In this study, discourse means language, both written and spoken, viewed as social practice determined by social structures (Fairclough, 2015). For Fairclough (2015) there is no separation between language and society as ‘linguistic phenomena are social phenomena of a special sort, and social phenomena are (in part) linguistic phenomena’ (p. 56). The work of Foucault (1972) helps to deepen this definition by specifically considering discourse in terms of both its historical context and power relations as a part of the social structure. For Foucault and Fairclough, it is not just language itself that needs examination, but rather the relationship between the discursive (language) and the extra-discursive (society) which requires analysis.
The question posed by language analysis of some discursive fact or other is always: according to what rules has a particular statement been made and consequently
according to what rules could other similar statements be made? The description of the events of discourse poses quite a different question: how is it that one particular
It is in this need to be able to untangle the discursive fact or text to be analyzed from the historical context and power relations of its production that is critical for the discourse analyst and is the work which will be undertaken throughout the remainder of this study.
5.2. CDA
In order to approach discourse analysis in a complete and structured fashion, Fairclough (1992) posits a three-dimensional analytical framework to investigate how language is used to create and sustain dominant ideology and power. Fairclough’s 2015 model, which is the model I use in this study, has been evolving since its introduction in 1983. The current model of discourse analysis involves the integration of three dimensions of discourse: text, interaction and context and three corresponding stages of CDA: description, interpretation and explanation (see Figure 5-1). I will consider each of the dimensions of discourse and stages of CDA briefly here.
Figure 5-1. Discourse as text, interaction and context (Fairclough, 2014)
In this study, a piece of text, for instance, the BC Ministry of Education’s EA policy brochure, is seen as a product, usually in a written form, created through the process of
production. While discourse can be either written or spoken texts (Halliday, 1994), for the purposes of this study, spoken texts, in this case interviews, are transcribed and thus text in this study means a written product. However, there are substantial differences between oral and written language. Horowitz and Samuels (1987), speak of the oral-written dichotomy (see Appendix 11) to describe the fundamental differences in reciprocity, orientation, time, purpose and structure between oral and written language. Therefore, although the policy documents and interview transcripts for this study are in the form of written products (texts), the initial analysis of them will differ. While policy documents by their nature as formal written texts lend themselves to a direct CDA, interview transcripts require
codification to bring a systematic order to their content, based on the interpretations of the analyst, in order to be effectively analyzed (Saldana, 2016). I will discuss how I coded the interview transcripts later in this chapter.
A text is the subject which is described, but a discourse is much more as it includes a broader process of social interaction of which a text is just one element (Fairclough, 2015). Text analysis involves the description of the text along with the interpretation of both the process of production which created the text and the process of interpretation for which the text acts as a resource (Fairclough, 2015). The process of production, the text and the process of interpretation take place within a social context made up six elements:
‘discourse (language); power; social relations; material practices; institutions (and rituals); beliefs (values, desires)’ (Harvey, 1996, p. 7). These elements create a social context which includes the social conditions of production and the social conditions of interpretation. The social context is comprised of three levels of social organization: the immediate situation in which the discourse happens, for example creation of the BC Ministry’s EA brochure; the social institution that “houses” the discourse, for the EA brochure this would be the BC Ministry of Education; and in the broader society, which would include many other social institutions including the public school system. For Fairclough (2015), the six social conditions of Harvey (1996) shape the knowledge, values and beliefs that people bring to the processes of production and interpretation which then impacts on how texts are produced and interpreted. It is this connection of language to both discourse and social practice that links texts, interactions and contexts in Figure 5-1.
Fairclough’s (2015) CDA model links texts, interactions and contexts to three distinct stages of cda:
-Description, which considers the formal properties of the text. This stage is normally concerned with “labeling” formal features of the text, although a certain consideration of the discourses under which the texts were produced will be necessary to understand those formal features.
-Interpretation, which considers interactions, that is the processes that produced the text and the processes in which the text is used as a resource for interpretation. This stage is focused on the internal thoughts of those involved in producing and
interpreting the text.
-Explanation, which considers the relationship between the interactions and the three levels of social context, including the impact of the social on production and interpretation and the social impacts coming out of these. This stage looks at the relationships between social events and social structures to see how they shape one another.
A study, such as this one, which uses CDA must consider texts at all three stages in order to seek out the power and ideologies hidden within them. Before I move to a more fulsome description of the specific methods of description, interpretation and explanation I will use to critically analyze BC’s EA policy, I need to bring forward two more important “tools” involved in CDA, orders of discourse and policy reproduction.
5.2.1. Orders of Discourse
Discourse is embedded in all social activities and as a result is itself a particular form of social practice (Fairclough, 2001). Regardless of the form of the discourse, verbal, non- verbal, written, spoken, it both shapes social practice and is shaped by social practice giving a structure to the social activity it is embedded within. Thus, discourse and practice become recognized conventions of social activity which in turn give social license to those who follow the conventions.
Orders of discourse is a term used by Foucault (1971) and Fairclough to describe how the grouping of conventions into networks determine ‘a particular social ordering of
relationships amongst different ways of making meaning’ (Fairclough, 2001, p. 232). Fairclough (1989) sees orders of discourse, and the conventions of language which form them, as masking ideological assumptions which serve to control the distribution of power in daily life and in turn socially constrain individuals. He explains that examining an order of discourse gives the CDA researcher a “tool” to uncover the social order within a social institution (Fairclough, 2001) and the interpretation and explanation stages of CDA are often concerned with uncovering how orders of discourse perpetuate the social order to the benefit of those in power within social institutions.
5.2.2. Reproduction of Policy
The specific focus of this study is a CDA of the existing BC EA policy, with a mind to uncover the assumptions, values and ideologies evident in the texts, interactions and
contexts associated with the development and interpretation of that policy. Reproduction of policy is a “tool” which focuses on the interpretation of a text as it moves from the
immediate level of production, to the attention of parties set just outside of the immediate production, and finally into the broad social setting. In this study, these three levels of interpretation roughly align to those at the BC Ministry of Education who produced the EA policy text and related written materials, those at the school district level who interpret these texts, and those with a connection to the school system, be they teachers, parents, students and so on, respectively.
Bourdieu (1999) says that because texts do not carry the full context of their production with them, they are necessarily reinterpreted when encountered by those in a different setting and that in this reinterpretation they necessarily use their local context to replace the context that is missing from the site of production. Bernstein’s (2000) work with policy reinterpretation, or as he terms it recontexualization, in the school system supports Bourdieu’s views on the importance of the recipient’s context to the
interpretation/reinterpretation of policy as it moves between the three levels evident in Fairclough’s (2015) model. In CDA, reinterpretation or recontextualization is called reproduction. In reproduction, a policy discourse, away from the mediating factors of its context of production is considered against the existing assumptions carried by each policy interpreter. Following this consideration, the policy is then reproduced as either a
transformed or reinforced discourse, by the interpreter. The process of production, process of interpretation and social conditions of interpretation, while being impacted upon by the original discourse, each create opportunities to shape that discourse and thus for new discourses to arise through the differences in power, relations, practices, rituals and beliefs that are held by those in the various levels as they “fill in” missing context. CDA uses reproduction as a “tool” to examine new interpretations which then help uncover the differences that lead to new interpretations of discourses and their impact on discourse and through discourse.