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, eds., “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology,” in Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), 7.
2 James R. Martin, “Grace: The Logogenesis of Freedom,” Discourse Studies 1, no. 1 (1999): 51–52.
3 James R. Martin, “Positive Discourse Analysis: Solidarity and Change,” Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 49 (2004): 197.
4 Felicitas Macgilchrist, “Fissures in the Discourse-scape: Critique, Rationality and Validity in Post-foundational Approaches to CDS,” Discourse & Society 27, no. 3 (2016): 267.
5 Teun A. van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), 352.
6 Norman Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (London: Routledge, 2010), 7.
7 Teun A. van Dijk, “Home,” Discourse in Society, http://www.discourses.org/, accessed January 10, 2017; Norman Fairclough, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” in The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. James Paul Gee and Michael Handford (London: Routledge, 2012), 9–20.
8 Wodak and Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” 10.
9 Teun A. van Dijk, “Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach,” in Methods For Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed., ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), 64; Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak, “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA),” in Methods For Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed., ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), 88 original emphasis; Norman Fairclough, “A Dialectical–Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis in Social Research,” in Methods For Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed., ed. Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), 163.
10 Shi Xu, ed., “Discourse Studies and Cultural Politics: An Introduction,” in Discourse as Cultural Struggle (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2007), 6.
11 Ibid., 9.
12 Lilie Chouliaraki and Norman Fairclough, Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), 95.
13 Gunther Kress, “Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning,” in Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis (London: Routledge, 2000), 156.
14 Ibid., 160.
15 See Martin, “Positive Discourse Analysis,” 183; Tom Bartlett, Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualizing Positive Discourse Analysis (London: Routledge, 2012).
16 Xu, “Discourse Studies and Cultural Politics,” 6.
17 Martin, “Positive Discourse Analysis,” 183.
18 Majid, “Positive Discourse Analysis?” Lancaster Maze, February 28, 2007, http://lancastermaze.blogspot.com/2007/02/positive-discourse-analysis.html.
19 Bartlett, Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change, 7–9.
20 Martin, “Positive Discourse Analysis,” 183 original emphases.
21 Bartlett, Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change, 7.
22 Kress, “Design and Transformation,” 160.
23 Wodak and Meyer, “Critical Discourse Analysis,” 7.
24 Macgilchrist, “Fissures in the Discourse-scape,” 268.
25 Ruth Wodak, qtd. in Gavin Kendall, “What Is Critical Discourse Analysis: Ruth Wodak in Conversation with Gavin Kendall,” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 8, no. 2 (2007): http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/255/561; Felicitas Macgilchrist, “Positive Discourse Analysis: Contesting Dominant Discourses and Reframing Issues,” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 1, no. 1 (2007): 74–94; Martin, “Grace,” 52 emphasis added.
26 Melani Schröter, “80,000,000 HOOLIGANS: Discourse of Resistance to Racism and Xenophobia in German Punk Lyrics 1991–1994,” Critical Discourse Studies 12, no. 4 (2015): 398–425.
27 Wodak, qtd. in Kendall, “What Is Critical Discourse Analysis.”
28 Ibid.
29 Schröter, “80,000,000 HOOLIGANS,” 421.
30 Kress, “Design and Transformation,” 160.
31 Mark Aakhus and Sally Jackson, “Technology, Interaction, and Design,” in Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), 413.
32 Kress, “Design and Transformation,” 156.
33 Joanna Chojnicka, “Contesting Hegemonic Gender and Sexuality Discourses on the Web: Latvian and Polish Discourses of Gender Dissidents,” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 7, no. 2 (2015): 225.
34 See Xu, “Discourse Studies and Cultural Politics”; Jan Grue, “Discourse Analysis and Disability: Some Topics and Issues,” Discourse & Society 22, no. 5 (2011): 532–46.
