Critical Discourse Analysis in Modern Language Teaching

1. Critical Discourse Analysis in Modern Language Teaching Lara Ryazanova-Clarke Lara.Ryazanova-Clarke@ed.ac.uk

2. Advanced language classes (Text Analysis) use examples of contemporary discourse (politics, the media) work mainly on grammar and lexis not sufficient attention is given to discourse as social interaction

3. Application of CDA to language teaching can: give students additional skills in identifying discursive strategies expressing social values of the text; provide them with a deeper knowledge and understanding of the social and ideological aspects of the society they study.

4. CDA and its main trends • British variety: G. Kress and R. Hodge, R. Fowler, N. Fairclough, P. Chilton • draws upon Foucaut’s theory of discourse and Halliday’s social semiotics; • N. Fairclough: Marxists approach. Public discourse as a way of enacting of power by the elites in the contemporary capitalist society. Bridges the gap between social and linguistic theories. Demonstrates how shifting discursive practices constitute social and cultural change (marketization of the public discourse)

5. Cognitive-oriented approach (Dutch CDA): T. van Dijk Triadic model: social (and personal) cognition mediates between social structures and discourse structures Examines the news media and everyday discourse in reproduction of racism and ethnic prejudices. Proposes an interdisciplinary view of ideology.

6. German-Austrian approach (Vienna, Duisburg); discourse-historic method R. Wodak, influenced by J. Habermas’ theories of language and society Conducted studies on power in institutional communication; on sexism, racism and Anti-Semitism in different settings. Discursive construction of national identity.

7. CDA Concepts • Discourse is a form of social practice • Dialectic relationship between the discursive act and the situations, institutions and social structures which frame them • Through discourse, social actors constitute objects of knowledge, social roles and identities and relations between social groups

8. POWER • ‘a specific relation between social groups or institutions’ (van Dijk, 1997:17) • Discursive practices establish, or conceal relations of power and dominance between interactants • discourse enacts power and presupposes control over material and symbolic power resource

9. IDEOLOGY • ‘a systematic body of ideas organised from a particular point of view’ (Hodge and Kress, 1991:6) • Mental representations that form the basis of social cognition • Contributes to group cohesion, solidarity and successful reproduction of the group.

10. THE IDEOLOGICAL SQUARE(van Dijk) • Emphasis on positive representation of the in-group • and negative representation of the out-group; • De-emphasis, denial and mitigation of the negative properties of the in-group • and the same for the positive properties of the out-group

11. President Putin’s Addressto the Nation • The choice of speech acts and structure: • Expressive: Expression of sympathy and support for victims and their families • Representative (truth claim): Causes and consequences of the terrorist event • Declarative: promise to introduce measures directed to strengthen the unity of the country and strengthen the systems of control over the situation in the Northern Caucasus • Expressive: thanks to those who show responsibility and unity at this difficult time

12. Discursive strategies and linguistic tools: Speech acts Pronouns Lexical choice Active/passive structures Speech acts: the frame of expressives mitigates the hard-line ideology and unpopular programme of measures (representative and declarative acts), constructs his image as a compassionate president Power Speaks to the nation but also on behalf of the nation. Positions himself and implements power through the use of pronouns (I-we)

13. “I”: - when expressing sympathy and praising stoicism – direct address and personal involvement contributes to construction of a sympathetic, compassionate self-image - to assert power and position himself as President before the statement of ‘no choice’ - to legitimize the measures to reduce democratic practices “We”: - to manufacture internal consensus and construction of the in-group

14. Ideology and identity • Strategy of manufacturing a consensus helps presenting P’s ideology as collective knowledge and beliefs shared by the nation • Construction of the in-group identity: • heirs of the Soviet Union, in which they take a great pride: the former country’s power, size and ‘the mightiest system of protection of its outer borders’ • Suspicious and passive towards post-Soviet changes (pre-Putin years) • Nostalgia and evocation of Cold war mentality

15. Construction of the out-group No mentioning of Chechens Blending referents: terrorists and the threat from ‘outside’ passive and impersonal structures the agent is obfuscated (the weak get beaten) use of indeterminate pronouns (‘some, others’)

16. assumption that countries ‘to the East and to the West’ are the out-group Negative reference to the motives of the out-group, ascribing to them the cold war mentality distances himself from the out-group by the use of temporal particle ‘still’ such positioning of the out-group hides P.’s covert attack on the Western countries and blaming them for the Beslan tragedy

17. Choice of words in defining the terrorist act: (intervention, full-scale war, do not end quickly): coerces the audience to feel solidarity with the in-group and accept the proposed measures towards hardening the regime

18. Conclusion • The application of CDA to Putin’s speech reveals: • Hard line ideology and its justification • using Beslan tragedy as an opportunity to introduce a curb on democracy • Going back to cold war view and rhetoric