Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
Nagłówek strony

Artykuły

Nr 1(12) (2017): Zwrot relacyjny w socjologii

For a Relational Critical Discourse Analysis

  • Tomasz Zarycki
DOI
https://doi.org/10.51196/srz.12.13
Przesłane
22 maja 2020
Opublikowane
01-04-2017

Abstrakt

This paper proposes a relational and critical sociological perspective on discourse analysis, in particular on so-called “Critical Discourse Analysis” (CDA). The main argument of this paper is that CDA has not yet been able to turn its critical perspective towards its own field. Meanwhile, neither CDA nor other schools of discourse analysis can still pretend not to be integral parts of the system legitimizing social hierarchies in modern societies. The paper argues that discourse analysis can be seen as highly dependent on power relations, both because of its institutional positioning and because of its restricted reflexivity. A call for the development of a critical sociology of discourse analysis based on a relational approach is therefore presented. Its draft programme is largely based on inspiration from the sociology of knowledge, in particular from “the sociology of sociology” of Pierre Bourdieu.

Bibliografia

  1. Akman V. 2000. Rethinking Context as a Social Construct, “Journal of Pragmatics”, vol. 32(6), pp. 743–759.
  2. Bar-Hillel Y. 1954. Indexical Expressions, “Mind”, vol. 63(251), pp. 359–379.
  3. Bauman R., Briggs C.L. 1990. Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life, “Annual Review of Anthropology”, vol. 19, pp. 59–88.
  4. Billig M. 2000. Towards a Critique of the Critical, “Discourse & Society”, vol. 11(3), pp. 291–292.
  5. Blommaert J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge Univer¬sity Press.
  6. Blumer H. 1969. Symbolic Interaction: Perspective and Method, University of California Press.
  7. Bourdieu P. 1983. The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed, “Poetics”, vol. 12(4–5), pp. 311–356.
  8. Bourdieu P. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity, University of Chicago Press.
  9. Bourdieu P., Boltanski L. 2008. La Production de l’idéologie dominante, Demopolis et Raisons d’Agir.
  10. Bourdieu P., Wacquant L.J.D. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University of Chicago Press.
  11. Bourdieu P., Wacquant L.J.D. 1993. From Ruling Class to Field of Power: An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu on La Noblesse d’État, “Theory, Culture & Society”, vol. 10(3), pp. 19–44.
  12. Bottero W., Crossley N. 2011. Worlds, Fields and Networks: Becker, Bourdieu and the Structures of Social Relations, “Cultural Sociology”, vol. 5(1), pp. 99–119.
  13. Bucholtz M. 2001. Reflexivity and Critique in Discourse Analysis, “Critique of Anthropology”, vol. 21(2), pp. 165–183.
  14. Burawoy M. 2005. 2004 American Sociological Association Presidential Address: For Public Sociology, “The British Journal of Sociology”, vol. 56(2), pp. 259–194.
  15. de Beaugrande R., Dressler W.U. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics, Longman.
  16. Diaz-Bone R., Bührmann A.D., Gutiérrez Rodríguez E., Schneider W., Kendall G., Tirado F. 2007. The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis: Struc¬tures, Developments and Perspectives, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, vol. 8(2).
  17. Donati P., Archer M.S. 2015. The Relational Subject, Cambridge University Press.
  18. Dubois V. 2014. Le rôle des linguistes dans les politiques de la langue française (1960–1990): éléments pour une analyse socio-politique, Dossiers d’HEL, SHESL, 2014, Linguistiques d’intervention. Des usages socio-politiques des savoirs sur le langage et les langues, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01115127, pp. 1–6, accessed 10.10.2017.
  19. Emirbayer M. 1997. Manifesto for a Relational Sociology, “American Journal of Sociology”, vol. 103(2), pp. 281–317.
  20. Fairclough N. 2009a. A Dialectical-Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis in Social Research, [in:] Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, eds. R. Wodak, M. Meyer, Sage Publications, pp. 162–186.
  21. Fairclough N. 2009b. Genres in Political Discourse, [in:] Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed. J.L. Mey, Elsevier, pp. 293–298.
  22. Firbas J. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Commu¬nication, Cambridge University Press.
  23. Foucault M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Tavistock Publications.
  24. Gal S. 2009. Linguistic Anthropology, [in:] Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed. J.L. Mey, Elsevier, pp. 519–533.
  25. Goodwin C., Duranti A. 1992. Rethinking Context: An Introduction, [in:] Rethinking Context: Language As an Interactive Phenomenon, eds. C. Goodwin, A. Duranti, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42.
