Newspaper Discourse

Newspaper Discourse

Foucault (1974) discusses Discourse in terms of language link with culture, making its direct reference with the Newspapers as it is related to the social function of language. Discourse claims that the language used about a particular practice constructs the object of which it speaks.

In contrast to two major models, the Van Dijk’s social cognitive model and Wodak’s discourse historic model, Fairclough (1995) resorts to discourse analysis oriented towards sociolinguistics and to social theories regarding discourse in order to create a theoretical framework of CDA with three dimensions. Through these theories he studied the existing relationship between discourse and larger structures of society. In his study, the very first dimension is discourse as a text. Its goal is the study of different features in a text regarding discourses and it also inquires text sign, the reasons for this design, and other different possibilities. Through examining the choices of the linguistic forms of texts, it aims at revealing the function of such textual features and its role in production or resistance of the systems of ideology and power hierarchy. The second dimension of his study is discourse as material practice. It examines the process of its production, circulation and consumption.

For Fairclough (1992), the three dimensions of discourses respectively correspond to three analytical traditions. They are linguistics tradition with close textual and linguistic analysis; the macro sociological tradition with an emphasis on social structures; and the interpretive or micro sociological tradition that stresses individual action and agency.

CDA methods state that the discourse in newspaper forms a circular process. In it, social roles as well as different practices interfere with the text, as they shape its context and production manner. In a similar way, newspaper texts also have an influence in society by shaping the readers’ points of view (Richardson, 2007). Textual analysis is the first level of analysis in the Newspaper discourse, as it conveys the imprint of society i.e. connoted and denoted meanings. Occasionally reports of events are not entirely true or objective; they employ rhetorical strategies that are called rhetorical tropes. Corbett (1990) defined a trope as something that deviates from the original, ordinary meaning of a word (p. 426).

Newspaper discourse is characterized by following important features (see Bell, 1991, p.85; Fairclough, 1995a, p.36 and Biber, 1993, p.246): First, it has multiple creator or designers and a complex process of news writing news should be conceived as a product that derives from organizational structures and professional practices (Bell, 1991, p. 38). Accordingly, it is impossible to conceive any story alone, unique, a first-hand product from its source journalist, if we have not witnessed the journalist at work. A Newspaper by line does not guarantee the authorship (Bell, 1991, p.42). Newspaper Discourse lacks direct feedback, confusion, fragmentation, interaction, presence of audience, all of them characteristics of mass communication.

Stereotyping as regards how objective can communication via mass media be, it should be noted that readers and speakers have a stereotyped image in mind. It means reader has to identify newspaper as an institution i.e. the journalist is seen by them as merely an ‘institutional voice’ (Lindegren-Lerman, 1983, cited in Van Dijk, 1988a, p.75). Similarly stereotyped readers exist both in the minds of the communicators as well as in the text, i.e. they are partly constructed or construed through the text. It does not actually address the individual readers but the reader is addressed as a social group.

Embedding: News is always an embedded talk. Inside the News text produced by the author, other speech events or actions are rooted. Each has its own sender, receiver, and setting of time and place (Bell, 1991). News style is also controlled by some other general factors after (Van Dijk, 1988a, p.74):

  • News is a written type of discourse which qualifies the general limits imposed by written or printed texts.
  • It is confined by the possible topics of news discourse i.e. politics, either at a national or at an international level, military conflicts, social concerns, violence, disasters, sports, artistic creations, science and issues of human interest in general.
  • It is usually restricted to a formal communication style. It is every day, common, spoken language is deemed inappropriate, and only admitted within quotations ‘at least in the broadsheets.’
  • It is affected by time and space constraints. Its deadlines require fast writing and editing. Syntax and lexicalization must be of routine/ daily life to some degree. The fixed patterns of sentences are taught by journalism textbooks. Its room requires a condensed writing style to avoid repetitions. Sentences are crowded with much information in relative clauses; and nominalizations ‘which capture whole propositions’ are also significant.
  • It is influenced by the specifics of printing and layouts. Last but not the least, mass media outputs appear periodically and are accessible to a large audience (Jucker, 1995).


Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA)

Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA)

The goal of feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) research, therefore, is to appear the complicated, simple, and sometimes not so simple, methods in which regularly obtained-for-allocated gendered presumptions and hegemonic energy interaction are discursive created, continual, mentioned, and pushed in different situations and cultural contexts.
Such a new is not merely an educational de-construction of text messages and discuss for its own benefit, but comes from a recognition that the concerns addressed (in perspective of affecting public change) have content and phenomenological repercussions for categories of men and women in particular cultural contexts. A feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) viewpoint is obviously interdisciplinary in characteristics. On the one side, it plays a role in (critical) terminology and discussion research a viewpoint advised by feminist research, and however, it indicates the effectiveness of terminology and discussion research for the research of feminist concerns in sex, gender and women research.

