 So today we're going to discuss discourse analysis and we'll see that discourse analysis is the study of language in use in a social context. So basically how language as a social practice impacts the social world and how the social world impacts language. So we'll be doing quite a few things in today's discussion. So let us discuss about what are we going to talk about in today's presentation. So we'll begin with a description of what is discourse and then we talk about Michel Foucault's idea of discourse and how we can do a Foucaultian discourse analysis. We will be talking in details about critical discourse analysis and also the linguistic method of discourse analysis and what are described as the building task of languages. So we begin with a discussion on what is discourse. So as we discussed at the beginning, discourse analysis focuses on the use of language in social context. So basically we are talking about language in use and when I refer to language, I refer to it either as a text or talk. So it could be a printed text, it could be an audiovisual text or it could be talk and the social context refers to the social situation or the forum in which the text or talk occurs. So we are trying to look at the use of language in that social context. And we'll also see that discourse analysis hermeneutic at one end where we are seeing how it can be interpreted and also phenomenological where we are studying the discourse itself as a phenomenon. And we are trying to emphasize the life world and the meaning making through the use of language. So through discourse we want to find out what is happening in the life world and how the meaning making happens through the use of language. So in discourse analysis, language is used as a form of social practice. And how language influences the social world and how the social world influences the language that is what we are going to do in a proper discourse analysis. We've been talking about language in use and language in use basically deals with the micro dimensions of language. It could be about the functional grammar, it could be how these features interplay within a social context. And we will talk in details about these language in use and how certain kind of languages do perform certain kind of activities. And it also focuses on the rules and conventions of talk and text within a certain context. So what are the rules and conventions that describe the use of language within a particular social context. So that social context is important. So when we talk of discourse we have to understand that there are important connections when we are communicating. So I am informing about a certain event, I am at the same time doing some kind of an action and I am also enacting an identity. So there are very important connections on what is being said, what is being done and what is the identity that comes across through that kind of a discourse. So to understand fully about whatever is there in the discourse we need to understand who is saying it, what is it that the person is saying and what is it that the person is trying to do. So in other words trying to look at important connections between saying, doing and being. And context is a very very important term for understanding discourse or its context is extremely important for understanding what is discourse. Because most of the times a lot of communication is implied. We never say exactly all that we mean. We rely on listeners or readers to use the context in which things are said. So lot of the things which are left unsaid are assumed to be inferrable from the context. So whoever I am communicating with that person would understand that what is the context in which a certain thing is being said or not being said. So whatever is left unsaid is inferred by the readers. So that's a very important idea of discourse to understand before we get on with what is discourse analysis. So the other important thing is that the discourse analysis has a socio-political context as well. So this socio-political context is concerned with how language forms the social context and how it influences the social context. So language of course forms the social context because the social context is discussed in terms of language and that influences the social context as well. So this socio-political discourse analysis focuses on the social construction of discursive practices. So how that is constructed socially or how people see that in that social context. So this emphasizes that social context is influenced by language and socio-political discourse analysts focus on the social context and the interplay between the social context and language. So as we said that how does the social context influences the language or how language influences the social context and how one forms the other. So that's a very important element of a socio-political discourse analysis. And as we'll keep emphasizing there are very many ways of doing discourse analysis that is not one single way of doing discourse analysis. So that's what we are trying to emphasize in today's presentation as well. So now we begin with Michel Foucault's idea about discourse. So in the next few slides we'll try and give you a sketch of what is Foucault's idea of discourse and how we can do Foucaultian discourse analysis. So as we already know Michel Foucault emphasized the role of discourse as power, discourse as reflective of power relations. And to study this concept of discourse as power he identified the concept of archaeology as a methodology. So Foucaultian discourse analysis sees archaeology as a methodology for analyzing discourse. And we'll discuss about archaeology and genealogy in the next few slides. So archaeology is the investigation of ideas which are unconsciously organized or it is even the investigation of artifacts which are unconsciously organized. So it's not a conscious attempt to create a certain kind