35 Martin, “Positive Discourse Analysis.”
36 Chouliaraki and Fairclough, Discourse in Late Modernity, 4; Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, 14.
37 Martin, “Positive Discourse Analysis.”
38 Óscar García Agustín, “Enhancing Solidarity: Discourses of Voluntary Organizations on Immigration and Integration in Multicultural Societies,” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 7, no. 1 (2012): 81–97.
39 Ting Su, “Positive Discourse Analysis of Xi Jinping’s Speech at the National University of Singapore under Appraisal Theory,” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 7, no. 4 (2016): 796–801. Other PDA studies by Chinese scholars include Guo Zhiming, “Positive Discourse Analysis with Appraisal Theory,” Journal of North University of China (Social Science Edition) 2 (2014): 78–81; Yuan Lijuan and Zhang Faxiang, “The Positive Discourse Analysis of Obama’s Speech on the End of Combat Mission in Iraq,” Overseas English 3 (2011): 264–67; Zhu Yongsheng, “Positive Discourse Analysis: Backwash and Supplement to Critical Discourse Analysis,” The Journal of English Studies 9, no. 4 (2006): 36–42.
40 Carlos A. M. Gouveia, “The Role of a Common European Framework in the Elaboration of National Language Curricula and Syllabuses,” Cadernos de Linguagem e Sociedade (Papers on Language and Society) 8 (2007): 8–25.
41 Felicitas Macgilchrist and Ellen Van Praet, “Writing the History of the Victors? Discourse, Social Change and (Radical) Democracy,” Journal of Language & Politics 12, no. 4 (2013): 626–51.
42 Rebecca Rogers and Melissa Mosley Wetzel, “Studying Agency in Literacy Teacher Education: A Layered Approach to Positive Discourse Analysis,” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 10, no. 1 (2013): 62–92.
43 Bartlett, Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change, 7.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid., 7–9.
46 Ibid., 10 original emphasis.
47 Bartlett, Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change.
48 Jessica M. F. Hughes, “Changing Conversations Around Autism: A Critical, Action Implicative Discourse Analysis of U.S. Neurodiversity Advocacy Online” (Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado Boulder, 2015), http://gradworks.umi.com/37/21/3721820.html.
49 Amy Sequenzia, “More Problems with Functioning Labels,” Ollibean, September 26, 2013, https://ollibean.com/problems-functioning-labels/.
50 See Robert T. Craig and Karen Tracy, “Grounded Practical Theory: The Case of Intellectual Discussion,” Communication Theory 5, no. 3 (1995): 248–72.
51 A full discussion of the affordances and constraints of this hybrid approach is outside the scope of the current essay. See Hughes, “Changing Conversations Around Autism,” 27–52.
52 Karen Tracy, “Reconstructing Communicative Practices: Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis,” in Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. Kristine L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005), 304.
53 Craig and Tracy, “Grounded Practical Theory.”
54 Tracy, “Reconstructing Communicative Practices,” 309.
55 Ibid., 310.
56 Ibid., 316.
57 Ibid., 314.
58 Nick Walker, “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms and Definitions,” Neurocosmopolitan, September 27, 2014, http://neurocosmopolitanism.com/neurodiversity-some-basic-terms-definitions/.
59 Ibid.
60 Harvey Blume, “Neurodiversity: On the Neurological Underpinnings of Geekdom,” The Atlantic, September 1998, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/09/neurodiversity/305909/.
61 See Hughes, “Changing Conversations Around Autism”; Steve Silberman, NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity (New York: Avery, 2015).
62 See Tanya Titchkosky, “Disability: A Rose by Any Other Name? ‘People-First’ Language in Canadian Society,” Canadian Review of Sociology 38, no. 2 (2001): 125–40.
63 Jim Sinclair, “Why I Dislike ‘Person First’ Language,” Autism Mythbusters, 1999, http://autismmythbusters.com/general-public/autistic-vs-people-with-autism/jim-sinclair-why-i-dislike-person-first-language/.
