POSICIÓN DEL MANILLAR CB1300/A

There is a consensus regarding the extent to which the terms ‗text‘ and ‗discourse‘ can be considered interchangeable. As Mason (1994) notes, ―the terms ‗discourse‘ and ‗text‘ are frequently used to refer to any undifferentiated stretch of language performance, spoken or written, as for example in the expressions ‗text linguistics‘ or ‗discourse analysis‘‖ (p.25). This usage is standard and unproblematic. In this general definition, text and discourse are seen as the unit above the sentence. Discourse, however, has various narrower definitions such as ―systematically organised sets of statements which give expression to the meanings and values of an institution‖ (Kress, 1985, p.7, drawing on Foucault, 1969 cited in Mason, 1994, p.25), ―the communicative purpose underlying the integrated/whole text‖ (Widdowson, 2007, p.6), ―language in its communicative context of use‖ (Fowler, 1996, p.93), language use/parole/performance, ―participants‘ socio-cultural attitude in spoken or written modes‖ (Hatim and Mason, 1990, p.240), participants‘ ―worldviews, identities and ideologies‖ (Jorgensen and Philips, 2002 cited in Paltridge, 2012, p.1), and the ―intended meaning of the speaker expressed in her/his

text‖ (House, 2015, p.371). In all these definitions, discourse is closely related to participant subjectivity and ideology. As Mason (2009) further argues, discourse in the narrower sense (the critical discourse analysis view) is individual as well as institutional, and discourse analysis is supposed to account for such ideological dimensions of discourse.

This had led to the addition of ―layer upon layer of context‖ (Tymoczko, 2002, p.9 cited in Mason, 2014, p.37) on the study of discourse in linguistics and Translation Studies. In systemic functional linguistics (SFL), for instance, ideology is seen as the highest layer of the context of culture. In this respect, this relationship between language and social context is central to critical discourse studies, also known as critical discourse analysis. According to Van Dijk (2007, p.xxiii), the ―‗core‘ [of discourse analysis] remains the systematic and explicit analysis of the various structures and strategies of the various levels of text and talk.‖

4.4.2 Discourse Analysis (DA)

As previously noted, the term ‗discourse‘ has numerous meanings. The popular and the academic meanings of this term appear to overlap, as Mills (1997, p.1) observes:

The most obvious way to track down its range of meanings is through consulting a dictionary, but here the more general meanings of the term and its more theoretical usages seem to have become enmeshed, since the theoretical meanings always have an overlaying of the more general meanings.

As the notion of discourse seems to be vague, fluid and challenging, many definitions have been suggested ranging from ―the highest unit‖ above the text to ―the whole communicative event‖ as in Bloor and Bloor‘s (2007, pp.6-7) taxonomy modified by Tenorio (2011, pp.184-185):

Discourse-1 is the highest unit of linguistic description: phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences and texts are below;

Discourse-2 is a sample of language usage, generally written to be spoken, that is speech;

Discourse-3 refers to communication expected in one situation context, alongside one field and register, such as the discourse of law or medicine;

Discourse-4 is human interaction through any means, verbal and non-verbal; Discourse-5 is spoken interaction only;

Discourse-6 stands for the whole communicative event.

These variations can be traced back to three traditions, namely, the German and Central European, the Anglo-American, and the Foucauldian. These focus on text linguistics, written and oral interaction, and abstract knowledge as cognition and

emotion, respectively (Jager and Maier, 2009 cited in Tenorio, 2011, p.185). They can also be seen as belonging to a binary view of the term ‗discourse‘ similar to that found in Gee‘s (1999) distinction between discourse (text and talk) and Discourse (knowledge, opinion, and beliefs in text and talk, etc.), and Chilton‘s (2004) language L and language l, discourse D, and discourse d, in addition to the slightly different distinction between linguistic discourse (unit above the sentence and language usage) and discourses (social practices) (Tenorio, 2011, p.185). Mason (2014, p.38) made a similar distinction between discourse (D1), ―the construction of meaning among participants: writers, translators, readers‖, and discourse (D2), ―the historically and socially determined accounts—or narratives—that underlie our socio-textual practices and the broad cultural trends that shape these‖.

As the above taxonomy demonstrates, there is no consensus on what discourse means, and the choice of a working definition varies according to one‘s perspective (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002, p.1), meaning that the answers to the methodological question of how DA is to be conducted will vary accordingly. According to Jorgensen and Philips (2002), ―one quickly finds out that DA is not just one approach, but a series of interdisciplinary approaches that can be used to explore many different social domains in many different types of studies‖ (p.1). From their social constructionist discourse perspective (which draws on Laclau and Mouffe‘s discourse theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology), Jorgensen and Philips (2002) define discourse ―as a particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world‖ (p.1). Speakers‘ ways of talking subjectively reflect, create and change their world views, identities and social relations (ibid.).