of discourse but how these things are unconsciously organized is what archaeology attempts to look at. So it is not interested in establishing a timeline nor is it interested in seeing history as a linear progressive thing based on Hegelian principles. But it sees discourse through other local practices which we are going to discuss in the next few slides. So archaeology defines and identifies how discourses of knowledge objects and which is separated from a historical linear progressive structure. So it disproves a historical linear progressive structure. It does not believe in a historical linear progressive structure but it sees the discourse as being formed of discrete elements. So archaeology consists of three important elements and the first is the delimitation of authority. That means who gets to speak about the object of knowledge. For example if we are describing democracy then who gets to speak about democracy. Or if we are describing development then who gets to speak about development. And the second key element of archaeology is the surface of emergence. That when does discourse about an object of knowledge begin at what stage does this discourse begin. So for example when we talk about a particular idea of development when does that discourse about development begin. And at the same time we are also interested in a grid of specification. That means how the object of knowledge is described, defined and labeled. So archaeology looks at the delimitation of authority that means who gets to speak about the object of knowledge. The surface of emergence when does discourse about an object of knowledge begin and grids of specification. That how is that object of knowledge described, defined and labeled. And as I said this object of knowledge could be anything about it could be development, it could be democracy, it could be welfare, it could be many other things that we can talk about in our everyday life world. At the same time it's important also to understand the idea of genealogy. So as we have seen archaeology's target is to deconstruct the history of ideas and how did it begin, who got to talk about those ideas and how are they described and labeled etc. Genealogy basically focuses on the emergence of a discourse that how did it begin. And it identifies where politics and power surface in the discourse. So it talks of union of erudite knowledge means systematic knowledge and also local memories. So how it's constructed in local memories through what comes through erudite knowledge. And that's a very interesting way of looking at discourse. So the object of the study of genealogy is subjugated discourses. So genealogy basically studies the subjugated discourses that are found through the use of archaeology. So through archaeology we have identified certain subjugated discourses. And within those subjugated discourses genealogy focuses on the local discontinuous illegitimate knowledge which is opposed to the assertions of the totalizing discourses which is opposed to the mainstream discourses if I can use that term. So it is the exploration of the power that develops the discourse and this power in turn constructs an object of knowledge. It constructs a discourse of development for example. So the key elements of genealogy as I discussed in the last slide is subjugated discourse. That means we study whose voices were minimized or hidden in the formation of the object of knowledge. So when we describe an object of knowledge whose voices were hidden there or whose voices were minimized. At the same time genealogy also studies about local beliefs and local understandings. And how the object of knowledge or whatever we are talking about is perceived in the social context. So we identify the object of knowledge and then we see that how is it perceived in the social context especially in terms of local beliefs and local understandings. At the same time we also study the conflict and the power relations that what are the discursive disruptions. And we will talk about disruptions when we talk about the methods of discourse analysis and how is power enacted in discourse. And that is a very important point that discourse is an enactment of power and it is also an enactment of power relations. So through these subjugated discourses we also study the conflict and power relations. So genealogy is focused on why certain discourses are dominant and why certain are subjugated in the construction of an object of knowledge. So the term that we keep using is an object of knowledge. So how these discourses about certain objects are created. So as we have discussed earlier archaeology is a method of data collection that we find out what those subjugated discourses are and such things. And the genealogy then analyzes the data of that subjugated discourse for example. So Foucault's work is the foundation of the socio-political discourse analysis that we discussed. And we will also talk about the Gramscian discourse analysis before we get into a discussion on critical discourse analysis. So Antonio Gramsci approaches discourse functions as a medium for transmission, naturalization and domination of particular ideologies over others. And the strategies used are consent and coercion rather than force. So the Gramscian approach is about how discourse functions as a medium for transmission, naturalization and domination of particular ideologies. And as we know Gramsci referred to this consensual ideological dominance as cultural hegemony. And it leads to social material outcomes via ideology. So it is basically political in nature and meanings are always relational and shifting and they are always unfixed. So this is another way of doing discourse analysis. We've discussed about the language in use. We've discussed about the socio-political discourse analysis. We've discussed Foucaultian discourse analysis and this is what Gramsci has to say about discourse