Approaches to Media Discourse

A Term Paper on

APPROACHES TO MEDIA DISCOURSE A Survey of Approaches to Media Discourse Analysis

by Abhay Kumar Shukla Ph.D. Semester II, Session: 2013-2016 The English and Foreign Languages University

Name of the Course

Media Discourse (Seminar Course II)

Name of the Tutor : Dr. Rajneesh Arora

Approaches to Media Discourse This paper discusses the possible approaches to analyzing media texts. It intends to cover some of the most important and most developed methods of media discourse analysis, starting from the early quantitative content analysis, originally developed by sociologists, social scientists and communication researchers. Then, critical analysts like Fairclough and van Dijk came to prove these quantitative methods insufficient. After that, this paper will discuss the approach of other researchers like Schroder who found gaps in the concepts concerned with the production/consumption processes. She suggests, along with van Dijk, an empirical, ethnographic approach to media texts to fill in those gaps. Introduction A study of media discourse is important for linguists and scholars working the area of linguistics as it forms one of the four main registers of the English language (O’Keeffe, 2006), the present paper will cover some of the key approaches, methods and tools of analysis of media discourse that analysts can adopt to analyze either small-scale or large-scale corpora. The quantitative content analysis has been first adopted to carry out objective observations and interpretations. Many software tools were brought to the table to serve quantitative and statistical needs. However, these quantitative tools were later proved inadequate by the other things that smoothed the path for critical analysts to introduce Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to the world of media text analysis. A focus on the importance of ethnography in media discourse 2

analysis which is still under growth is also worth mention.

Quantitative Content Analysis of Media Texts Quantitative content analysis has first submerged in the 1950s as a major research tool of analysis of media texts in mass communication studies and social sciences. Lasswell (1948) describes media content analysis as ‘who says what, through which channel, to whom, with what effect.’ The quantitative research techniques are used for the conduct of ‘objective, systematic and quantitative’ descriptions of the manifest content of media texts. This makes quantitative content analysis the most scientific and unbiased method that can be used for the analysis of media content. Mass communication researchers have offered a lot to the analysis of media content. Their findings give clear definitions to the content analysis of communication events and provide clear outlines to follow, not only for the objective interpretations, but also for the gathering of media content samples. Neuendorf (2002) suggests seven elements that will assure that the scientific quantitative content analysis of media texts will not get ruined by the subjective orientations of the researchers: objectivity-intersubjectivity, a priori design, reliability, validity, generalizability, replicability, and hypothesis testing. Berelson (1952) suggests five elements of content analysis that every researcher should focus on: substance of message content, form of message content, producers of content, audiences of content, and effects of content on audiences. As far as the contribution from linguistics in the analysis of media is 3

concerned, van Dijk (1985) admitted that before the 1960s, linguistics had little to offer to those who were interested to analyze media discourse, and that it is within social sciences that mass media research has initially emerged. Implication of Quantitative Content Analysis in Applied Linguistics Quantitative content analysis is used for large scale corpora to summarize patterns and regularities in texts. In the 1960s, the analysis of media discourse was approached through quantitative methods. In the field of applied linguistics, the importance of the quantitative approach to texts was highlighted by the Gerbner et al. book and the Holsti introduction. Then, it was further emphasized in the General Inquirer project, where the help of computers were brought about. Computational algorithms can help researchers conduct all sorts of quantitative analyses, from the most limited and automatic, to the most complicated, e.g. analyzing statistical data and results. The quantitative methods are the best to use for large scale projects, if the researcher’s aim is to identify widespread language patterns that could be missed when applying a small-scale analysis. The large-scale analysis will help researchers to highlight patterns of association so that they unveil, for instance, the most lexical items that tend to co-occur with keywords derived from the issues they intend to investigate. Sometimes, without this quantitative approach, analysts cannot be aware of the existence of some crucial lexical items, due to the fact that they cannot be observed with the naked eye. Noteworthy, the quantitative approach was carried out by a good number of researchers, such as Gerbner (1968), Krishnamurthy (1996), Flowerdew (1997), Fairclough (2000), Piper (2000), Teubert (2000) and Baker et al. (2013). Technical Tools for Quantitative Content Analysis 4

