Critical Discourse Analysis and the Translator

Transcription

1 Critical Discourse Analysis and the Translator Faculty of Languages- Department of English University of Tripoli Abstract This paper aims to illustrate how critical discourse analysis might be valuable in the investigation of ideological sites in discursive texts. Norman Fairclough s critical discourse analysis (1992, 1995, 2001) with its three dimensional framework that links discourse, ideology and power is focused on. It is found that Fairclough s approach is indispensable to the translator because it identifies how ideology is imbedded in language and how discourse is affected by social relations. الملخص تهدف هذه الدراسة الي توضيح أهمية التحليل النقدي للخطاب في معرفة المواقع األيديولوجية في النصوص الخطابية. تسلط الدراسة الضوء على التحليل النقدي للخطاب بالنسية لنورمان فيركالف ) ( بمحاوره الثالثة والتي تربط بين الخطاب واأليديولوجية والسلطة. خلصت الدراسة الي أهمية منهج فيركلوف للمترجم حيث أنه يحدد كيفية تضمين األيديولوجية في اللغة وكيفية تأثر الخطاب بالعالقات اإلجتماعية. 1. Introduction Critical discourse analysis (Wood and Kroger 2000: ) is a term that is used to identify a set of perspectives that has to do with the relationship between language and power, and the role of discourse analysis in social and cultural domains; CDA focuses on social issues and problems, e.g. racism sexism, feminism. CDA is most closely associated with Norman Fairclough (ibid.), who throughout his career has tried to link linguistic analysis to social analysis. He uses a three dimensional framework to link discourse, ideology and power. Others have used similar approaches to that of Fairclough in studying language. Fowler (1981, 1996), Hodge and Kress (1993) and Trew (1979) focus on the relation between form and ideology and how various aspects of grammar are connected to power and control. 17 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

2 Simpson concentrates on the relationship between linguistics and literature. In Language, Ideology and Point of View (1993), he sees that the role of a literary critic is no longer the interpretation of the literary work, but it exceeds it to include the analysis of the function of the linguistic choices used to carry ideology. Linguistic choices in literary texts are reflections of the social, cultural and ideological positioning of narrators voices in a text and thus they can never be neutral. Discourse is a difficult concept to define because there are many conflicting definitions from different theoretical disciplines. In linguistics, discourse refers to an extended sample of either spoken or written language (Fairclough 1992: 3). In social science, the concept refers to different ways of structuring areas of knowledge (ibid.). Fairclough (2001) rejects equivalence between Saussure s langue or parole and discourse. Fairclough (ibid: 7) regards langue as the social side of language as opposed to parole, which is the the domain of the individual. For Saussure, parole is determined by choices of the individual and thus linguistics is concerned with langue and not parole. Sociolinguistics identified parole not as a product of individual choice but as a product of social differentiation (Fairclough 2001: 7). Fairclough (ibid.) believes that social identities of people in interactions, their socially defined purposes, social settings and so on determine language variation. Discourse is language use conceived of as social practice (ibid: 18). It is a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a specific perspective. Social practice exists in a dialectical relationship with social structure and with culture. Fairclough (2001: 31) believes that social structures determine discourse and are products of discourse. Social Structure Figure. 1 (Fairclough 2001: 31) Social structures and social practice 18 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

3 On the one hand, discourse is shaped by social structures. Class, gender, age, status and ethnic identity are factors that can collectively form one s social identity and relationship with individuals in a given society, e.g. the difference between the policeman s discourse and that of the suspect is constrained by the social structure of status. Discourse here is shaped by the social structure, but contributes to the reproduction of social structure (Fairclough 2001: 61). On the other hand, discourse helps to constitute social identities, social relationships, and systems of knowledge and belief. However, constraints on the contents, relations or subjects of discourse cause structural effects on knowledge and belief, social relationship and social identities respectively. Constraints Contents Relations Subjects Structural effects Knowledge and beliefs Social relationships Social identities Table 1.(Fairclough 2001: 62) Constraints on discourse and structural effects The three effects of discourse correspond with the three functions of language. Fairclough (1992: 64) calls them the identity, relational, and ideational functions of language. The identity function relates to the ways in which social identities are set up in discourse, while the relational function deals with how social relationships between discourse participants are enacted and negotiated, while the ideational function relates to ways in which texts signify the world and its processes, entities and relations. Fairclough states that Halliday (1985) identity and relational functions are joined together under the interpersonal function, and he identifies another function, which is the textual function. It relates to how pieces of information are treated within a text or with other texts. The three functions of language are reflected in text. Fairclough regards discourse as having three dimensions: text, discursive practice and social practice. Fairclough (1995: 4) asserts that a text is a record of a communicative event (spoken/written/visual). 19 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