Why Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA)?

For over a several decades, in several divisions of linguistic and discussion research, there has been a serious shift towards clearly such as the phrase ‘feminist’ in various sub-fields by feminist experts managing in these places, such as ‘feminist stylistics’ (Mills 1995), ‘feminist pragmatics’ (Christie 2000), and ‘feminist discussion analysis’ (e.g., Kitzinger 2000). In all these places, the popular research has been recognized by an apparently impartial and purpose questions, which feminist experts managing within have pushed. Composing more usually about feminism and language concept in 1992, Cameron described that one of her primary aims was to ‘question the whole scholarly purpose tendency of linguistics and to prove how presumptions and techniques of linguistics are suggested as a reason in patriarchal philosophy and oppression’ (1992: 16). The need to declare and find a feminist viewpoint in linguistic and discussion research is of course part of what feminists in academie have for many decades belittled and desired to change beyond male-torrent restraints in the humanities, public sciences, and sciences (Gordon 1986; Harding 1986; Spender 1981).

But remain, one might quite reasonably ask, ‘But why a feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA)?’ – for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), as a research system, is known for its brazenly governmental place and is worried with research of various kinds of public inequality and disfavor. Furthermore, the tab Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) bounds to feminist techniques in female’s research, which offered an inspiration to the new area in the Nineteen-eighties, has also sometimes been freely recognized (Van Dijk 1991). Needlessly to say, therefore, feminist speakers have managed quite gladly under the prescript of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) without requiring to banner a feminist viewpoint clearly.

Then a need for a particular feminist brand now, Why? First, the most straightforward reason is that many research in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) with a sex or gender concentrate embrace a crucial feminist view of sex or gender interaction – they are inspired by the need to change substantively the existing circumstances of these interaction. This said, it is value emphasizing that not all studies that cope with sex or gender in discussion are actually feminist in this critical feel.

More other, concerns indicated by some feminist experts about Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) invite pause for believed. Cameron wrote: ‘[CDA] is one of those broadly modern tasks whose creators and major results are nevertheless all immediately white-colored men (1998: 969–70), and Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995) particularly review on these male’s failing to prefer feminists by stating their work.’ Free from doubt, most feminist research in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is not performed by ‘straight white-colored men’, but by a variety of feminist females in a variety of regional places, not all of whom are white-colored and heterosexual. With respect to Wilkinson and Kitzinger’s statement, one might see that more latest theorizing in some places of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) does recognize and consist of, among other crucial public systematic research, feminist performs (e.g., Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). With regards to a feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA), however, we might imagine more than details of feminist experts, essential as that is. It is necessary within Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to find a clearly ‘feminist policies of articulation’ (to lend a expression from Wetherell, 1995, p. 141), by which I mean the need to be advised by feminist concepts and ideas in theorizing and examining the apparently innocent yet oppressive characteristics of sex or gender as an omni-relevant classification in many public techniques. Eckert, such as, has mentioned how sex or gender functions in a more persistent and complicated way than other techniques of oppression:

Whereas the energy interaction between men and women are just like those between taken over and subordinated sessions and cultural categories, the day-to-day context in which these energy interaction are performed out is quite different. It is not a social standard for each managing classification person to be joined up for life with participant of the middle-class or for every dark-colored person to be so paired up for lifestyle with a white-colored person. However, our conventional sex or gender ideology dictates just this type of connection between men and women (1989: 253-54).

Lastly, an end result of the insufficient self-naming has intended that increasing amounts of feminist crucial discussion experts spread across the planet have not completely structured them/ourselves to come together in a typical community. The concerns of collectivity and of getting team exposure are now essential for another purpose. Although Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in its beginning decades had a minor place within the more founded popular places in linguistics, its reputation over the decades has led to a switch towards the center and, as some have suggested, has itself become an orthodoxy (Billig 2000). Composing in the beginning 90’s, van Dijk, one of the primary experts in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), remarked:

For Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to become a popular strategy in the humanities and public sciences, we should expect a multitude of guides, thousands of content and meeting documents, and unique symposia or meeting sections on yearly bases’ (1991: 1).

After a several decades later, all these have been obtained and more: this publication is testimony to that, along with the increasing number of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) guides, content, and worldwide conventions, as well as CDA’s (Critical Discourse Analysis
) addition as a trained topic on many linguistics applications globally. Feminist exposure and speech in ‘mainstream’ Critical Discourse Analysis CDA scholarships then, remarkably, also has a appropriate political work.

