29.3235, Review: Applied Linguistics; Discourse Analysis: O'Halloran (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3235. Tue Aug 21 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3235, Review: Applied Linguistics; Discourse Analysis: O'Halloran (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 15:25:23
From: Kristin Terrill [kterrill at iastate.edu]
Subject: Posthumanism and Deconstructing Arguments

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36368137


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-4209.html

AUTHOR: Kieran  O'Halloran
TITLE: Posthumanism and Deconstructing Arguments
SUBTITLE: Corpora and Digitally-driven Critical Analysis
PUBLISHER: Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Kristin Terrill, Iowa State University

SUMMARY

In “Posthumanism and Deconstructing Arguments: Corpora and Digitally-Driven
Critical Analysis,” Kieran O’Halloran provides an elegant method for doing
critical discourse analysis (CDA) in the context of digital humanities. CDA
can be a challenge for instructors and learners in that it depends on
extensive knowledge of both linguistic structures and political
subjectivities. Corpus tools can be perceived as inaccessible as well, given
that many corpus studies rely on computer programming and, again, expertise in
linguistics. The method O’Halloran describes is geared toward learners, in
that it does not depend on advanced study in linguistics, critical theory, or
corpus methods. 

The text type O’Halloran targets for demonstrations of this method is public
sphere arguments. He employs a dialectic approach to argument analysis,
identifying the major propositions in an argument and comparing these to
refutations in counter-arguments. He then appropriates Jacques Derrida’s
deconstructive reading practices in terms of selecting specific keywords to
explore the multiple meanings and associations thereof. These analyses are
aided by various corpus analysis software tools. The ultimate goal is
identifying ‘straw man’ fallacies in public sphere arguments. The primary
audience for this book is argument analysis instructors. The book is divided
into an introduction and four parts: three chapters in part one explain the
philosophical basis, two chapters in part two demonstrate the first strand of
the proposed method, three chapters in part three demonstrate the second
strand of the proposed method, and the two chapters in the fourth part discuss
the implications of the proposed method in terms of argument analysis and
posthumanism. 

In the introduction, O’Halloran states that the overarching philosophical
perspectives underlying the method are the concept of ‘deterritorialization’
proposed by Deleuze and Guattari in “A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia” (1987) and the cultural theory of posthumanism.
‘Deterritorialization’ is, crudely put (by me) the practice of appropriating
an idea or thing and applying it productively outside its original context. A
related concept is the ‘rhizome’ (of which this book is an example). The
author defines it thus: “Deleuze and Guattari view the rhizome as a productive
image of creative thought, as unpredictable, growing in various directions
from multiple inputs and outputs, leading to fresh connections and
discoveries” (p. 8). Lastly, this book is situated in posthumanism, a school
of thought concerned with decentering humanity and moving away from
positionalities that view humanity as inherently separate and hierarchically
superior to machines, other animals, and nature (pp. 256-257).

Part One of the book describes the scholarly and philosophical basis for
O’Halloran’s corpus analysis method. The basic ideas that make up his method
include dialectic analysis and argument reconstruction. Chapter two provides a
succinct, yet detailed explanation of various ways to approach argument
analysis, including dialectic, rhetorical, and CDA. Each method is
demonstrated using sample public sphere arguments, such as a 1998 speech by
Tony Blair about diverging from entrenched political ideologies in the
twenty-first century. In this chapter, the author introduces some key concepts
for his method, including strawman fallacies, the distinction between
discourse (i.e. any particular text) and Discourse (i.e. the whole set of
texts dealing with related ideas), relevance and irrelevance in argument, and
cohesion vs. coherence. In Chapter Three, he explains the concept of Derridean
deconstruction, and why some aspects of Derrida’s philosophy of language are
rejected.  His explanation is situated in the context of DeSaussure and Kant.
The last chapter in part one introduces the reader to the tradition of corpus
linguistics situating these approaches with respect to language theory and
argument analysis, and introducing the technical concepts of corpus
linguistics that the book deals with: corpus, n-grams, keywords, and tagging,
to illustrate how corpus methods reduce arbitrariness compared to other
qualitative analytical methods.

