Content deleted Content added
Bastemhebet (talk | contribs) Added section on simplifying language |
→Still needs major work: new section |
||
Line 53:
Vincent Tyson's article seems like a poor example of academic criticism. It is nonacademic and potentially Christian/pro-Capitalist propaganda if anything. He even cites the Bible. I'm sorry, but I have to ask: why is this even included? --[[User:ThePhantasos|ThePhantasos]] ([[User talk:ThePhantasos|talk]]) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
== Still needs major work ==
As I'm sure most reading this will agree, this article needs major re-editing. I realise that nobody has to wait for consensus, but does anybody know of any academic (sub-)discipline articles that may provide a useful template for this one? It would make sense to cover CDAs history, some of its methods (certain methods are more associated with CDA than others - I've never seen a social network diagram in a CDA analysis for example, but have certainly seen terminology from systemic-functional grammar), the sorts of "texts" that are studied (e.g. topics such as gender, the media, and racism reoccur), etc. Not sure where wikipedia stands on how much depth to go into criticisms, but it would make sense to have a section for these given that a number of articles that have criticised CDA are listed in the further reading section. Many of these criticisms have been answered by more recent research (e.g. through developing a cognitive approach, or by using methods derived from corpus linguistics). All of these issues are worth including in an article such as this but given the variability between disciplinary articles, I'm not sure what best practice is in this case. Any thoughts?
| |||