4 The framework for text analysis provided by Fairclough is oriented towards questioning language forms as well as meanings. In the 20 th century, linguistics and semiotics tend to place emphasis on the analysis of signs. Critical discourse analysis makes the assumption that signs are socially motivated and thus any combination between a signifier and a signified have to have a social reason. According to Fairclough (1992: 75), signs can be categorised as differences at vocabulary level. The meaning potential of a text and its interpretation is another important distinction in the process of analysis. Any text has many overlapping and sometimes contradictory meanings. It is the role of the hearer or reader to interpret the meaning of the text. Fairclough (1992: 75-78) identifies four levels of text analysis which can carry political or ideological significance: Vocabulary deals with individual words : the speaker or the writer s choice of a specific word from the range of synonymous words s/he has can depict the writer s ideology e.g. the use of offspring vs. children, or freedom fighters vs. terrorist is significant and ideological. Over lexicalization and metaphor can also carry many ideological assumptions. Text Figure 2. (Fairclough 1992: 73) Three-dimensional conception of discourse 20 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

5 Grammar deals with words combined into clauses and sentences. Fairclough (1992) underlines the importance of transitivity, passivization and nominalization in carrying ideology. Cohesion deals with how clauses and sentences are linked together. The use of repetition, words from common semantic fields, including synonyms, antonyms and hyponyms, and the use of referring and substitution devices can carry ideological significance. Text Structure deals with large scale organizational properties. Texts fall into genres, most of which have clear principles of structure such as sections or episodes. Narratives have a schematic framework; non-narrative genres have characteristic patterns of discourse structuring and a distinctive method of using tense and modality. Spoken discourse can be analysed in terms of its dialogic organization into turns. Fairclough (1992: 75) distinguishes three more issues that have to be taken into account in text analysis and which are also used in the analysis of discursive practice: the force of utterances (the kind of speech acts that are being performed e.g. promises, threats, requests etc.). The coherence of texts (the overall of a text and how it can be seen as carrying a coherent message). The intertextuality of texts (the relationship between a text and other texts). The middle level of Fairclough s model of discourse is a crucial one because it links the textual and sociocultural dimensions of discourse. Fairclough (1992: 78) states: Discursive practice involves processes of text production, distribution, and consumption, and the nature of these processes varies between different types of discourse according to social factors. Ideologies and certain broad sociocultural patterns shape the nature of the production and consumption of discourse at the level of discourse practice, the effects of which appear in cues that appear in texts. It is at this level of discourse practice that language users make use of discourse types and genres (ibid: 80, 1995: 133). Fairclough (1992: 84-86) identifies two important concepts in the linguistic field: intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Intertextuality refers to the traces in a text of the discourse practices associated with other texts and text-types. Kristeva (1980), building on Bakhtin s ideas on multi-voicing in texts, first coined the term. At a very simple level, intertextuality means that the speaker or writer uses the words of another speaker, either in the same communicative event or in another context. 21 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