analysis. We now talk about critical discourse analysis which is one of the most important ways of doing discourse analysis. So critical discourse analysis focuses on social structures and discussive strategies that play a role in the reproduction of power. So what are the social structures at one end and what are the discussive strategies that play a role in the production and reproduction of power or how the same power is exercised again and again. And we'll see that this CDA critical discourse analysis perspective is of course influenced by the work of Foucault but also many other critical theorists especially Jürgen Habermas. It rejects the concept, the critical discourse analysis rejects the concept that there is a value-free science for example. And every discourse is influenced by social structure and is also created in a particular social interface at that point of time. So that is why it studies the way in which power relations, domination and inequity are both reproduced in discussive practices and how they are resisted in discussive practices as well. How these power relations, how these dominations and how these inequities are resisted to in the discussive practices. So there are three central tenets of critical discourse analysis. One is the social structure that is the class, the social status, the age, ethnicity, gender etc. The culture which means the accepted norms and behaviors in a society and also the discourse, the words and language that we use. So these are interrelated in a critical discourse analysis. And we basically have three levels of analysis there. So the first is the text itself which is the record of communicated event that reproduces social power as we have seen or as we have assumed. Then the discussive practice itself which is the way of being in the world that signify accepted social roles and identities. So these discussive practices are ways of being or ways of identifying yourself and also signifying which social roles one has accepted and one identifies with. And the socio-cultural practice describes the distinct context in which discourse occurs. So it talks about the text itself, the discussive practice and the socio-cultural practice. So text and talk are the description of communication that occurs in a social context. And they are loaded with power dynamics as we have said in our earlier slides as well. And it is also loaded with structured roles and practices of power enactment. So if we do not analyze it critically, then the oppressive discussive practices. And we have spoken of subjugated discourses earlier or about marginalized discourses earlier or even oppressive discourses. So if we do not analyze this critically, then that would be accepted as normal. And one would not be aware or one would not understand that there are distinct power relations or distinct socio-political context that lets those discussive practices survive. So CDA or the Critical Discourse Analysis is intended to shine a light on such oppressive discussive practices. And it involves the process of critique and its ability to raise consciousness about power in social context. So that is the foundation of the CDA, that it raises consciousness about power in a social context. That these discussive practices are about power in a social context. So this critical approach analyzes the latent forms of domination along with the apparent forms of domination and also discrimination, exploitation, control and manipulation which is manifested in language use. So how the forms of domination and discrimination etc are manifested in language use apparently, directly and also latently. So this critical approach analyzes these forms of domination and discrimination and exploitation in the use of language. And it also analyzes the social processes which influence the content creation and how these structures enable or constrain the decoding of the produced text by individuals in their local context. So not only about how the content is created but how individuals decode it and how people normalize it in their everyday life. So along with the relations of power, this mode of analysis, this critical discourse analysis considers the historical conditions along with the dominant ideologies that shape the construction of text. Because one of the important ideas or one of the ways in which power is exercised through discourse is by naturalization or when something is held as a background knowledge. So CDA investigates what is it that is accepted as common sense or as background knowledge or something which is regarded as natural, which in fact is not natural. So CDA looks into the discursive practices which are regarded as normal and it tries to see what are the power relations that have led to the description of these practices as normal or common sense. And that is where the power lies as we just saw, not through coercion but through persuading people to take this as normal. So in the next six slides we are going to talk about six important elements of conducting discourse analysis and we'll see that whatever type of discourse analysis we do, these things can be used in those cases. So it's very basic, we could be doing a content analysis and in another video I have discussed in a detailed manner about how to do content analysis. We could also be talking about narrative analysis about patterns people find in their lives and situations and also conversational analysis which looks at the structure of dialogue. So when there is a conversation on communication, how does that go ahead? So we could be doing content analysis, we could be doing narrative analysis or we could be doing conversational analysis. So the first and the most important task of the discourse analysis process and it could be involving any of the processes we have discussed so far. It could be a linguistic way of seeing how language works or it could be a critical discourse analysis of