منابع پایان نامه درباره interest، social science، tradition

label CDA came to be used more consistently with this particular approach to linguistic analysis.
Fairclough and Wodak in 1997 took these criteria further and established ten basic principles of a CDA program. To set out the social theories behind CDA and, as in other critical linguistic works, a variety of textual examples were analyzed to illustrate the field, its aims, and methods of analysis. Particularly the language of the mass media was examined as a site of power, of struggle and also as a site where language was apparently transparent. Fairclough explained and elaborated some advances in CDA, showing not only how the analytical framework for investigating language in relation to power and ideology developed, but also how CDA was useful in disclosing the discursive nature of much contemporary social and cultural change.
Van Dijk’s earlier work in text linguistics and discourse analysis in 1977 showed the interest he took in texts and discourse as basic units and social practices. Like other critical linguistic theorists, he traced the origin of linguistic interest in units of language larger than sentences and in text and context dependency of meanings. Van Dijk and Kintsch in their work in 1978 considered the relevance of discourse to the study of language processing. Their development of a cognitive model of discourse understanding in individuals slowly developed into cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning on a social level (Wodak & Meyer, 2001)
2.3 Ideology
According to Thompson (as cited in Wodak, 2002), the concept of ideology first appeared in late 18th century in France and was used ever since. He defines ideology as “social forms and processes within which, and by means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world. In CDA, ideology is seen as an important means by which unequal power relations are established and maintained”. Thompson considers the study of ideology as one of the ways in which various symbolic forms are used to construct and convey meaning. But, it should be noticed that the study of ideology, regardless of the purpose of the study, is more than just construction and conveyance of meaning. Such study should also analyze how the constructed meaning draws the desired or target result or reaction in the outside reality and how it helps maintain relations or direct social actions.
Based on what van Dijk states the theory of ideology that informs the discourse analytic approach is multidisciplinary. It is articulated within a conceptual triangle that connects society, discourse and social cognition in the framework of a critical discourse analysis. In this approach, ideologies are the basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social groups, organizations or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are “both cognitive and social” (Van Dijk, 1998, p. 18). Van Dijk defines ideology as “socially shared representations of groups” and distinguishes four essential properties for ideologies. In his view, whatever ideologies are, firstly, they are belief systems which do not contain the ideological practices or social structures that are based on them. Secondly, ideologies are socially shared by the members of a collectivity of social actors and, therefore, there is no such thing as ” personal ” or ” private ” ideology. Thirdly, ideologies are fundamental or axiomatic with general and abstract nature, which organize other socially shared beliefs. Finally, ideologies are acquired gradually and changed gradually, and therefore are relatively stable. Sometimes ideologies get so widespread that they become shared by a whole community. In such case, Van Dijk believes they lose their ideological nature and become a common sense, such as the issue of human rights. Van Dijk also describes that ideologies may function variously. Most importantly, they frame the identity of groups in a society, they can organize and ground the social representations which are shared by the members of groups, they determine how discourses and other social practices are conducted in a group, they help members of a group to coordinate and harmonize their individual and joint actions and interactions in favor of the goals and interests of the group, and they function as part of the socio-cognitive interface between social structures and discourses, and thus legitimate domination, articulate resistance, set social guidelines, etc. In other words, ideologies are localized between societal structures and the structures of the minds of social members. In this regard, all variable phonological, lexical or syntactic forms, intonation, and tone in discourse production might be controlled by the underlying representations of group beliefs or ideologies. Yet, the relation between ideology and discourse is indirect and complex; even discourses might not be ideologically transparent, meaning that the producer might hide his/her ideological attitudes by using specific choices. However, when ideologies are mapped onto discourse, they typically become expressed with their own underlying structures. One of the aims of CDA is to demystify and illuminate discourse by means of deciphering ideologies. However, the main problem of most critical approaches to ideology is that they are exclusively inspired by social sciences and rather confused philosophical approaches. They ignore detailed and explicit cognitive analysis, and so they are unable to explicitly link social structures with social practices and discourses of individuals as social members.
2.4 Ideology and Power
When it comes to the theory of ideology the basic social question that comes up is that why people develop ideologies in the first place. Cognitively, ideologies may be developed because they organize social representations. According to Van Dijk (1998) at the level of groups, this means that people are better able to form groups based on identification along various dimensions, including sharing the same ideology. Since ideologies indirectly control social practices in general, and discourse in particular, the obvious further social function of ideologies is that they enable or facilitate joint actions; interaction and cooperation of in-group members, as well as interaction with out-group members. These would be the social micro-level functions of ideologies.
Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 354) states “At the macro-level of description, ideologies are most commonly described in terms of group relations, such as those of power and dominance.” Indeed, ideologies were traditionally often defined in terms of the legitimization of dominance, namely by the ruling class, or by various elite groups or categorizations.
Thus, according to Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 355) if power is defined here in terms of the control one group has over another group or the actions of the members of another group, ideologies function as the mental dimension of this form of control. That is, ideologies are the basis of dominant group members’ practices (say of discrimination). They provide the principles, by which these forms of power abuse may be justified, legitimized, condoned or accepted.
In other words, ideologies are “the beginning and end, the source and the goal of group practices, and thus gear towards the reproduction of the group and its power (or the challenge toward the power of other groups)” (Van Dijk, 1998, cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 354).
Traditionally the term dominant ideologies is used when referring to ideologies employed by dominant groups in the reproduction or legitimization of their dominance. Ideologies may thus, according to Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 358) be geared especially towards the formulation of the principles by which a group deserves advantages over other groups. For instance, opposition to immigration will often be legitimated by claiming that WE were here first and therefore WE have priority over scarce social resources such as citizenship, housing or work.
If there is one concept often pertinent to ideology it is that of power. As is the case for many very general and abstract notions in the social sciences and the humanities, there are many definitions and theories of power. Here we only speak of social power, that is, the power of a group A over another group B. this power may be defined in terms of control.
Usually this means the control of action. Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 357) believes that “A is able to control (limit, prohibit) the actions of B”. Since discourse is also a form of action, such control may also be exercised over discourse and its properties: its context, its topic, or its style. And because such discourse may also influence the mind of the recipients, powerful groups may –indirectly, for instance through the mass media- also control the minds of other people. We then speak of persuasion or manipulation. Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin & Hamilton, 2001: 359) in terms of his cognitive theory states that this means that powerful discourse may influence the way we define an event or situation in our mental models, or how we represent society in our knowledge, attitudes and ideologies. Power needs a “power base”, such as scarce social resources like force, money, real state, knowledge, information or status.
One of the important social resources of much contemporary power is the access to public discourse. According to Van Dijk 1998 (cited in Schiffrin

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید