1. Dr. Doris Correa Universidad de Antioquia Escuela de Idiomas Summer 2011 1

2. 1. Review of chapter 1: Y & F: DA and CDA questions we can ask at different levels, features we look at to respond to these questions (20mins) 2. Discussion of chapter 7, Y & F (2006), based on Doris’ analysis (60 mins) 3. Discussion of sample CDAs based on chart and questions: Guerrero (2008) Schaenen (2010) Rogers and Christian (2007) 2

3. 5. Whole class conclusions about what to do and not to do when preparing own CDA (15mins) 6. Presenting your CDA idea: (20mins each x 10= 200mins) 7. Review of readings and assignments for next class (15 mins) 3

4. Look at Doris’s analysis: 1. Do you have in your notes the same questions and features? What are significant differences? 2. Which of these questions sound more concerned with issues of power, domination etc and therefore more CDA oriented? 3. Do you think you could ask similar CDA questions of your individual texts? Which questions for example? Why? What language features would you have to look at? (help each person in your group think up possibilities to do this according to the text they have- report to the whole group) 4

5. 1.Identify participants, processes, and circumstances 2.Classify processes (passive, active, material, mental, etc. use chart from Butt et al.) 3.Classify participants into (abstract nouns, concrete) 4.Classify circumstances into location, extent, etc (use chart from Butt et al.) 5

6.  What voice predominates? If passive, what participants are being eliminated? If active, who is the writer focusing on?  What kind of participants predominate? Are they animate or non-animate? What does it mean? Who of them is being represented positively or negatively in the processes in which they are involved?  What kind of processes predominate? Material, mental,. Etc? what does it mean?  What do most circumstances refer to? What does it mean? 6

7. 1.Who is being made responsible for the actions? 2.Why are some participants being specified and some being eliminated? 3.Who seems to have the power of conducting the actions, mental processes, etc ? 4.Who seems to be in control? 5.Who seems to be in a position of subjugation or receiver of actions? 6.What do the processes say about the kind of power certain groups have over others? How do they demonstrate unequal power relations? 7.How do they reproduce the status quo? 8.How do they represent issues of domination and oppression? 7

8. 1.Identify subject, predicator, and complement 2.Identify the polarity: positive and negative statements 3.Identify the mood: questions, statements, imperatives? 4.Identify and classify the modals and mood adjuncts (adjectives) in the text

9.  What is being appraised positively or negatively?  Is the text composed of mainly questions, statements, or imperatives?  Who is making the statements, asking the questions, or giving commands?  How is modality being used to express attitudes (affect, appreciation, judgment), positioning, stance?  How are modal, mood and polarity choices helping the speaker/ writer represent/ position him/herself and the reader?  What do choices say about writer’s attitudes, beliefs, values, preferences, motivations, allegiances, and perspectives?  What does the analysis of modals and mood adjuncts say about Affect, Judgment, Appreciation, and author’s positionality  Who seems to be the audience of this text? 9

10. 1.What do mood, modality and polarity say about relationships between the participants and about the power relations between them? 2.How is modality being used to position/represent some groups as less, inferior, subjugated, etc? 3.How do these positions/representations contribute to reproduce the status quo? 4.What relationships of equality, inequality, domination, subordination, control, etc are being established with the audience? 5.Who does the writer seem to be aligning and dis- aligning with?

11. 1.Identify Themes and Rhemes in the clauses 2.Identify thematic progression (see chart from Butt et al.) 3.look at cohesion: repetitions, substitutions, ellipsis, referents (use chart from Butt et al.) 4.Identify lexical chains (use chart, p.15 Y & F),

12. 1. What is noticeably being put in the theme part and in the rheme part? 2. Are themes being developed in a progressive way throughout the text? 3. Are the accumulated themes showing a consistent theme progression of the topic the writer was supposed to address? 4. What are some significant repetitions? 5. What substitution are being made? 6. How is ellipsis helping the writer avoid repetition or how is it obstructing clarity? 7. What lexical chains are being used?

13. 1.What do analysis of themes and lexical chains say about the main discourses running through the text? 2.How are these discourses connected to issues of power, control, domination, the status quo, etc? 3.What do repetitions say about author’s intent? What do they say about what the author considers most important or worth emphasizing? 4.What do substitutions say about the different views, the author has of the issues, participants, etc being discussed? 5.How are these views connected to major Discourses about those issues, participants, etc? 13

14.  Conversation 1: Two graduate sts at the dinner table talking about America as a gatekeeping country  Conversation 2: Continuation of conversation 1 focusing on naturalization process  Conversation 3:: two women and 3 men discussing citizenship and private education 14

15.  Conversation 4: Interview with tony blair in Britain 2005 before elections with Andrew Rawnsley.  Conversation5: courtroom interview to a potential juror in a bomber case  Conversation 6: courtroom cross examination of a witness by the prosecutor at the trial of a man accused of killing a woman 15

16. 1. What kinds of questions do Y & F seem interested in in each of the conversations? 2. What lexical-grammatical features do they propose that we focus on to uncover those dynamics? 3. What kind of intro does he propose we do to start the analysis? 16

17. 1. What are they analyzing? (type of text. Of what, collected how, from whom, etc) 2. What are they interested in researching? 3. Do their questions reveal a CDA approach? how? 4. Who do they claim to be drawing on for their analysis? And which specific parts of these authors’ proposal do they claim to be following? 5. In what parts of the analysis can you see they are actually following author’s recommendations as to what to look at? Provide examples! 17

18. 6. Do you think they could be clearer about how they conducted the analysis? Why? 7. What conclusions did they reach from their analysis? 8. Which of the critiques we studied do you think apply to this case? Handout of 8 & 9 9. Do you think it meets criteria for quality? 18

19.  Domination  Oppression  Emancipation  Reproduction of status quo  Unequal power relations  Struggle  Conflict  Discrimination  Control  Ideology  Inequities  Social inequality  Possibilities for resistance  Disparity  Privilege 19

20. 1. It is a biased interpretation: it is prejudiced on the basis of some ideological commitment, and it selects for analysis such texts as will support the preferred interpretation 2. Political and social ideologies are projected into the data rather than being revealed through the data. 3. Analysts begin their analysis knowing what they are going to find and their analysis simply confirms what they suspect 4. The methodology is not (does not seem) systematic or rigorous 20

21. 1. Validity 2. Reliability 3. Representativeness 4. Completeness (refers to the results) 5. Accessibility (findings should be accessible to the social groups under investigation) 6. Triangulation: taking into account four levels: (Meyer) the immediate lang, the intertextual and interdiscursive, the extralinguistic (context of situation), the broader sociopolitical and historical context 21