"(Critical) Discourse Analysis" on Wikipedia

[Dr Hatch]

Dear all
Perhaps Teun A. van Dijk s should post his own version(s) of DA and CDA on
this list, so we can all be properly enlightened.
As an (ex?) ethnomedologist / CA student I find the relevant sections of
Wikipedia something of a travesty as they concentrate purely on the
'turn-taking' program. Yet this is not a perspective confined to the
'Wikies'. You find it ­ and other travesties ­ throughout (eg) applied
linguistics.
Still, as I'm merely given a small entry in a bibliography on the site, I
can't get seem to get too steamed up about it. Also, given my edu
background, neither can I get steamed up about ANY description of CDA.

One last point Teun A. van Dijk seems to question the importance of JL
Austin in the history of DA. Is he sure?

Cheers

David Hatch


On 11/3/06 12:46 AM, "Teun A. van Dijk" <teun at DISCOURSE-IN-SOCIETY.ORG>
wrote:

> 
> Dear friends,
> 
> I do not usually look up Wikipedia when I need to know something I do not
> know, although the idea of a shared net-cyclopedia is great, and I wished we
> had something like that for discourse studies (I proposed the idea some years
> ago, but it did not work out because of technical problems: on which server to
> put it, etc...).
> 
> However, if you type in "Critical Discourse Analysis" or "Discourse Analysis"
> in Google, as undoubtedly many students do, then you also hit on the Wikipedia
> definitions - and on some surprises, such as a mere two books being mentioned
> as references for DA, one of which is... Austin's How to do things with words:
> Check it out for yourself:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_Analysis
> 
> as well as some other confused, misguided, etc, statements like:
> 
> Thus, most discourse analysts following Harris have conducted work that falls
> under the heading of ³pragmatics² in modern linguistics, rather than
> ³syntactics,² though many discourse analysts would reject linguists¹
> tripartite division of the main characteristics of language--the third
> characteristic being "semantics."
> 
> (...)
> 
> Critical discourse analysis
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis> , which combines
> discourse analysis with critical theory (particularly that of the Frankfurt
> School <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School> , Michel Foucault
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault>  and Jacques Derrida
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida> , as well as literary, semiotic
> and psychoanalytic influences from Julia Kristeva
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Kristeva> , Roland Barthes
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes> , and Jacques Lacan
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan> ), to create a politically
> engaged form of linguistic discourse analysis.
> 
> Of course this is no drama, but always worrying about what students learn, I
> find this at least a bad example of a Wikipedia entry. Or maybe I simply have
> no idea who of all these French heroes were actually CDA-ers avant la
> lettre... Jaques Lacan a CDA-er?
> 
> The item on CDA has the following surprising statement:
> 
> In terms of method, CDA can generally be described as hyper-linguistic or
> supra-linguistic, in that practitioners who use CDA consider the larger
> discourse context or the meaning that lies beyond the grammatical structure.
> 
> Obviously, this has little to do with CDA (or is a raving triviality).
> 
> Just check it out:
> 
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Discourse_Analysis
> 
> And while you are at it, also check the (basic) entry on Discourse:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse
> 
> where you can read initial statements such as:
> 
> Discourse is a term used in semantics <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics>
> as in discourse analysis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_analysis> ,
> but it also refers to a social conception of discourse, often linked with the
> work of French philosopher Michel Foucault
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault>  (1926-1984) and Jürgen
> Habermas <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas> ' The Theory of
> Communicative Action. Even though each thinker had personal and incompatible
> conceptions of discourse, they remain two important figures in this field;
> Habermas trying to find the transcendent
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendent> rules upon which speakers could
> agree on a groundworks consensus, while Foucault was developing a battle-type
> of discourse which opposed the classic marxist
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist> definition of ideology
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology>  as part of the superstructure
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstructure> ).
> 
> Now who in contemporary DA recognize themselves in this statement as an
> introduction to contemporary discourse analysis? Habermas (with all due
> respect for his work) as the leading scholar in the definition of 'discourse'?
> 
> So, WHO IS WRITING THIS NONSENSE?
> 
> I thought that Wikipedia editing was meant to correct obvious errors, add new
> references, or add an obvious point that had been forgotten, but not that
> people who have no idea (re)write items...
> 
> I also discovered that I am (still) described in Wikipedia as a text-linguist
> -- that is, by someone who has not read his (?) discourse analysis literature
> for some 30 years...
> 
> In sum, this is not doing Wikipedia or our students any good, so I propose at
> least some of us jointly compose some items on (C)DA that can be warranted as
> more or less representative of the field, then to be submitted to (for
> instance) this list, with requests for corrections and additions, and then we
> post it on Wikipedia... and see what happens to those items...
> 
> I of course know that encyclopedia items come in many guises, and reflect the
> interests, etc. of the writer(s), and no entry can be 'objective', but I think
> they should at least be more or less correct, and more or less representative.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Teun
> 
> PS. Para l at s hispanohablantes escribí entradas sobre AD y ACD para la versión
> de Wikipedia en español -- espero que sean más representativas:
> 
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Análisis_del_discurso
> <http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Análisis_del_discurso>
> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Análisis_crítico_del_discurso
> <http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Análisis_crítico_del_discurso>
> 
> ________________________________________
> 
> Teun A. van Dijk
> Universitat Pompeu Fabra
> Dept. de Traducció i Filologia
> Rambla 30
> 08002 Barcelona
> 
> E-mail: teun at discourse-in-society org
> Internet: www.discourse-in-society.org <http://www.discourse-in-society.org>
> 
> Para hispanohablantes también:
> E-mail: teun at discursos.org
> Internet: www.discursos.org <http://www.discursos.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/discours/attachments/20060312/34f3d0a0/attachment.htm>