Ever since the recognition of the role of computational algorithm in conducting a scientific objective analysis, a good number of software tools were created to fulfill the purposes of the texts analysts. A software tool for content analysis can be divided into three major categories: dictionary-based content analysis (word counting, sorting, simple statistical tests), development environments (do not analyze but automate the construction of dictionaries, grammars, and other text analysis tools), and annotation aids (an electronic version of the set of marginal notes researchers generate when analyzing texts by hand). The most commonly used software that has been acknowledged as the most reliable one by many researchers is the Wordsmith. It is ‘an integrated suite of programs for looking at how words behave in texts.’ It ‘controls’ the programs it contains: Concord (makes a concordance using plain texts or web text files), Keywords (locate and identify key words in a given corpora), and WordList (generate word lists based shown in alphabetical and frequency order). Since there are plenty of software tools to choose from, there are some choice criteria that analysts can follow in order to determine which software will meet their research studies’ ultimate goals. Some of the criteria are: complexity of analysis, language constraint, licensing issues and user base, and platforms. Downsides of Quantitative Content Analysis Content can be divided into two categories: Manifest content (explicit information) and latent content (implicit information). Quantitative content analysis can only be used for the manifest content of media texts. Berelson (1952) says that using a quantitative method to analyze ‘what-is-said’ will force the researchers to turn a blind eye to ‘why-the-content-is-like-that’ and ‘how people react’, i.e. the latent 5

content. Therefore, reducing large corpora into quantitative texts, looking for keywords, and making concordances is not enough to build a complete picture of the meanings intended from producing the text. Drawing conclusions from mere figures and simple statistical data is neither the only way nor enough to determine the intentions of the producers of media texts or the impact of these texts on the audience. One of the other aspects that a quantitative content analysis of media texts failed to cover is, for instance, the syntactic analysis of sentences, e.g. agency of social actions; the use of the passive voice instead of the active voice to withdraw the attention from the agent of the action. For example, “The man got killed during the revolution” is different from “Police agents killed the man during the revolution.” Instead of looking for the most frequent words that co-occur with the verb ‘kill’ in media texts about the revolution, it seems more important to know the agent of this violent action. The fact that some media text producers choose to use the passive or the active voice have different interpretations. Qualitative Content Analysis of Media Texts No one can deny the importance of the quantitative method as an ‘objective, replicable and quantitative’ tool of analysis of the manifest content of media texts. Ever since the 1960s, much focus had been put on the ‘classical’, ‘quantitative, American, stimulus-response’ approaches to media texts. Van Dijk (1985) stated that in order to establish an ‘adequate analysis of the relations between media texts and contexts’, we need to go beyond the ‘surface’ level of texts to the investigation of the ‘underlying’ meanings. In the same context, Wodak & Busch (2004) spoke of what some observers like Jensen & Jankawski (1991) labeled “qualitative turn” from the quantitative content analysis of the study of media texts. By the second half of the 6

1970s, different suggestions of a ‘more explicit and systematic account of media discourse’ were brought to light primarily by the Glasgow University Media group which has published ‘Bad News’ (1976) and ‘More Bad News’ (1980), and the Center For Contemporary Cultural Studies (1980) under the direction of Stuart Hall. Further contributions were made by Schelesinger & Lumley, Dowing, Husband & Chouhan, and Hartley & Montgomery. Discourse Analysis Richardson (2007) states that there are two main approaches to media texts: the formalistic approach, also called the structuralist approach, and the functionalist approach. The formalistic approach deals with the structural level of the media texts, including these four characteristics: cohesion, narrative, causality and motivation. Here, discourse analysis deals with ‘language above the sentence.’ The functionalist approach deals with ‘language in use’ rather than ‘language above the sentence’. The language use and text interpretation cannot be fully and adequately analyzed without the social component. Both the formalistic and functionalistic approaches can contribute to a more adequate analysis of media texts, built upon a consideration of meaning (assigning of sense) and context (assigning of reference). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) CDA was first derived from the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) developed by Halliday. Then, it was further developed by Fairclough (1995), Fowler (1991) and Boyd-Barret (1994). Despite the similarities, the founding fathers and mothers of CDA, van Dijk, Wodak, and Fairclough, had a lot to offer to this qualitative approach 7

to media texts. CDA follows the functionalist approach, which advocates the analysis of texts as ‘language in use.’ Its aim is to ‘link linguistic analysis to social analysis’ (Wodak & Kroger, 2000). It is concerned with: social problems, power relations, how society and culture are shaped by discourse, and the investigation of texts, their interpretation, reception and social effects (Titscher et al. 2000). “Critical discourse analysis (CDA) emerged in the late 1980s as a programmatic development in European discourse studies spear headed by Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Teun van Dijk, and others” (J. Blommaert and C. Bulcaen, 2000, p.447). It stems from a critical theory of language, which regards the use of language as a form of social practice (Fairclough, 1997)

