Critical Discourse Analysis of the Article on Ethnography

In this essay I will be exploring the use of discourse analysis approach on how Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is utilised. Discourse analysis has been looked upon in a variety of disciplines like in social sciences and humanities. It includes linguistics, cultural studies, human geography and etc. Critical Discourse Analysis is a sub-control of talk examination. It approaches talks from a political intention. On the other hand contrasted with campaigners or potentially government officials, conclusive exposition assessment stretches out past grave issues. Experts in basic talks have an auxiliary comprehension and information, which supplants general bits of knowledge on politically propelled issues (Renkema 2004). CDA experts earn various themes that require examination before continuing to gather a lot of writings. Notwithstanding, the corpus of writings doesn't involve the main philosophy for basic talk investigation.

An article written by Shari Kendall in the Language in Society gives the title The balancing act Framing gendered parental identities at dinnertime at year 2008. This is a case study method where it does not provide a statistical basis for generalizing. The participants were Elaine, Elaine’s husband (Mark) and her daughter (Beth). The author have used framing and discursive positioning approach in the research tradition of interactional sociolinguistics to explicate how the parents in one family create gendered parental identities as they interact with their ten-year-old daughter during four dinners the family recorded at home. The attention was given to speech acts, footings, discursive positioning, and framing reveals the intricate and dynamic details of interaction. At the first part, the discursive positioning was shown through perpetuation of gendered social identities in the family. During dinnertime, there were three layers of talk; the instrumental business talk of having talk, sociability and intentional socialization functions. It can be said that family interaction varies based on class, cultural background and other social parameters.

These functions within a model of discourse that elucidates how the performance of these functions contributes to the discursive creation of parental and gendered identities. During this dinnertime, it provided a venue of exploring gendered power in the family where there is a interplay of power (as control) and solidarity (as connection). The positions of parents takes up verbal actions function as both “power maneuvers” and “connection maneuvers”. Next, gender must be examined as the focus of language should be on the individual uses to perform relevant actions and activities. This is where the author introduced ‘footing’ an extract by Gorrman (1981) to explain on how participants negotiate interpersonal relationships, or alignments, as they dynamically frame an interaction. Footings are “the alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance”. Apart from that positioning as introduced by Davies & Harré (1990:47) is the interactional process through which individuals discursively produce “a diversity of selves”. Here, the researcher focused on one of the ways participants position self and other by speaking and conducting themselves in a manner associated with one of the roles that are “recognisably allocated to people” within social structures without necessarily taking up that role. Positions are mutually constitutive components of frames. Participants create frames by taking up and making certain positions available to others and, conversely, participants make certain positions available through the frames they create and maintain. Framing is shown in five different phases; dinner, caregiving, socialization, managerial and conversational framing. Positions are characterized by, first, the functions of talk the speaker per- forms when taking up that position, delineated as speech acts, linguistic registered based in part on the types of speech acts and the manner in which these acts are linguistically realized and thirdly, based on the relation to the talk surrounding them.

In spite of the fact that there is currently a developing assortment of studies concentrating on family talk, they are genuinely restricted in the kinds of families they have analyzed and the timeframe the investigations have been led. There are a few headings future research can take to develop the ebb and flow look into. Further research ought to look at how family jobs are co-developed in an assortment of family types and how sexual orientation personalities inside families are renegotiated after some time, as kids become grown-ups. Despite the fact that these investigations are valuable in demonstrating the talk methodologies and examples found in family communication and in relative connections outside of the family setting, they don't show the advancement of family character or relative jobs after some time. We should likewise be careful about reaching long haul determinations from an ethnographic present, that is recorded in such transiently based research. In conclusion, further research ought to be directed exploring the manners in which guardians show character and arrange moving jobs through talk after some time, and even become the ones being associated into new thoughts, now and again.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Another article to compare with is entitled A study on Ethnography of communication: A discourse analysis with Hymes ‘speaking model’ by Dr. Manas Ray & Dr Chinmay Biswas (2011). This is an article where ethnography of communication is explained using Del Hymes “speaking model”. They test this model in a set of homogenous speech community involving 16 people from academic institution, a UG degree college of West Bengal State University. The communication of participants highly condensed in nature as well as high density of network was signified. The main purpose of the study was to examine the Hymes ‘speaking model’ through observation. In context of the research, participant and non-participant type of observation were used in order to make the results valid and reliable. Ethnography of communication focuses on the speech community. It examines the patterns of communication, the way systems of communicative events are organised and the ways in which these interact with all other cultural systems. In short, ethnography of communication allows researchers to connect linguistic forms with cultural practices.

The consequence of the current examination alloted that the language corresponding to the social and social silt which impact correspondence. The current investigation analyzed that the members consistently introduced their requests. The gathering solidarity and connections were likewise found. Their method of discourse and high thickness of system reflected inside the examination. Each announcement of the contemplated discussion were superb and brilliant. The current examination shows that societal position just as word related status impacted by the language or method of talking, and fluctuation of correspondence or detectable quality of correspondence is relied upon those social/social characteristics. Language, correspondence and ethnography are interlocked with one another. These three issues have assumed an extraordinary job in human social space to the general public. Correspondence in some cases controls the independence and the societal position with bunch solidarity.

Ethnography of communication is an approach that employs the actual communication events and occasions in order to understand dimensions of communication or interaction. Furthermore, in real social trade classifications regularly converge intertextually and between verbosely, adding up to unpredictable crossover and multimodal sorts of correspondence.