seeing the power relations in those discursive practices. So we start by defining the key concepts and then suggesting that these are the operational definitions of these concepts that we want to study in our particular analysis. And then we select different types or genres or sources of discourse for detailed examination. It could be a newspaper article, it could be a television text, it could be a cinema, it could be any such text which exists. And we could be selecting different types of these texts or different genres or different sources for a detailed examination. The second thing that needs to be done for the discourse analysis is understanding the social context. So the first important thing to understand is trying to find out about the authorship of the text that we have selected. That means who produced the text, when was it produced, where was it produced, why was it produced and what is the intention of this particular text. So through authorship we try and understand one element of the social context. The second element we try and find out is about the audience. So who is the intended audience? Who is it intended for? And how has this material been disseminated to them? How do they have access to these materials? And under what conventions or circumstances is the audience expected to engage with this material? And then we also find out about the elements of the source material itself. What is the genre? What is its content and what is its form? Whether the content and the form of the material or the text is consistent with other texts of the same genre or is it different and all such things. So these three questions help us understand the social context of the discourse of practice. A very, very important part of the discourse analysis is in practicing reflexivity. Trying to analyze our own positions and how they influence our perception and analysis of materials under examination. And that's a very important thing to do. And that begins by suspending pre-existing categories. And one important way that we can proceed with critical discourse analysis is by suspending the tendency to interpret discourse according to preconceptions and pre-existing categories. Because those preconceptions and pre-existing categories are also a reflection of existing power relations. So if we see discourse or interpret discourse through our existing conceptions and categories, then we will not be able to critically analyze the power relations behind those discursive practices. So that is why an analysis of our own epistemology, how do we know about certain things, about our own ontologies, what do we regard as knowledge and our own ideologies, assumptions, biases, political ideas and even positionalities, our gender, our race, our ethnicity, income, etc. And how they may influence our perception and analysis of the discourse texts. Because this will make others understand the exact power relations behind those discursive practices and it will make our work a lot more transparent. So there are two different ways of coding that happens in the discourse analysis. So one is the descriptive coding phase. So there we take account of the content, the subject, the structure and organization, the grammar, the vocabulary, the intertextuality, the rhetorical devices or the literary devices and we make a detailed study of functional grammar of a language there if I may use the term. So that is the descriptive phase. And then we talk about the interpretive phase which aims to expose the implicit and explicit presence and privileging of particular metanarratives. So are they or is that particular discourse privileging a particular metanarrative or a particular worldview or a particular kind of language or does it privilege a particular ideology or a particular assumption or a particular unexplained premises or even norms or prescriptions for action or subject positions or power relations. So all these are implicit and explicitly present in the discourse. The interpretive phase aims to expose these implicit and explicit privileging of particular metanarratives, worldviews, epistemologies and all these things that we have discussed. And it also tries to study how the discursive patterns and relationships within and across the source materials may work together to privilege, to legitimate and to normalize or serve particular interests. So how the discursive patterns and relationships across source materials not only in the ones that we are studying at the moment but across the source materials. How do they privilege, how they legitimate, how they normalize or how they serve particular interests, agenda and the power relations at the expense of others. Because when they are privileging one kind of power relation or agenda or interest or worldviews etc. they are doing at the same time they are silencing other worldviews. So how do these things work? And then we use these insights to help explain how these patterns and relationships relate to society itself. Another important thing to realize in a discursive practice is to recognize inconsistencies and by inconsistency we mean a very different thing here. This means that how certain discourses might appear different. So they might suggest that they are doing certain benevolent things that the discourse itself for example during colonial times all the colonial powers would suggest that they were working for the welfare of the people. So the discourse would suggest some kind of benevolence on the surface but at the same time working diametrically opposite, working to in fact deprive the people whom they were supposed to be working for. So that is what is about recognizing inconsistency. So where we reveal how certain discourses appear to be doing certain things or appear to be well meaning when exactly they are doing the opposite. So that again is an important element of discourse analysis. And also we find out what are the