64 As an ND advocate myself, I generally also use IFL.
65 Sequenzia, “More Problems with Functioning Labels.”
66 Capitalizing the descriptor “Autistic” generally conveys strong identification with Autistic culture.
67 Romana Tate, “What’s the Difference between High-Functioning and Low-Functioning Autism?” Autism Women’s Network, October 19, 2014, http://autismwomensnetwork.org/whats-the-difference-between-high-functioning-and-low-functioning-autism/.
68 Robert Rummel-Hudson, comment on Susan Senator, “The Parents vs. the Autistics,” Susan Senator, January 2, 2012, http://susansenator.com/blog/2012/01/the-parents-vs-the-autistics/.
69 Lydia X. Z. Brown, “5 Ableist Reasons Autistic Bloggers Lag Behind,” Autistic Hoya, March 24, 2015, http://www.autistichoya.com/2015/03/5-ableist-reasons-autistic-bloggers-lag.html.
70 Amythest Schaber, “Ask an Autistic #8—What About Functioning Labels?” YouTube, April 3, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLJXqlOPZ5U.
71 See Amy S. F. Lutz, “Is the Neurodiversity Movement Misrepresenting Autism?” Slate, June 16, 2013, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/01/autism_neurodiversity_does_facilitated_communication_work_and_who_speaks.html.
72 Brenda Rothman, “The Caffeinated Aspie: Autistic People Are … ,” Autistic People Are … , March 2, 2013, http://autisticpeopleare.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-caffeinated-aspie-autistic-people.html; Autistic Wiki, “You Are Not Your Child’s Voice,” Autistic Wiki, March 24, 2015, http://autisticwiki.blogspot.com/2015/03/you-are-not-your-childs-voice.html.
73 Cheryl Jorgensen, “The Least Dangerous Assumption,” Disability Solutions 6, no. 3 (2005): 1; 4; 6.
74 Ibid., 3.
75 juststimming, comment on Zoe, “The R-Word and Perspective-Taking: Whose Perspective Are We Taking?” Illusions of Competence, August 16, 2011 at 9:15p.m., http://illusionofcompetence.blogspot.com/2011/08/r-word-and-perspective-taking-whose.html.
76 Kathie Snow, “Presume Competence: Challenging Conventional Wisdom About People with Disabilities,” Disability Is Natural! 2007, https://www.disabilityisnatural.com/presume-comp-1.html.
77 Sequenzia, “More Problems with Functioning Labels,” original emphasis.
78 Ibid.
79 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Media Services, “Douglas Biklen: ‘Begin by Presuming Competence,’” unesco.org, February 24, 2012, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/douglas_biklen_begin_by_presuming_competence/.
80 Arianne Zurcher, “Autism Speaks and Signal Boosting,” Emma’s Hope Book, December 6, 2013, http://emmashopebook.com/2013/12/06/autism-speaks-and-signal-boosting/.
81 Sequenzia, “More Problems with Functioning Labels.”
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
84 Licia Carlson, “Cognitive Ableism and Disability Studies: Feminist Reflections on the History of Mental Retardation,” Hypatia 16, no. 4 (2001): 124.
85 Julia Bascom, “Dangerous Assumptions,” Just Stimming … , December 21, 2014, https://juststimming.wordpress.com/2014/12/21/dangerous-assumptions/,originalemphasis.
86 Sue M. Rubin, “About Me,” sue-rubin.org, 2014, http://sue-rubin.org/about-me/.
87 Bascom, “Dangerous Assumptions,” original emphases.
88 Amy Sequenzia, “Intelligence Is an Ableist Concept,” Ollibean (n.d.), https://ollibean.com/intelligence-is-an-ableist-concept/.
89 Ibid.
90 Michał Krzyżanowski and Bernhard Forchtner, “Theories and Concepts in Critical Discourse Studies: Facing Challenges, Moving Beyond Foundations,” Discourse & Society 27, no. 3 (2016): 253–61.