6 He may also use character type or plots and mix registers or codes that are associated with a specific context of language use. The receiver of the text faces a double task of decoding the original message and identifying and interpreting the significance of the use of the incorporated pieces of other texts in a particular situational context. Intertextuality is widely used in children s books where words, plots and registers from older texts or adult texts are incorporated into the new. Fairclough (1995: 85) distinguishes between intertextuality and interdiscursivity. The former extends the later in the direction of the principle of the primacy of the order of discourse. Fairclough argues that producers of texts make use of discourse practices that belong to various orders of discourse. Policing is an example of the order of discourse. This has many types of discourse, e.g. interviewing witnesses of crimes, charging individuals of crimes and making reports of crimes. Each of these discourse types is an element of order of discourse of policing; each discourse type positions the participants in particular ways, so social identity and relations are keyed by the choice of discourse type. This makes interdiscursitivity highly ideological. Fairclough warns against the assumption that the convention of a given discourse type will necessarily result in the reproduction of power relations. Firstly, an order of discourse is a complex network of different discourse types. To be able to judge the effects on society, one must take account of the whole network of discourse types composing the order of discourse, not just individual discourse practices. Secondly, discourse should not be seen only as a site of reproduction of existing power relations and ideologies, but also as a site of power struggle. Part of the struggle concerns the discourse conventions themselves. The norms and conventions can be changed through putting together codes and elements in new combinations that give new ways of signifying (Fairclough 2001: 32-33). Fairclough (1992) stresses that discursive practice should be analysed on two levels: the microanalysis and the macro-analysis, which are mutual requisites. Because of their interrelationship, the discursive practice can mediate between the dimension of social practice and text. Fairclough (ibid: 86) contends: 22 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

7 It is the nature of the social practice that determines the macro-processes of discursive practice, and it is the micro-processes that shape the text. Ideology is important for Fairclough s theory because it is the key means by which social relations of power and domination are sustained. The function of ideology is to establish, sustain or change power relations in society. For him, ideologies are constructions of reality which are built into various dimensions of the forms and meanings of discursive practices. Through being ideologically invested, discourse is a mode of producing, reproducing or transforming social identities, social relations, and systems of knowledge and belief (1992: 87). Fairclough (ibid.) makes three claims about ideology: Ideology has a material existence in the social practices of institutions; discourse practices are material forms of ideology. Ideology interpellates subjects. It works by constituting people as subjects within the framework of ideology. Ideology operates through powerful ideological state apparatus, institutions such as education or media, which give rise to institutional orders of discourse. Fairclough argues that ideologies embedded in discursive practice are most effective when they become naturalized and achieve the status of common sense (1992: 87). This means that one comes to see a certain way of seeing things as common sense. Once this has been achieved, one no longer questions the assumptions on which the argument is based and the dominant ideology becomes entrenched. This results in the production of knowledge and beliefs, systems of social relations and the identities of social groups. Naturalization can be achieved by the naturalization of the meaning of words, situation types, interactional routines and finally the naturalization of subjects (Fairclough 2001: 87). Control through dominant discourses can also be understood in terms of Gramsci s hegemony (2000). The hegemony of a social group means that a subordinate group willingly accepts the world-view of the dominant group. It is a form of control through consensus rather than control based on coercion. For Fairclough (2001), hegemony operates through orders of discourse of society and institutions such as education, media and the political ideologies of the time. 23 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018

8 2. Conclusion The relationship between language and ideology is so ingrained that it would be difficult to see them operate in isolation from each other. The investigation of discursive texts using Fairclough s critical discourse can aid the translator not only to locate the ideology embedded in language but also to effectively understand institutions discourse which is crucial in order to maintain an equivalent translation. Bibliography Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, London and New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and Power, Essex: Pearson Education. Fowler, R. (1981) Literature as Social Discourse, London: Batsford Academic and Educational. Fowler, R. (1996) Linguistic Criticism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gramsci, A. (2000) The Modern Prince and Other Writings, New York: International Publishers. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold. Hodge, R. and G. Kress (1993) Language as Ideology, London: Routledge. Kristeva, J. (1980) Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, New York: Columbia University Press. Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View, London and New York: Routledge. Trew, T. (1979) Theory and ideology at work. In R. Fowler et al. (eds.) Language and Control, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Wood, L. A. and R. O. Kroger (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text, London: Saga Publication 24 مجلة كلية اللغات العدد 18 سبتمبر 2018