marginalized or the alternative discourses that are actually absent in the dominant discourses. So which are the marginalized or the alternative voices and perspectives which are not present in the discourse. So are certain perspectives granted more authority than others and do some perspectives tend to suppress others. So that is why these discursive silences and you will recall we studied about subjugated discourses sometime back. So paying attention to these types of silences can help us find out the regimes of truth and what are the power relations. So what are the power relations which lead to certain voices being regarded as natural and others being excluded. And that again is a very important thing in discourse analysis. And the sixth important thing that we do is about find out what are the discourses and knowledges which seem natural and legitimate and authoritative or even common sensical. So when we are provided with discourses or representations that appear as if they are natural and true. And if we do not question that then we would not be investigating the power and the knowledge mechanisms which are involved in validating them as true. So they are not natural in the natural sense but there are power relations which have led them to be recognized as natural or common sensical. So in the next few slides we are going to talk about how language performs certain functions in a discourse. So this is more a functional analysis of language itself from a linguistic science perspective. So in the next few slides we are going to talk about those building tasks of languages. For example, in general terms there are three primary speech functions. So there could be a demand, there could be an offer, there could be a question, there could be a statement. So these statements of facts, predictions and evaluations are what we are trying to look at at a very, very basic level. Whether there is a demand or whether there is a prediction or whether there is an evaluation or whether there is a statement of fact. And whether what is presented as a communicative action or just as a communicating device is in reality a strategic device or it's an instrumental way to achieve certain ends. So one way is to look at the speech functions of the language in a given discourse. So one of the things that we look for is how the words and other grammatical devices are used to make certain things appear more significant while at the same time downplaying the importance and relevance of other events. So this is from James Paul G and the next few building tasks are also from his book on an introduction to discourse analysis. So we try and find out how certain words and grammatical devices are used to make certain things more significant. Also, we are trying to find out what activities or practices are enacted through communication. So for example, if we use formal language, then we are performing or we are practicing a certain activity. If we are using off the record language or if we use a small talk language, then we are actually performing a different kind of an activity. So the use of a formal language or a small talk language is what describes the activity being performed in that particular discursive text. Also, what are the different roles that are enacted through the use of language? So through the use of language, how do we identify ourselves? So what are the socially recognizable identities that we enact through the use of language? So am I talking as the head of a department? Am I talking as a leader? Am I talking as a co-worker, as a colleague or as a subordinate worker? So this enacting an identity is through the use of certain languages. So through the use of languages, we might be talking in a manner of head of a committee. And through use of some other languages, we could be enacting our identity as a co-worker. Language can also be used to convey a perspective on the nature of distribution of social goods. So if I say or if I write that X company loaded its operating system with bugs, that very moment I am using politics or the politics of the distribution of social goods here, suggest that this company X is culpable and I deny them a social good. I regard them as a company which is responsible for certain ills. So we use language to convey a perspective about the distribution of social goods. So that is regarded as the politics function of language. Through the use of language, we can also signal the sort of relationship we are trying to achieve. So it could be a differential relationship, it could be a formal relationship or it could be very friendly. So discourse analysis traces the kind of relationship that are sought to be enacted by the communicator. It also talks about meanings in a specific situation. So in a particular situation, a statement could be a fact and in any other situation, it could be a challenge. So seeing the meanings in that particular context is important. So this linguistic analysis of discourse sees how language takes particular meanings in specific situations. And very importantly, whether certain texts open up the possibility of interaction with the participants. So there are certain discursive texts which are open to dialogue. So whenever we see a particular discourse which is open to dialogue, that means it is open to dialogicality. There are other discourses where there is a struggle or conflict over norms. And the other discursive practice or other dialogical practice could be an attempt to resolve or overcome differences. While at other times, we might even be trying to normalize and suppress the differences between meanings and norms. So how does a particular text live up to dialogicality is another thing that we can do in discourse analysis. So we have tried to provide you an understanding of critical discourse analysis and also how we can have a linguistic analysis of discourse as well. So thank you for your patience.