As noted above, the method of analysis on which this study is based draws on Halliday’s model of language as a social semiotic, or a social system of meaning- making. Halliday suggests that all language use takes place within a particular ‘context of situation’. The context of situation can be described in terms of the field of the text (what the text is about), the tenor of the text (what relationships exist between the participants in a text) and the mode of the text (what role the language is playing in the text and how the text is organised) (Halliday 1978, 33; Halliday and Hasan 1985, 12). Language, in this view, has three functions: it simultaneously expresses meanings about the experiential and interpersonal dimensions of social life, as well as having a textual function. Thus, the field of the text is expressed through the experiential function, the tenor of the text through the interpersonal function and the mode through the textual function (see Halliday 1978 64 and 143-4; Halliday and Hasan 1985, 24-6; see also Halliday 1994; Eggins 1994). At the level of grammar, the field of the text is realised in the system of transitivity: the patterns of processes (verbs), participants (actors and patients) and circumstances in a text, as well as the vocabulary used. The tenor of the text is realised in the systems of mood, modality and person and the mode of the text is realised in the patterns of cohesion and information structuring (Halliday 1978, 64 and 143-5; Halliday and Hassan 1985, 24-6).
Halliday’s model has been the basis for a range of critical studies of discourse, where it has proved a fruitful means of understanding the workings of language and power (see for example Fowler, Hodge, Kress and Trew 1979; Hodge and Kress 1988; Fairclough 1989; 1992).20 However, in addition to Hallidayan-based approaches, critical discourse analysts have also employed concepts from a range of other fields (Chilton and Schaffner 1997, 211; Gastil 1992, 470).21 Of particular importance have been concepts drawn from pragmatics, in particular the speech act theory of Austin (1962) and Searle
20
Chilton and Schaffner 1997 note that Halliday’s model ‘made it possible to link linguistic form to social and hence also to political activity’ (Chilton and Schaffner 1997, 211).
21
For sample checklists of categories for analysis see Fowler and Kress 1979; Fowler 1985; Fowler 1991, chapter 5; Fairclough 1989, chapters 5 and 6; Fairclough 1992, chapter 8; Gastil 1992; van Dijk 1993b; van Dijk 1995; Chilton and Schaffner 1997; De Cillia, Reisigl and Wodak 1999.
(1969) (see Fowler 1985, 73; Fowler 1991, 87-90; Gastil 1992, 479-80) and Grice’s (1975) conversational implicature (see Fowler 1985, 73-4; Gastil 1992, 480-2), as well as conversation analysis (see Fowler 1985, 74; Fairclough 1992, 16-20; Gastil 1992, 490-2), metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Gastil 1992, 488-9) and syntax (see Fowler 1985, 70-72; Fowler, Hodge, Kress and Trew 1979; Wilson 2001, 402-4; Gastil 1992, 482-4; Fowler 1991, 76-80). Chilton (1985) and van Dijk (1989; 1993b; 1995) have also employed more cognitive-based approaches.
Some writers, most notably Henry Widdowson, have criticised this ‘eclectic’ method as ‘a kind of ad hoc bricolage which takes from theory whatever concept comes usefully to hand’ (Widdowson 1998, 137). Even firm advocates of critical discourse analysis have identified the problematic nature of its current methodological fragmentation (Toolan 1997, 99), and emphasised the need to standardise the method, preferably using a Hallidayan model (Fowler 1987, 492; see also Fowler 1991, 68-9). As Widdowson points out, one of the central problems with this methodological fragmentation is that some of these concepts may be based on different (and even contradictory) theories of language (Widdowson 1998, 138). There is also the problem of what conclusions can be drawn about the meaning and effect of texts from an analysis of textual features given that meaning-making involves both text production (of which the features of a text are a product) and text interpretation (see Widdowson 1998, 142-3 and 146-7; Widdowson 1995a, 168-9; Widdowson 1996, 62-9; for a refutation of this view see Fairclough 1996, 50-1; see also Fowler 1991, 68-9).
Widdowson’s criticisms are valid ones. In particular, they highlight the need for critical discourse analysts to be clear about the processes they are analysing and their own position as an ‘analyst’ and to think carefully about the theories and methodologies they apply in the analysis of texts. Critical discourse analysts need to acknowledge the limitations which the two-part process of meaning-making places on their analyses (see Fairclough 1996, 50-1). Without a detailed analysis of audience responses to particular texts or of writers’ and speakers’ intentions, most critical discourse analysis currently undertaken is concerned almost exclusively with an analysis of the products of processes of text production (and the discourses which inform them) and not with text interpretation (although such analysis inevitably involves some conjectures about its possible effects on other readers). Critical discourse analysts should also avoid claiming any privilege for their interpretation of the texts, except to the extent that it is
consistent with the broader social, cultural and political context in which the text was produced.