These diverse definitions are influenced by linguistic, sociological, and philosophical outlooks (Soltani and Nemati, 2013, p.61) and, as Mills (1997, p.3) notes, it is the disciplinary context that can help to delineate the meaning of the term:

It is largely the constraints created by academic disciplinary boundaries which demarcate the various meanings of the term: when linguists talk of a ‗discourse of advertising‘, they are clearly referring to something quite different to a social psychologist who talks of a ‗discourse of racism‘.

Thus, linguists, drawing on linguistic theories, are interested in language use (Brown and Yule, 1983), text above the sentence (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975; Carter and

Simpson; 1989), and contextual occurrences of utterance (Mills, 1997, p.9). Social psychologists and critical linguists, however, are influenced by cultural as well as linguistic theories, and are concerned with combining power relations and the relevant authorised utterances with critical discourse analysis (Mills, 1997, pp.9-10).

4.4.3 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) define discourse from a CDA standpoint as ―a form of social practice‖, i.e. it is both ―socially constitutive‖ and ―socially shaped‖ (p.258). The relation between discourse and society is, therefore, ―dialectical‖, as they shape each other (Fairclough and Wodak 1997, p.285). The relationship between CDA and social practices is ―engaged and committed‖, since CDA stands with dominated social groups against the dominant oppressive ones, a relationship that distinguishes CDA from other DA approaches (ibid.).

Fairclough (2010) confirms that the social, the discoursal and the textual are all dimensions of discourse, i.e. CDA should be concerned with three related levels: ―social practice, discoursal practice (text production, distribution and consumption) and text‖ (p.74). As Kress (1990) observes, the textual dimension of discourse is one of the elements of DA in Critical Linguistics and CDA (p.88-89).

From an SFL-influenced CDA perspective, Fairclough et al. (2010) indicate that discourse is an analytical tool that enables us to describe meaning-making resources and, in this sense, it offers an alternative to ‗semiosis‘ and is distinguished from more common definitions such as the one suggested by Jorgenson and Philips (2002). Kress (1990, p.87) similarly stresses the significance of choice in CDA as in the case of SFL‘s semiotic system. He adds that choice represents stance, for instance, choices of different tenses of modality may reveal different degrees of power and action.

CDA is considered to be ‗critical‘ due to its special characteristics which distinguish it from other DA frameworks. It is primarily the social dimension that is critical in CDA, in the sense that it is ―put into crisis‖ (ibid., p.87). Even the psychological and the philosophical are seen as social in CDA (Kress, 1990, p.87).

For Fairclough (1995), the term ‗critical‘ is related to its use in Critical Linguistics (Fowler et al., 1979; Kress and Hodge, 1979) and it reveals CDA‘s ―commitment to a dialectical theory‖, i.e. its involvement in exposing connections between things (pp.38-39). In addition, CDA is politically oriented towards social change and social

intervention (Fairclough et al., 2010, p.358). The scope of this change covers both oppressive social and political institutions as well as discursive practices (Kress, 1990, p.85). To achieve this political goal, it aims to uncover the underlying ideology, power and hegemony in discourse (Kress, 1990; Fairclough et al., 2010). Despite its contention and its political agenda, CDA is still systematic and scientific (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p. 259; Fairclough et al., 2010, p. 358) and unlike other DA approaches, it is based on ―close linguistic descriptions‖ (Kress, 1990, p.86). Also, contrary to other DA methods, it starts from a topic rather than a methodology without neglecting the development of its theoretical framework (Fairclough et al., 2010, p.358). The topics that it chooses to focus on can relate to any social or political inequality or misconduct (ibid.). In addition, CDA is eclectic, since it incorporates other linguistic theories such as SFL. At the same time, it is interdisciplinary and other social sciences have embraced CDA, captivated by its critical characteristic and sharing the same aim (Kress, 1990, p.88; Fairclough et al., 2010). Importantly, as Fairclough (1997, p.45) emphasises, what distinguishes CDA from other descriptive discourse approaches is its ―global explanatory goals‖. In other words, CDA goes beyond local descriptive analysis, which limits itself, for instance, to ―speaker goals‖ and perhaps partly to discourse effects, instead targeting ―macro structures‖ such as ―social institutions and social formation‖ and the ―effects of discourse […] effects which go beyond the immediate situation‖ (Fairclough, 1997, p.45; original emphasis).