Why a feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA)?

The ‘discursive turn’ in much public medical and humanities research, as we know, has given reputation to concerns of terminology and discussion. poststructuralism provides a seriously useful perspective of discussion as a site of battle, where causes of public (re)production and contestation are performed out. Within feminist scholarships, the discursive convert is shown in guides outside linguistics (e.g., Weedon, 1997; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 1995) as well as within linguistics under the rubric of ‘gender and language’ research (e.g., Baxter, 2003; Area & Bucholtz, 1995; Wodak, 1997). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA), with its concentrate on public rights and change of sex, is a appropriate participation to the increasing body of feminist discussion literary performs, particularly in sex and terminology where feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) has filled a amazingly minor place.

Wilkinson and Kitzinger (1995, p. 5) have mentioned that there is really ‘no necessary coincidence between the passions of feminists and discussion analysts’, even though the likelihood for successful involvement prevails. With regards to feminism and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in particular, however, there is actually much overlap in circumstances of public emancipatory goals. Indeed, as opposed to feminist techniques that use illustrative discussion analytic techniques, feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) has the benefits of managing, at the beginning, within a politically spent, informative system of discussion research. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA provides a regarded theorization of the connection between public techniques and discussion components (see, e.g., Wodak & She 2001, for various kinds of theorization), and a variety of resources and techniques for particular studies of contextualized uses of terminology in text messages and discuss. Further, under the offset umbrella of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) research, particular studies of various kinds of wide spread inequality have been designed (refer, e.g., to content in Discourse and Society). Feminist discussion college students can understand much about the interconnections between and the particularities of discursive techniques used in various kinds of public inequality and oppression that can nourish back into crucial feminist research and techniques for telecommuting saves gas. The wedding of feminism with Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), in sum, can generate a wealthy and highly effective governmental check for activity.

Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) as a governmental viewpoint on sex, worried with demystifying the interrelationships of sex, energy, and philosophy in discussion, is to the research of text messages and discuss similarly, which provides a remedial to techniques that give preference to one language use over another (see Lazar, 2005a). Frameworks for research of discussion in Critical Discourse Analysis CDA also, much, recognize a multimodal aspect (e.g., Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Scollon, 2001) that is usually losing in other techniques in linguistics. Significantly in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) research, terminology is seriously evaluated together with other semiotic techniques like creation, templates, actions, and appears to be, which creates for an enhancing and informative research. Clearly, a multimodal perspective of discussion has great value for a natural feminist check of discursive designs of sex (Lazar, 1999, 2000).

Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis
English: One of the symbols of German Women’s movement (from the 1970s) Deutsch: Ein Logo der deutschen Frauenbewegung (aus den 70er Jahren) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis

Van Dijk (1998a) states that Critical Discourse Analysis, (CDA), is a area that is involved with learning and assessing published and verbal text messages to expose the discursive resources of capability, popularity, inequality and prejudice.  It investigates how these discursive resources are managed and duplicated within particular public, governmental and traditional situations.  In a similar line of thinking, Fairclough (1993) describes CDA as

discourse analysis which is designed to consistently discover often solid connections of causality and dedication between (a) discursive methods, events and text messages, and (b) broader public and social components, interaction and processes; to look at how such methods, activities and text messages occur out of and are ideologically formed by interaction of capability and battles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these connections between discourse and community is itself a aspect obtaining capability and hegemony. (p. 135)

To put it simply, CDA is designed at making clear the connections between discourse methods, public methods, and public components, connections that might be solid to the layperson.

Fairclough & Chuliaraki (1999) assume that CDA has a appropriate participation to create and declare that, “the previous 20 years or so have been an interval of powerful financial public modification on an international scale” (p. 30). Although these changes are due to particular activities by individuals the changes have been recognized as “part of nature” (p. 4), that is, the developments have been recognized as organic and not due to individuals causal activities. The latest financial and public changes, according to Fairclough & Chuliaraki (1999), “are to a important level . . . changes in the terminology, and discourses” (p. 4), thus, CDA can help by theorizing changes and developing an attention “of what is, how it has come to be, and what it might become, on the reasons for which individuals may be able to create and rebuilding their lives” (p. 4). With such a purpose in thoughts, Chuliaraki and Fairclough (1999) declare that

Critical Discourse Analysis, of relationships places out to demonstrate that the semiotic and terminology functions of the relationships are constantly linked with what is going on culturally, and what is going on culturally is indeed going on partially or definitely semiotically or linguistically. Put in a different way, CDA constantly maps relationships of modification between the representational and non-symbolic, between discussion and the non-discursive. (p. 113)

The first systematic concentrate of Fairclough’s three-part design is written text. Research of text involves language analysis with regards to language, sentence structure, semantics, the sound system, and cohesion-organization above the phrase stage (Fairclough, 1995b: 57).
With in language investigation sementically there are most impotand things lexical investigation of text and sementic investigation as well (Fairclough, 1995b: 57-58). Fairclough also argues that some text having multidimensional meaning. Some texts having also needs investigation at the level of phonetics, that changed by him again.