Critical discourse analysts also need to consider questions of methodology. This does not necessarily mean that critical discourse analysis must employ a standard theory and methodology. The relative diversity of social theories employed and the variety of concepts used to analyse the texts has led to a wide variety of approaches being encompassed under the label of critical discourse analysis. Yet the problem appears to lie in attributing a single label to a very diverse practice of text and discourse analysis and expecting uniformity (see also Fowler 1991, 68-9). In a practical sense, the variety of concepts which critical discourse analysts have applied are not based on such divergent theories of language that they are mutually incompatible. The use of a variety of concepts allows critical discourse analysts to describe different aspects of a text. That being said however, Halliday’s model does provide both a unified theory and method of textual analysis. The broad scope of the model allows for the analysis of a wide range of textual features - including the analysis of keywords, irony and satire, style and intertextuality undertaken in the present study - as part of the analysis of experiential, interpersonal and textual meanings.
Keywords
The term keyword as it is used in this thesis refers to a word or phrase which articulates a significant area of meaning in a text. Keywords and the lexical sets (see below) which they enter into are central to Halliday’s model and are one of the key means by which experiential meaning is conveyed. Fowler notes, for example, that, ‘the vocabulary of a language, or of a variety of a language, amounts to a map of the objects, concepts, processes and relationships about which the culture needs to communicate’ (1991, 80). The concept of keywords is by no means limited to linguistic theory. Raymond Williams’ definition of keywords as ‘significant, binding words in certain activities and their interpretation’ has been widely used as a means of analysing the ideas, interests and values of a society or culture (Williams 1976, 15-16; see for example van Langenberg 1986). The analysis of keywords and their meaning is also a common element in most critical discourse analyses.22
22
In CDA, key words are also analysed under the headings of vocabulary (Gastil 1992, 474-5), lexical processes (Fowler 1985, 69), lexical structure (Fowler 1991, 80-5) and word meaning (Fairclough 1992,
Keywords and their meanings are often major sites of struggle and contestation. Since, as noted above, meanings are not ‘given’ but rather, constructed in and through discourse, words may be given different meanings and their meanings interpreted in different ways (Fairclough 1992, 185; see also Williams 1976, 11). This is often referred to as the ‘meaning potential’ of a word. The meaning potential of a word includes its dictionary or denotative meanings and its connotative meanings, that is, the meanings which are given to it in a particular social, cultural or political context (Fairclough 1992, 187). The meaning potential of a word is often a focus of conflict (Fairclough 1992, 236; see also 185-90). Wilson notes, for example, that conflict over the interpretation of a word may be based on differences over ‘what one believes a word means, and what effect, beyond a word’s core or semantic meaning, the use of the word has’ (Wilson 2001, 408; see also Fairclough 1992, 185-90). These differences, he suggests, ‘may become politically implicated in directing thinking about particular issues, and with real and devastating effects’ (Wilson 2001, 408; see also Fairclough 1995, chapter 5).
In addition to conflict over keywords, there is also conflict over how meanings are ‘worded’ (Fairclough 1992, 236-7; see also 190-4; see also Halliday 1978, 164-6). Thus, there may be a variety of words or phrases used to denote a particular concept. These different wordings are derived from different ways of thinking and speaking about the world and reveal the speaker or writer’s position or perspective. A significant aspect of the process of giving words to meanings is the concept of rewording or, to use Halliday’s term, relexicalisation (Halliday 1978, 165; Fairclough 1992, 194). Relexicalisation refers to the process of creating new vocabulary items for existing concepts (Halliday 1978, 165) or for new concepts (Fowler 1991, 84). Discussing the ‘antilanguages’ developed by alternative or oppositional cultures, Halliday suggests that relexicalisation most commonly occurs in areas of meaning that are ‘central to the activities of the subculture and that set it off most sharply from the established society’ (1978, 165). Overwording or overlexicalisation of these areas of meaning is also a common practice (Halliday 1978, 165-6; Fairclough 1992, 193; see also Gastil 1992, 474-5). Overlexicalisation, or the use of a large number of synonymous terms to describe a particular area of meaning, indicates a preoccupation with a particular topic
236; see also 185-90). See also Gastil on imprecise words, euphemisms and loaded words, and on dominant and marginalised or oppositional political lexica (1992, 476-7 and 479).
(Fowler and Kress 1979; Fairclough 1992, 193). These words are often differentiated from each other by the different attitudes which they express (Halliday 1978, 166).
Sets of words, or to use Halliday’s term, lexical sets, are also important in distinguishing socially and institutionally significant areas of meaning (Fowler 1991, 82 and 84). As Wilson notes:
[I]t may not merely be the single occurrence of a term that is important but sets of collocational relationships, which in their turn produce and draw upon ideological schemas in confirming or reconfirming particular views of the world (Wilson 2001, 406).
Lexical sets also have an important categorising function: they organise experience and enable detailed distinctions to be made between concepts (Fowler 1991, 84; see also Wilson 2001, 409).