  26. Habermas J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Beacon Press.
  27. Harris W.V. 1988. Interpretive Acts: In Search of Meaning, Clarendon Press.
  28. Jessop B. 2004. Critical Semiotic Analysis and Cultural Political Economy, “Critical Discourse Studies”, vol. 1(2), pp. 159–174.
  29. Jones P.E. 2007. Why There Is No Such Thing As “Critical Discourse Analysis”, “Language & Communication”, vol. 27(4), pp. 337–368.
  30. Keller R. 2005. Analysing Discourse: An Approach from the Sociology of Knowledge, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, vol. 6.
  31. Labov W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City, Center for Applied Linguistics.
  32. Laclau E., Mouffe C. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Verso.
  33. Leezenberg M. 1999. Symbolic Power, Illocutionary Force, and Impoliteness: A Critical Look at the Foundations of Speech Act Theory, Symposium Amstelogue.
  34. Leezenberg M. 2002. Power in Communication: Implications for the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, “Journal of Pragmatics”, vol. 34(7), pp. 893–908.
  35. Levinson S.C. 1983. Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press.
  36. Marchand J.W. 1975. Towards a Sociology of Linguistics, Conference Paper.
  37. Mey J. 1999. When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics, Mouton de Gruyter.
  38. Mouffe C. 2005. On the Political, Routledge.
  39. Ochs E. 1979. Introduction: What Child Language Can Contribute to Pragmatics, [in:] Developmental Pragmatics, eds. E. Ochs, B.B. Schieffelin, Academic Press, pp. 1–17.
  40. Pellizzoni L. 2001. The Myth of the Best Argument: Power, Deliberation and Reason, “The British Journal of Sociology”, vol. 52(1), pp. 59–86.
  41. Putnam R.D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press.
  42. Ruiz Ruiz J. 2009. Sociological Discourse Analysis: Methods and Logic, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, vol. 10.
  43. Searle J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press.
  44. Sgall P., Hajičová E., Panevová J. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Kluwer.
  45. Siisiäinen M. 2003. Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam, “International Journal of Contemporary Sociology”, vol. 40(2), pp. 183–204.
  46. Silverstein M., Urban G. 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse, University of Chicago Press.
  47. Slembrouck S. 2001. Explanation, Interpretation and Critique in the Analysis of Discourse, “Critique of Anthropology”, vol. 21(1), pp. 33–57.
  48. Spencer-Oatey H. 2011. Conceptualising ‘the Relational’ in Pragmatics: Insights from Metapragmatic Emotion and (Im)politeness Comments, “Journal of Pragmat¬ics”, vol. 43(14), pp. 3565–3578.
  49. Timar J. 2004. More Than ‘Anglo-American,’ It Is ‘Western’: Hegemony in Geography from a Hungarian Perspective, “Geoforum”, vol. 35(5), pp. 533–538.
  50. van Eemeren F.H., Grootendorst R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  51. van Dijk T.A. 1980. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  52. van Dijk T.A. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism, Sage Publications.
  53. van Dijk T.A. 1999. Context Models in Discourse Processing, [in:] The Construction of Mental Representations During Reading, eds. H. van Oostendorp, S.R. Goldman, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 71–98.
  54. van Dijk T.A. 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis, [in:] Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, H.E. Hamilton, Blackwell, pp. 352– 371.
  55. van Dijk T.A. 2006. Discourse and Manipulation, “Discourse & Society”, vol. 17(2), pp. 359–383.
  56. van Leeuwen T. 2009. Critical Discourse Analysis, [in:] Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, ed. J.L. Mey, Elsevier, pp. 166–169.
  57. Wacquant L.J.D. 2004. Critical Thought as Solvent of Doxa, “Constellations”, vol. 11(1), pp. 97–101.
  58. Wallerstein I.M. 1974. The Modern World-System, Academic Press.
  59. Wickham G., Kendall G. 2007. Critical Discourse Analysis, Description, Explanation, Causes: Foucault’s Inspiration Versus Weber’s Perspiration, “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, vol. 8.
  60. Wodak R. 2001. The Discourse-Historical Approach, [in:] Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, eds. R.Wodak, M. Meyer, Sage Publications, pp. 63–95.
  61. Wodak R. 2008. Introduction: Discourse Studies—Important Concepts and Terms, [in:] Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. R. Wodak, M. Krzyżanowski, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–29.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Podobne artykuły

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

Możesz również Rozpocznij zaawansowane wyszukiwanie podobieństw dla tego artykułu.