Language analysis is involved with presences as well as absences in text messages that could consist of “representations, groups of personal, constructions of personal identification or personal relations” (Fairclough, 1995: 58).

Nederlands: CDA-logo
Nederlands: CDA-logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language, Society And Culture

Factors Involved in the investigation of Social Dialect

Social Class And Education:
Leaving Educational system at early age
e.g. ( Them boys throwed somethin)
Spending long time in educational system
e.g. (Talks like a book)

Labov’s Theory:
Study of Labov (1972), looking sales people pronunciation differences in New York city at Saks, Macy’s and Klein’s departmental stores.
Use of more  /r/ Sound by higher and socio-economic status. (higher)
Fewer /r/ sounds produced by lower socio-economic status. (lowah)

Dialect Survey in a particular region shows that grandparents may use those terms which grand children do not.
e.g icebox, wireless (doesn’t use like to introduce reported speech)
e.g we’re getting ready, and he’s like

Female speaker tend to use Prestigious form than male
e.g I done it—I did
e.g Women discuss personal feelings, experience, seeking connections while Male Non-personal topics and give advice on solutions, more competitive and concerned with power via language

Ethnic background:
An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology

Within any society differences in speech may come about because of Ethnic background
e.g African Americans known as BEV, Use frequent absence of copula, Double negative constructions, illogical structure
(He don’t know nothing, I ain’t afraid of no ghosts)

In linguistics, an idiolect is a variety of a language unique to an individual. It is manifested by patterns of vocabulary or idiom selection (the individual’s lexicon), grammar, or pronunciations that are unique to the individual.
The term idiolect is used for the personal dialect of each individual speaker of a language.

Use in specific situations
Religious Register (Ye Shall be blessed by him)
Legal Register (The Plaintiff is ready to take the witness stand)

Technical Vocabulary associated with the special activity or group
“Don’t bother me know I’m juggling eggs”
A major skill like pronunciation and grammar, to different varieties of language co-exist in a speech community (Arabic Language)

Language and Culture:
Linguistic variations are some times discussed as terms of cultural differences
Culture variation means “socially acquired knowledge” or cultural transmission by which languages are acquired

Worlds culture study become clear that different groups not only have different languages, they have different world’s views reflected in their languages
In very simple term, the Aztecs not only didn’t have a figure in their culture like “ Santa Claus”, they did not have a word for this figure either

Linguistic Determinism:
If two languages appear to have very different ways of describing the way of world is called linguistic determinism
Language determines thoughts (You can only think in the categories which your language allows you to think in)
Eskimos in English

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf produced arguments in 1930s that language of American Indians is different from other Europeans languages
Hopi Indians Tribes perceived differently from other English speaking tribes, distinction b/w animate and inanimate (Cloud, Stone)
Confusion b/w (animate, feminine, living, female—door, stone)

Language Universals:
All languages of the world have certain common properties, those common properties called linguistics universals and can be described with definitive feature of languages
Arbitrary symbol systems, noun like and verb components, set of sound patterns, Grammar, prepositions

Sociolinguistics is the study of the effect of any and all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on the way language is used, and the effects of language use on society.

Sociology of Language:
Sociology of language focuses on the language’s effect on the society. It is closely related to the field of sociolinguistics, which focuses on the effect of the society on the language.
A sociology of language would seek to understand the way that social dynamics are affected by individual and group language use

Social Dialects:
Social Dialects are varieties of language used by groups defined according to class, education, age, sex, and a number of other social parameters.

Concept of Prestige:
In sociolinguistics, prestige describes the level of respect accorded to a language or dialect as compared to that of other languages or dialects in a speech community. The concept of prestige in sociolinguistics is closely related to that of prestige or class within a society. Generally, there is positive prestige associated with the language or dialect of the upper classes, and negative prestige with the language or dialect of the lower classes.

Language, Society and Culture
By: Muhammad Afzal & Zammad Aslam

Enhanced by Zemanta