Talk:Critical discourse analysis: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:30, 16 July 2006

Latest revision as of 06:40, 13 February 2024

(37 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

==Merger==

{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}

On 23 January 2006, [[User:Lapaz|Lapaz]] proposed a merger between this article and [[Discourse]].

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|social=yes|continental=yes}}

{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance=High|applied=Yes|applied-importance=}}

{{WikiProject Writing |importance=Mid}}

}}

{{archives|search=yes}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

* '''Oppose''' - [[Critical discourse analysis]] should not be merged into [[Discourse]]. The concepts are too complex for this. Discourse, especially, can be used and implemented in such a number of ways that this article can become huge if related concepts were moved into it. Both articles are manageable sizes, with sufficient content to justify seperate articles. CDA should not even be merged into [[discourse analysis]]. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-14">14 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-05-07">7 May 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/American_University/Language_and_Human_Experience_(Spring_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Cw6857a|Cw6857a]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:LSislen|LSislen]].

**I have left the following on the person who proposed the merger's [[User talk:Lapaz|talk page]]:

::''You have proposed a merger between [[discourse]] and [[critical discourse analysis]]. Could you please show some wikiquette by providing a reason for your proposal. [[User:The JPS|The JPS]] 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)''

*'''Oppose''' - I agree. The terms are not at all interchangeable and neither term has a single definition. Phil Graham

*'''Opposing Merger''' - Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a complex theory and model that has interpretations of texts and languages that go beyond the study of discourse analysis, and exceed the scope of many schools of thought on the interpretation of discourse. <p> CDA should remain independant from Discourse Analysis (DA) due to its innovative and complex nature. Whilst similar, the studies achieve different results when applied, and thus CDA and DA should remain apart, and more people should focus on the addition of Critical Linguistics (CL) as a conterpoint to CDA and as a resource for those interested in Discourse Analysis. The combination of CDA, DA, and CL would improve the understanding of the masses and no one would have even suggested such a merger be allowed. <p>Adam Moreland

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}

==CDA and Discourse Analysis==

== Three-dimensional framework ==

An anonymous editor recently added a citation that appears either to have copied a portion of this article, or to have been the original source of the Wikipedia text.

What exactly diferentiates CDA from plain and simple DA? I think the article should make the distinction clear. [[User:201.37.176.252|201.37.176.252]] 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that the article needs developing. CDA is politically motivated, intending to expose power relations. [[User:The JPS|<font color="Purple">The <b>JP</b>S</font>]]^{[[User talk:The JPS|'''<font color="Purple"><b>talk</b> to me</font>''']]} 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Benham and Mahmoudy (2013) reads in relevant part:

== Clean up needed ==

<blockquote>

Fairclough (1989) developed a three-dimensional guideline for studying discourse. His aim was to map three distinct forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as examples of sociocultural practice. Specifically, he combined micro, meso and macro-level interpretations. At the micro-level, the analyst is concerned with the text's syntax, metaphoric structure and certain rhetorical devices. The meso-level comprised studying the text's production and consumption, concentrating on how power relations are enacted. At the macro-level, the analyst considers intertextual relationships, trying to understand the broad, societal currents that are influencing the text being studied.

[{{Cite journal|last1=Behnam|first1=Biook|first2=Behzad|last2=Mahmoudy|date=December 2013|title=A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Reports Issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General on Iran's Nuclear Program during the Last Decade|url=http://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/12/06.pdf|journal=Theory and Practice in Language Studies|volume=3|pages=2196-2201}}]

We need to give this article a complete overhaul. It's been commented on a mailing list (frequented by those working with CDA) that this is poor.

</blockquote>

Compare this version of the Wikipedia article, from [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_discourse_analysis&oldid=469907274 6 January 2012]:

A history would be good, for one. Let's aim to have this good by the end of the summer. [[User:The JPS|<font color="Purple">The <b>JP</b>S</font>]]^{[[User talk:The JPS|'''<font color="Purple"><b>talk</b> to me</font>''']]} 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

<blockquote>

Fairclough developed a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. Particularly, he combines micro, meso and macro-level interpretation. At the micro-level, the analyst considers the text's syntax, metaphoric structure and certain metorical devises. The meso-level involved studying the text's production and consumption, focusing on how power relations are enacted. At the macro-level, the analyst is concerned with inter-textual understanding, trying to understand the broad, societal currents that are affecting the text being studied.

</blockquote>

I think it is inappropriate to use the former as a source for the latter. It seems likely either that one was copied from the other, or that both were (co)written by the same person. [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Critical discourse analysis]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=795496840 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231054624/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10350330.asp to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10350330.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

== Notable academics ==

I presume that the listed academics with Wikipedia pages (in English or other languages) are [[WP:Notable]]. For other scholars listed, maybe there could be some external standard. I've checked Web of Science for [[h-index]] and number of publications for the following scholars.

* Michał Krzyżanowski h-index 23, total publications 58

* John E. Richardson h-index 13, total 126 (also an editor of ''[[Critical Discourse Studies]]'', I think)

* Phil Graham h-index 17, total 89

* Hilary Janks h-index 10, total 39

* Christopher Hart h-index 12, total 43

* William Feighery h-index 5, total 9

Web of Science has somewhat spotty coverage of social sciences, though (for comparison, Norman Fairclough has an h-index of 13 and 29 publications in WoS; Ruth Wodak has 23 and 88), so there may be a better standard. Google Scholar? Something else?

[[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 01:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)