Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: towards a systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups 1

I would like to thank Ruth Wodak for her helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

Abstract

CDA studies on out-groups, i.e. immigrants, within Wodak's Discourse-Historical and van Dijk's Socio-cognitive approaches along other approaches, have suggested methods and analytical categories through which discursive representations of social groups are investigated. Consequently, several listings of relevant analytical categories have been proposed and applied to many subsequent studies. However, the variety of the proposed methods in representation of social groups by various scholars and the often unclear accounts for the links among various levels of discourse analysis seem to have created a multitude of discursive strategies that can be overwhelming if not confusing. This paper is an attempt to make explicit various levels of discourse analysis on representation of social groups from detailed textual analysis to discourse topics and tries to show how micro-level analytical categories are related to macro-structure within various levels of contexts. Specifically, a three-level analytical framework is suggested for textual analysis of the representation of social groups which divides the text analysis into three domains of social actors, social actions and argumentation. It is suggested that the analysis should look at what is (not) in the text in terms of the three domains mentioned, and investigate how these domains are linguistically realized through a set of linguistic processes/mechanisms.

Keywords:

• critical discourse analysis
• representation of social groups
• CDA methodology
• critical textual analysis
• self and other representation
• macro and micro links

Notes

I would like to thank Ruth Wodak for her helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

By ‘text’ I mean any piece of linguistic product, e.g. a conversation, a policy document, or a news article. This paper is considering ‘texts’ as products of verbal language; however, a ‘text’ in a broad sense can be considered any communicative piece and hence it can be verbal, visual or multimodal.

Labelling CDA as a ‘discipline’, an ‘approach’, or a ‘school’ may not be very productive as CDA needs to refrain from turning into a ‘full fledged’ academic discipline with same rituals and institutional practices which are restrictive and counter-productive to CDA's announced aims and ideals (see Billig, 2003, 2006).

For CDA studies on various social groups and contexts see studies on anti-Semitism and anti-‘foreigners’ discourses in an Austrian context: Wodak (1990, 1994, 1997), Wodak and Matouschek (1993), Reisigl and Wodak (2001), Van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999), and Mitten (1992). On the representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants (RASIM) in British context see van Dijk (1991), Hartmann and Husband (1974), Lynn and Lea (2003) and Jones (2000). For general qualities of discourses on RASIM in Britain see KhosraviNik (2008, 2009, 2010). For studies on discriminatory discourses in the Netherlands see van Dijk (1987). On the context of Spain and Latin America see van Dijk (2005). On the role of language in asylum application procedures in Belgium see Blommaert (2001). On French parliamentary discourses on immigration and nationality see Van der Valk (2000). For an investigation of extreme negative representation of the ‘Romani’ community in Romania see Tileaga (2005). On the representation of the aboriginal ‘Sami’ community in Finland see Pietikainen (2003). For research on Hong Kong context and representation of immigrant Chinese see Flowerdew et al. (2002), on racism in the United States see Santa Ana (1999). On representation of native New Zealanders see Wetherell et al. (1992). For research on discursive dimensions of the representation of immigrants in Australia, see Malcolm and Sharifian (2002), Clyne (2005) and Teo (2000).

It is worth mentioning that this attempt to clarify the ‘structure’ should not be taken as restricting CDA to a framework or reducing it to a certain number of analytical categories.

‘Discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996–2006’, ESRC funded project carried out in 2006–2007 at the Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University. For more information please see http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/activities/285/. For papers related to that project see KhosraviNik (2008, 2009, 2010), for the Corpus Linguistics papers see Gabrielatos and Baker (2008), and Gabrielatos (2007) and for a methodological synergy see Baker et al. (2008).

For the complete list of his proposed network categorization, see van Leeuwen (1996, p. 66).

Please see footnote 2.

For studies on this aspect see (Morency, Oswald, & Saussure, 2008) and Oswald (2007).

The term ‘micro’ is being used very loosely here in comparison to macro-structure. These textual processes cover a range of linguistic categories ranging from lexical choices to argumentative strategies; thus we can also talk about micro/macro within the list of analytical categories.

Perspectivization in the sense used in this paper is a global aspect of moving from ideology to discourse and includes all the discursive processes (micro, e.g. sentence level, or macro, e.g. argumentation) which bring in or point to a social ideology in the linguistic realization. As such perspectivization impinges on all levels of discursive representation and hence is important for all levels of analysis.

This does not mean that if a linguistic choice or an argument fits conventionally within the normative setting of a society, it automatically becomes ‘right’. CDA needs to take its critical analysis to grander structures and examine the historical processes of the development of a potential prejudice ideology.

It is important to note that the analysis of argumentation may go well beyond a single text and may include inter-textual/interdiscursive levels.