and takes

consideration of the context of language use to be crucial (Wodak, 2000c; Benke, 2000). “The term CDA is used nowadays to refer more specifically to the critical linguistic approach of scholars who find the larger discursive unit of text to be the basic unit of communication”(Ruth Wodak, 2001, p.6 ). In general, “it is a study of the relations between discourse, power, dominance, social inequality and the position of the discourse analyst in such social relationships” (Van Djik, 1993, p. 283). “The notions of ideology, power, hierarchy and gender together with sociological variables were all seen as relevant for an interpretation or explanation of text” (Van Djik, 1993, p. 283). The issues of Access, Power and Ideology in CDA As CDA mainly concerns about language and social relations, the issues such as language and access, language and power as well as language and ideology 8

are prominent when conducting CDA methodologies. Language and Access According to van Djik (2002), “language users or communicators have more or less freedom in the use of special discourse genres or styles, or in the participation in specific communicative

events

and

contexts.”(p.256)

The

participant of any kind of discourse may have more or less active or passive access to communicative events, such as the writing to or speaking to the professors, boss and etc. Similarly, participants may have more or less control over their participation in the discourse activity, such as the planning, setting, organization, register, genre, topic, or structure of their oral or written discourse (van Dijk, 2002). In the domain of media discourse, “the access of minorities to the mass media is a critical condition for their participation in the public definition of their situation. ” (van Djik, 1993, p.92). Due to the social and economic conditions, many of them do not have the ability to get access to the mass media especially computer and Television. Language and Power “Power is about relations of difference and particularly about the effects of differences in social structures” (Ruth Wodak, 2001, p.11). When power is related to language, “language is entwined in social power in a number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention over and a challenge to power” (Ruth Wodak, 2001, p.11). In social relations, language and power is closely attached with each other “Power does not derive from language, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alter 9

distributions of power in the short and long term. Language provides articulated means for differences in power in social hierarchical structures”. (Ruth Wodak, 2001, p.11). Thus, analysis of language is a great tool to investigate the power relation such as dominance and inequality in media discourses. Language and ideology “The notion of "ideology" is presented --involving cognitive and social psychology, sociology and discourse analysis”.(van Djik, 2004, p.4). Literately understanding, Ideology is a set of belief systems constitutes a person’s belief, value, goals and anticipations. van Djik (2004) further discussed it by stating: “The cognitive definition of ideology is given in terms of the social cognitions that are shared by the members of a group. The social dimension explains what kind of groups; relations between groups and institutions are involved in the development and reproduction of ideologies”(p.4). “The discourse dimension of ideologies explains how ideologies influence our daily texts and talk, how we understand ideological discourse, and how discourse is involved in the reproduction of ideology in society”(Van Djik, 2004, p.4). Methodology of CDA 1. Fairclough and his Three-Dimensional Model Fairclough,

known

as

one

of

the

most

influential

practitioners

in

contributing to the CDA development, holds a more social-theoretical view towards doing analysis. According to him, the model for CDA consists “three inter-related processes of analysis tied to three inter-related dimensions of discourse”(Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371). These three 10

dimensions of discourses are: text (description: formal prosperities of the text), discursive practice (interpretation: relationship between text and interaction), and sociocultural practice (explanation: social determination of the processes of production and interpretation and their social effects). According to Fairclough, the first level of the framework is textual-analysis which includes “the study of the different processes, or types of verbs, involved

in

the interaction; study on the meanings of the social relations

established between participants in the interaction; analysis of the mood (whether a sentence is a statement, question, or declaration) and modality (the degree of assertiveness in the exchange).”(Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371) Fairclough’s second dimension, processing analysis, involves “analysis of the process of production, interpretation, distribution, and consumption. This dimension is concerned with how people interpret and reproduce or transform texts.” (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371). The third dimension–social analysis “concerned with issues of power—power being a construct that is realized through interdiscursivity and hegemony. Analysis of this dimension includes exploration of the ways in which discourses operate in various domains of society.” (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371) In short, the analysis of the text involves the study of the language structures produced in a discursive event. An analysis of the discursive practice involves examining the production, consumption, and reproduction of the texts. The analysis

