A CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR DISCOURSE-ANALYTICAL APPROACHES FOR MEDIA DISCOURSE STUDIES

Author: Hua Ying

ABSTRACT

This article presents a critical review of the major discourse-analytical approaches for media discourse studies from the perspectives of “why”, “what” and “how”. Beginning with the grounds for a review of the mainstream approaches for media discourse studies, the article focuses on the affordances of each approach. With a critical analysis of the methodological trajectories, the study supports the trend for trans-theoretical approaches and identifies the potential niches along the trend.

Keywords: media discourse studies, approaches, affordances, methodological trajectories

REFERENCES

  • Attia, M. (2007). A critical cognitive study: The Egyptian written media. In C. Hart and D.    Lukeš (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory (pp.80-105).  Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
  • Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.
  • Baker, P. and McEnery, T. (2005). A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics, 4(2), 197–226.
  • Bhatia, V.K. (2008). Towards critical genre analysis. In V.K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew and R.H. Jones (Ed.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 166-177). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Bhatia, V.K., Flowerdew, J. and Jones, R. H. (2008). Approaches to discourse analysis. In V.K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew and R.H. Jones (Ed.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 1-17). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2001). Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton (Ed), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 175–96). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
  • Breeze, R. and Olza, I. (2017). Evaluation in media discourse: European perspectives. Bern,   New York, Peter Lang.
  • Cameron, D. & Panović, I. (2014). Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis. In D. Cameron and I. Panović (Ed.), Working with Written Discourse (pp.81-96). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
  • Catenaccio, P., et al. (2011). Towards a linguistics of news production. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1843-1852.
  • Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (Ed.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp.261-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.56-73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Crystal, D. (2010). Internet language. In L. Cummings (Ed.), The pragmatics encyclopedia (pp. 234–236). London: Routledge.
  • Durant, A. and Lambrou, M. (2009). Language and media: A resource book for students. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Eggins, S. & Martin, J. (1997). Genres and registers of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (Vol. 1) (pp. 230-256). London: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446221884.n9.
  • Engeström, Y. and Middleton, D. (1996). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse.  London and New York: Arnold.
  • Feng, D. (2017). Basic questions of multimodal discourse analysis. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 39(3), pp.132-141.
  • Feng, D. and O’Halloran, K. 2013. The visual representation of metaphor: A social semiotic approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (2), pp. 320-335.
  • Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology and knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.
  • Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic.
  • Halliday M A K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London： Edward Arnold.
  • Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Jorgensen, M. W. & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London. Sage.
  • KhosraviNik, M. (2010). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(1), 1-28.
  • Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: London University of Chicago Press.
  • Langacker, R.W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd ed., Teaching techniques in English as a second language). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Li, C., & Wu, D.(2018). Facework by global brands across Twitter and Weibo. Discourse, Context & Media, 26, 32-42.
  • Liu, Y. & O’Halloran, K. L. (2009). Intersemiotic texture: Analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367-387.
  • Machin, D. and van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Marter, D. (2013). Variation in language: Faces of Facebook English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Matheson, D. (2005). Media discourses: Analysing media texts. Maidenhead, England, New York: Open University Press.
  • Musolff, A. (2006). Metaphor scenarios in Public Discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23-38.
  • Musolff, A. (2013). The reception of antisemitic imagery in Nazi Germany and popular opinion—Lessons for today. In R.Wodak and J.E. Richardson (Ed.), Analyzing fascist discourse: European fascism in talk and text (pp.56-72). New York: Routledge.
  • Nemer, D. (2016). Celebrities acting up: A speech act analysis in Tweets of famous people. Social Networking, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2016.51001.
  • Nerlich, B. (2005). ‘A River Runs Through it’: How the discourse metaphor crossing the Rubicon structured the debate about human embryonic stem cells in Germany and (not) the UK. Metaphoik.de, 8, 71-104.
  • Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Norris, S. (2008). Some thoughts on personal identity construction: A multimodal perspective. In V.K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew and R.H. Jones (Ed.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 132-148). London and New York: Routledge.
  • O’Halloran, K. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives. London: Continuum.
  • O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating media discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Refaie, E. (2003). Understanding visual metaphor: The example of newspaper cartoons. Visual Communication, 2(1), 75-95.
  • Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak, and M. Meyer (Ed.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2nd ed. (pp.87–121). London: Sage.
  • Rey, J. M. (2001). Changing gender roles in popular culture: Dialogue in Star Trek episodes from 1966 to 1993. In D. Biber and S. Conrad (Ed), Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies (pp. 138–56). London: Longman.
  • Sánchez, J. and Blanco-Carrión, O. (2007). Frames and critical discourse analysis in violence-related emotive event analysis. In C. Hart and D. Lukeš (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis: Application and theory (pp.232-254).  Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
  • Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and L.J. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 10–22). New York: Academic Press.
  • Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Talbot, M. (2007). Media discourse: Representation and interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Barcelona.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2(1), 62-86.
  • van Dijk, T.A. (1985). Introduction: Discourse analysis in (mass) media communication. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse and communication: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication (pp.1-9). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Widdowson, H. (2000). On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied linguistics, 21(1): 3-25.
  • Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Ed.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.63–95). London: Sage.
  • Wu, D., & Lin, M. (2017). Speech acts and facework by Chinese celebrities on Weibo. In X. Chen (Ed.), Politeness phenomena across Chinese genres (pp. 119–134). Sheffield: Equinox.