The next two parts of this book contain various demonstrations of O’Halloran’s
proposed method. Because these five chapters follow similar structures and
have similar goals, I will not summarize each chapter individually. In
general, the method consists of a) identifying a public sphere argument that
represents a relatively powerful standpoint in a way that seems generally
coherent; b) reconstructing the argument dialectically (to the extent
possible) and generating a summary; c) identifying the critical concepts that
contribute to the coherence of the argument; and d) using corpus tools to
compare the ways that these concepts are presented outside the target text.
The goal of this method is to determine whether an argument is ‘relevant,’
i.e. whether it responds to the actual concerns of the relatively powerless
standpoint. Here, a key concept from the introduction is elaborated on: the
positioning of the analyst within a ‘discursive subjectivity’ (part two) and
an ‘ethical subjectivity’ (part three) as opposed to a ‘political
subjectivity’ (traditional CDA). The ‘discursive subjectivity’ positions the
analyst to understand how an argument’s use of a key idea reflects or distorts
the way that idea is reflected generally . The ‘ethical subjectivity’ reflects
the primary concerns about the topic as they are represented in the particular
discourse of “relatively powerless Others” (p. 154). ‘Ethical subjectivity’
diverges from the overtly political bias described by van Dijk, 2001 (whom
O’Halloran references) in that it does not require the analyst to have
already-established political commitments. As such, this method may be more
appropriate for learners compared to more politically-charged approaches to
CDA.

Part Two contains the presentation of the ‘first strand’ of the method, which
involves generating a ‘discursive subjectivity.’ This strand uses a large,
general corpus to construct a “[familiarity] with the habitual discourse of a
particular topic” (p. 99). For these demonstrations, the author selects essays
about genetically modified agriculture and the second Iraq war and
reconstructs the arguments dialectically. He then identifies the terms and
concepts that are critical for the argument’s cohesive structure, and uses a
large, general corpus (the 1.5 billion word UKWaC corpus [Ferraresi,
Zanchetta, Baroni, & Bernardini, 2008] and the 2 billion word Oxford English
Corpus [Oxford, 2005], respectively) to learn how those terms are typically
presented in discourse. 

Part three demonstrates the ‘second strand’ of the method, in which an analyst
attempts to inhabit the ‘standpoint of the criticized,’ i.e. to see the
argument from the perspective that the selected article/essay opposes. This
‘standpoint of the criticized’ is in turn the basis for developing an ‘ethical
subjectivity.’ To accomplish this, O’Halloran constructed corpora based on
prompts from the target essays: in one case, he used a hyperlink included in
the selected argument and constructed a corpus of words used on the linked
website; in another, he constructed a corpus from the texts in the comments
section of the selected article; lastly, he used a webcrawler Visual Web
Spider (NewProSoft, 2014), to construct a corpus from websites that articulate
the opposing viewpoint. The author identified the goal of both strands as
determining whether the argument made in the selected essay frames the
opposition’s perspective completely and accurately. In all five
demonstrations, he shows that the arguments hinge on depicting the opposing
perspective inaccurately. 

In the fourth and final part of the book, O’Halloran provides discussion and
implications of the method. In this section he engages with some of the major
limitations of dialectical analysis and CDA, suggesting that the proposed
method overcomes these limitations. He also develops an argument for using
technology in CDA, which is situated in the philosophy of posthumanism.

EVALUATION

This book presents a persuasive case for using corpus tools to teach CDA. The
most compelling reasons include the comparative ease of using corpus tools
versus traditional dialectical analysis, especially given that many
argumentative writers do not explicitly state all of the premises of their
arguments. O’Halloran also emphasizes the usefulness of his method for
analysts who do not come to the argument with a well-informed political
standpoint, which is a necessity for effective criticism, and also beyond the
scope of most beginner discourse analysts (undergraduate students). Perhaps
most importantly, he provides a means of harnessing the many affordances of
digital discourse. His vision of the posthumanities (humanities, reconceived
in posthumanism) is not limited to using computers to do what humans have
already done, only faster. Rather, this method allows the computer to seek
information by its own logic, following in its path and making suggestions
intermittently. In this way an optimistic posthumanism is suggested, which is
uplifted by the values and norms of the Enlightenment and supercharged with
artificial intelligence. 

O’Halloran also situates the method by providing accessible and relevant
context. He describes the evolution of discourse analysis from Kant to de
Saussure to Derrida. He provides those without a strong background in corpus
linguistics with succinct and straightforward summaries of some of the
important concepts that follow from the scholarship of John Sinclair. Perhaps
most importantly, he provides a moving argument for evolving CDA from its
roots in the works of Bloor & Bloor and Fairclough into the posthuman age. In
keeping with the theme of “deterritorialization,” the author holds onto what
is essential from CDA—advocacy for powerless Others, critical thinking, and
systematic linguistic analysis—and moves beyond the constraints of political
subjectivities to explore the full array of minoritarian voices amplified by
emerging technologies. Philosophical discussion is not relegated to the
introduction and conclusion sections, but is revisited and developed in each
demonstration of the proposed method. In this way, the volume achieves
coherence.