Hymes (1974) offered the abbreviation SPEAKING as a memory help that incorporates eight primary segments:

• -S assigns Setting or Scene, which alludes dually to the significant physical parts of the earth (counting time: lengths, interims, synchronicity), and furthermore to mental settings and social definitions relating to the occasion.
• -P assigns Participants and Participant personalities, extending from the social classifications that are being built and utilized inside the experience, for example, age, sex, and societal position, to connections between members. Interest isn't seen as guaranteed, and the procedure by which degrees and characteristics of cooperation are cultivated is inspected (regularly with the assistance of Goffman's (1981) concentrates on balance and framing).
• -E assigns Ends, looking for the objectives and results of open occasions, and of individual members and associations. Closures propose that social conduct is frequently intentional, or if nothing else it is comprehended as such according to those leading it.
• -A alludes to Act succession and Act subject, which concern the structure and unfurling of correspondence just as of the points and topics that are being imparted.
• -K alludes to Key or tone, which are the ways or habits that the correspondence is confined. This point concerns the way that the key or the tone, however enormously significant in understanding the message, are regularly not expressly coded and subsequently not effortlessly caught.
• -I speaks to Instrumentalities or the etymological code, alluding to language and tongue just as to different methods of connotation, for example, indexicality and iconicity (more on these later). Critically, Instrumentalities additionally address the open channel, (for example, eye to eye collaboration and innovatively interceded correspondence).
• -N assigns Norms and alludes to rules of collaboration and understanding, focusing on whether the current correspondence is sought after by members in accordance with basic guidelines and standards (formal and casual), and whether members are aware that the exist or that they pertain to the events in which they participate.
• -G refers to Genre, which concerns the abstract expressive kind of informative occasions and activities. Following Bakhtin (whose works were deciphered during the 1970s), Hymes (1972) observed that 'all discourse has formal attributes or something to that affect as indication of sorts' (p. 65). From a carefully tweeted 'selfie,' through a graceful recitation or the recounting a tale, to police cross examination, correspondence is essentially genred and the inquiry concerns the methods and implications of these kinds and how they are performed.

Albeit an ethnographic methodology is very not the same as a trial one, quantitative techniques may demonstrate valuable (even fundamental) in certain parts of information assortment, particularly when variable highlights of language use are being investigated. Quantitative strategies are basically methods for estimating level of consistency in conduct, and the sum and nature of variety under various conditions. The ethnographer may gainfully work together with the humanist, analyst, or sociolinguist inspired by quantitative investigation, however in the event that quantitative strategies are to be utilized, they should initially be created and approved by subjective techniques. Quantitative strategies may thus serve to decide the unwavering quality of subjective perception, which is able to be easygoing and uncontrolled, and to additionally test the legitimacy of speculations which might be made based on an exceptionally restricted example. The rule for enlightening ampleness which will be remembered is that enough data ought to be given to empower somebody from outside the discourse network under scrutiny to completely comprehend the occasion, and to take an interest properly in it.

References

1. Blommaert, J 2005, Discourse, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Bromley, D 2001, Toward reflexive ethnography, JAI, London.
3. Bryman, A 2008, Social research methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. Crang, M & Cook, I 2007, Doing ethnographies, Sage, London.
5. Denzin, N & Lincoln, Y 2005, The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, Sage, London.
6. Eisenhart, C & Barbara, J 2008, Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical Studies: Rhetoric in Detail: Discourse Analyses of Rhetorical Talk and Text, John Benjamins Publishers, New York, NY.
7. Fairclough, N 2000, The discourse of social exclusion: Approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis, Passagen Verlag, Vienna.
8. Gee, J 2005, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, Routledge, London.
9. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (1964). e ethnography of communication.Washington,DC: American Anthropological Association.
10. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: e ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
11. Hymes, D. H. (1962). e ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 15–53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
12. Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models for the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D.
13. H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: e ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
14. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
15. Hymes, D. H. (1975). Breakthrough into performance. In D. Ben-Amos & K. S. Goldstein (Eds.), Folklore: Performance and communication (pp. 11–74). e Hague: Mouton
16. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (1964). e ethnography of communication.Washington,DC: American Anthropological Association.
17. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: e ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
18. Hymes, D. H. (1962). e ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 15–53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
19. Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models for the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D.
20. H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: e ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
22. Hymes, D. H. (1975). Breakthrough into performance. In D. Ben-Amos & K. S. Goldstein (Eds.), Folklore: Performance and communication (pp. 11–74). e Hague: Mouton
23. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
24. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (1964). The ethnography of communication. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
25. Gumperz, J. J., & Hymes, D. H. (Eds.). (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
26. Halliday, M & Matthiessen, C 2004, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Arnold, London.
27. Hymes, D. H. (1962).The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin &W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 15–53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
28. Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models for the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D.H. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
29. Hymes, D. H. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
30. Hymes, D. H. (1975). Breakthrough into performance. In D. Ben-Amos & K. S. Goldstein (Eds.), Folklore: Performance and communication (pp. 11–74). The Hague: Mouton.
31. Keller, R 2011, ‘The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD)’, Human Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 43-65.
32. Reisigl, M & Wodak, R 2001, Discourse and Discrimination, Routledge, London.
33. Renkema, J 2004, Introduction to Discourse Studies, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
34. Ritchie, J & Lewis, J 2003, Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, Sage, London.
35. Ross, K & Nightingale, V 2003, Media and Audiences New Perspectives, Open University Press, Virginia.
36. Seale, C 2004, Social research methods: a reader, Routledge, London.
37. Silverman, D 2005, Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook, Sage, London.
38. Wood, L & Kroger, R 2000, Doing Discourse Analysis, Sage Publishers, London.