of sociocultural practice

includes

an exploration of what is 11

happening in a particular sociocultural framework”(Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.37) (Janks, Hilary, 2002, p.330 ) To summarize, Fairclough’s model of CDA. Fairclough’s approach draws upon SFL. Fairclough’s method of analysis is conducted according to: (1) text, (2) discursive practice, and (3) social practice. 1. A text consists of representations, identities and social relations, cohesion and coherence. There are two levels of textual analysis: the sentence, and what is above the sentence. At the level of the sentence, analysts examine vocabulary, semantics, grammar, and even the sound system and the writing system. At the level that is above the sentence, analysts examine cohesion, the organization of turn-taking in interviews during talk-shows, and the overall structure of newspaper articles. 2. It is at this stage when analysis turns from textual analysis to discourse analysis. Texts should be analyzed as the ‘outcome of a discourse practice’ for a more competent assessment of the ‘news practice, news values, and audience role’ (Cotter, 2001). Too much focus on the text will depict analysts as ignorant of the processes of news gathering, encoding, shaping of belief, encoding and decoding, etc. Analysts also need to know the producers’ level of credibility, and the types of relationships they have with the audience they are writing for and the communities they are covering (Cotter, 2001). This can deeply affect analysts’ examination of the meanings of the texts. 3. An adequate analysis of media texts must also include the socio-cultural

practice that is part of the communicative event to be covered. Therefore, 12

the textual analysis and the discourse analysis of media texts must be linked to the socio-cultural goings where the event took place. 2. Van Dijk’s Model of CDA: Van Dijk’s and Fairclough’s approach to CDA are ‘similar in conception,’ but different in naming. However, the former has one special conception, which is the socio-cognitive model. Van Dijk’s method of analysis is conducted according to: the structural nature of texts, production processes, and reception processes. His analysis takes place at two levels: microstructure, and macrostructure. At the micro-structural level, he focuses on the semantic relations between propositions, syntactic and lexical elements, coherence, quotations, and direct/indirect reporting. At the macro-structural level, he focuses on the overall level of description of media texts, from themes, topics, to news schemata (summary, story, and consequences). Van Dijk’s work also gives a great deal of importance to ideology analysis which is based on social analysis, cognitive analysis, and discourse analysis. The cognitive analysis consists of mental models, intended to mediate between discourse practices and the social component. It helps analysts examine the cognitive processes involved in the encoding and decoding of texts. In order to reveal the implicitly-stated ideological dichotomy in media texts, van Dijk (1998b) suggests that analysts must (1) examine the context of the discourse, the participants and their background, (2) analyze the concerned communities, their power relations, and conflicts, (3) cover as many opinions as possible about, what he calls, ‘US versus THEM’, (4) reveal all what is stated implicitly, and (5) examine the formal structure of the texts. 13

3. Wodak’s Method in CDA: Discourse sociolinguistics is one of the directions of CDA developed by Wodak. She developed an approach to analyzing media texts that she called the discourse historical method, where all the available background information should be included in the analysis of the audience of written or spoken media texts. There is a similarity between her approach and the steps that van Dijk suggested in order to unveil the ideological dichotomy, where he says that analysts must examine the ‘historical, political, and social backgrounds’ of the main participants in the discourse (the text producers, the people who were involved in the event, and the audience). Through many research studies conducted by Wodak and her colleagues, Wodak attested that the context of the discourse has an important impact on the structure and form of the discourse. Ethnographic Discourse Analysis: The search for the most adequate method of media texts analysis did not end with CDA or any other quantitative methods or qualitative frameworks. Many analysts adopted a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to achieve a holistic analysis, namely Halloran et al. (1970), Hartmann & Husband (1974), Ter Wal (2002), Backer & McEnery (2005), Backer et al. (2013), etc. However, what some researchers, like van Dijk, suggest to do is to put into consideration the ethnographic observations that need to be done ‘about the production and uses of communicative events […] ‘in’ the media and ‘by’ the media’ (van Dijk, 1985). A general definition of the term ‘ethnography’ is ‘the description of people and their culture’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The concept in relation to content analysis will be broadened in the following parts. 14