The modified version of CDA provided in this book suits the needs and
affordances of twenty-first century scholarship. Ever mindful of pedagogical
applications, he includes, especially in the fourth part, helpful guidance for
teachers of discourse analysis. This guidance reflects the subscription to
posthumanism that informs the entire text and the awareness that future
discourse analysis will be conducted by scholars who are digital natives. Many
of these readers and scholars may never need to develop comprehensive
expertise on contemporary political subjectivities. Moreover, it is unethical
(or at least, ethically questionable) to teach critical thinking by
indoctrinating students into political subjectivities, even when these
subjectivities are fundamental to entire schools of thought. Future scholars
do need to develop critical thinking skills, and O’Halloran’s view is that
these can be taught without sanitizing or glossing political ideologies. For
instructors who share this view, this book contains a roadmap for teaching CDA
without indoctrination. Analysts do not need to have picked a ‘side’ in order
to engage in this posthuman CDA; the learner can, it is suggested, take a
stance of “hospitality to the Other.” This stance, which Derrida adapts from
“Levinas’ ethics of responsibility to the Other” (O’Halloran, 2017, p. 161),
permits one to temporarily inhabit the standpoint of a relatively powerless
Other to assess discourse from their perspective. Rather than commit to this
perspective, the analyst is later able to return to the integrity of their own
identity (whatever that might be, i.e. irrespective of the analyst’s
identity/ies and privileges) having expanded their awareness. 

That the method is independent from pre-existing political positionalities
also makes it more widely applicable than traditional CDA. As political
identities and perspectives continuously emerge and cause schisms among
traditional groups, systems such as feminism, progressivism, and socialism
fracture. The notion of ‘ethical subjectivity’ (as opposed to ‘political
subjectivity’) accommodates this process of emergence and fracture, in fact,
it depends on it. Thus, the method is not only posthuman in its use of
technology, but also in its accommodation of emergent humanities. This method
is not packaged as is ‘future-proof,’ but it does seem highly resistant to
cultural evolution. 

One important limitation of this book is that it remains to be seen whether
the method can be effectively applied by other analysts, especially learners.
O’Halloran deftly handles the multiple steps of his discourse analysis method,
and clearly explains how he comes to each of his conclusions. Nevertheless,
the method seems to require foundational knowledge in classical dialectical
analysis and an ability to parse subtle differences in meaning among related
terms. For instance, his analysis of an argument against ‘the New Atheism’
hinges on perceiving the difference between ‘religion’ and ‘religious faith’
(pp. 193-194). While this distinction is explained, it seems dubious whether
an inexperienced analyst would be likely to notice a discrepancy in the use of
such terms without having their attention drawn to it. The various
applications of his method are conveyed concisely and convincingly; however,
at times the analyses become complex and technical. Overall, the author’s
explanations of complex and abstract ideas are remarkably accessible; however,
passages which detail analytical processes are more challenging. This issue
doesn’t negatively impact the persuasiveness of the sample analyses, but it
does raise concerns about the usability of the method by learners.

In closing, I would like to comment that this is an immensely enjoyable book
to read. I will disclose my own positionality as a graduate student, a learner
of discourse analysis studies, and a newcomer to the idea of posthumanism.
O’Halloran’s thoughtful, lively writing style is both engaging and
informative. It is highly accessible for readers who have limited knowledge of
the topics listed in the title. Finally, it thoroughly changed the way I think
about argument analysis, and the directions this practice will take in the
21st century.

REFERENCES

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. 1987. “A Thousand Plateaus : Capitalism and
Schizophrenia.” Translation and foreword by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Ferraresi, A., Zanchetta, E., Baroni, M., & Bernardini, S. 2008. ‘Introducing
and evaluating UKWac’, in “Proceedings of the 4th Web as Corpus Workshop”,
LREC, pp. 47-54. Available at
http://clic.cimec.unitn.it/marco/publications/lrec2008/lrec08-ukwac.pdf.

O’Halloran, K. 2017. “Posthumanism and Deconstructing Arguments: Corpora and
Digitally-Driven Critical Analysis.” Oxford: Routledge.

Oxford. 2005. “Oxford English Corpus,” Oxford: Oxford UP.

Dijk, T. van 2001. ‘Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity’, in R. Wodak
and M. Meyer (eds), “Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis”, London: SAGE
Publications, pp. 95-120.

NewProSoft, 2014. “Visual Web Spider.” Version 7.3. Available at
https://visual-web-spider.en.uptodown.com/windows.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Kristin Ilene Terrill is a PhD student of Applied Linguistics and Technology
at Iowa State University. Her research interests include discourse analysis
and language acquisition. Her goal is to teach linguistics at a university.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3235	
----------------------------------------------------------