Qualitative Content Analysis and Ethnographic Discourse Analysis Schroder (2007) criticized what she called ‘the half-hearted holism of CDA’, because it ‘suffers from a number of self-imposed methodological limitations.’ She states that at the surface level, CDA is holistic. It examines all of the three dimensions of media discourse

in

relation

to

each

other:

text,

discourse

practice

(text

production/consumption), and the socio-cultural practice. However, in a statement made by Fairclough (1995) in which he says ‘[…] the ways in which texts are produced and consumed, which is realized in the feature of texts,’ Schroder (2007) draws our attention to the fact that in CDA, discourse practices are not studied ‘independently or empirically.’ They are simply observed through the text. Schroder supports her argument with a study conducted by Swales & Rogers (1995), where they state that conducting an ethnographic fieldwork among media text producers and consumers will increase the validity and reliability of the analysis, and minimize the subjectivity of the researchers’ analyses. Another argument she uses is that of Cotter (2001), where he suggests a ‘holistic and ethnographically oriented approach’ that examines the ‘community of coverage’ as well as the ‘community of practice’. As an example, Schroder mentions the framework of investigation used by David Deacon, Natalie Feuton and Alan Bryman. They argue that media production/reception studies have made it possible for analysts to produce more reliable interpretations, and to achieve a more objective view of the power relations between the audiences and producers of media texts. Schroder claims that her approach to media texts is empirical rather than merely critical, and that critical discourse analysts should start analyzing the encoding and decoding processes of media discourse in an empirical manner if they ever want to add more credibility and objectivity to their findings and interpretations. 15

Conclusion No researchers from the field of linguistics have approached media discourse directly or developed theories implicating media discourse to linguistics. Instead, methods that are originally developed in sociology, social science, mass communication, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, and ethnographic analysis have been adapted to fit the analysis of media texts. Still, relying on the findings of researchers working on the later fields will definitely accelerate the process of producing a specially-made theory of media discourse analysis by linguists.

16

Bibliography Baker, P. & McEnery, T. (2005). A Corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics, pp. 197-226. Cotter, C. (2001). Discourse and Media. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton. (eds). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Blackwell, 352-371. E. Richardson, J. (2007). Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Herre & Goldman, Susan R. (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading Mahwah, NJ. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 123-148. Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulaen(2000), Critical Discourse Analysis, in Annual Review of Anthropology l29:447-66 Janks, Hilary. 2002. Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool.” Pp. 2642 in Critical Discourse Analysis (Vol. 4), edited by M. Toolan. London: Routledge. Johnson, S. & Ensslin, A. (2006). Language in the News: Some Reflections on Keyword Analysis Using Wordsmith Tools and the BNC. in Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 11. Lowe, W. Software for Content Analysis

A Review.

Retrieved

from:

Macnamara, J. (2005). Media Content Analysis : Its Uses ; Benefits and Best Practice Methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1-34. Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak (1997), Critical Discourse analysis: A preliminary Description, in Discourse as social interaction, 1997, 258-284. Rebecca Rogers, Elizabeth Malancharuvil-Berkes, Melissa Mosley, Diane Hui and Glynis O'Garro Joseph, Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature, Review of Educational Research, 2005 75: 365.The online version of this article can be found at: Ruth Wodak (2001) What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments, in Methods of Critical Analysis (ed.) Ruth Wodak and Micheal Meyer, SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd Schroder, K. (2007). Media Discourse Analysis: Researching Cultural Meanings from Inception to Reception. Textual Cultures, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 77-99. 17

Susan R. Goldman & Jennifer Wiley (2003), Discourse analysis: Written Text, Literacy Research Methods, edited by Nell K. Duke and Marla Mallette, Guilford Publications. Van Dijk, Teun. 2002. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Pp. 250-283 in CriticalDiscourse Analysis (Vol. 2), edited by M. Toolan. London: Routledge. Van Dijk Teun (2004) Ideology and discourse: a multidisciplinary Introduction. Carocci, Roma Publisher. Van Dijk, T. (1985). Introduction: Discourse Analysis in (mass) Communication Research. In: (Ed.) Discourse and Communication , 69-93. (C.5.) Van Dijk, T. A. 1999. Context models in discourse processing . In: van Oostendorp, Van Dijk, T.A. (1993b) Discourse, Power and Access, in C.R. Caldas (ed.) Studies in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge (in press). Van Dijk, Teun, 1996, Discourse, power and access, in: Carmen Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (ed) Texts and Practices: readings in critical discourse analysis, TJ Press Ltd., Cornell Wodak, R. Busch, B. (2004). 'Approaches to media texts'. In The Sage handbook of media studies. London: Sage.

18