Analysis of the Critical Discourse and Adversaries

Abstract

Discourse analysis is a branch of study that encompasses a variety of varied, primarily qualitative methods to the investigation of the interactions that exist between language in use and the social environment. Language is often viewed by researchers in the subject as a sort of social practice that has an impact on the social world and vice versa. There are many contemporary kinds of discourse analysis that have been overtly or indirectly informed by Michel Foucault's theories of power, knowledge, and discourse, which are discussed below. As a result of Foucault's work, there has been an increased interest in investigating the role that language plays in the formation and maintenance of certain knowledges and the maintenance of inequitable power relations. In order to undertake discourse analyses, human geographers often draw on one of three major schools of discourse analysis: Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA), critical discourse analysis (CDA), or Gramscian techniques. There are several theoretical and methodological distinctions between these approaches. While different approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, they all provide researchers with an effective means of investigating and exposing semiotic features of power relations in specific sociospatial contexts. While there are no set procedures for these techniques, researchers have recognized certain essential investigative strategies that can be used to inform the performance of any type of discourse analysis project. These strategies are included below. A brief history of Critical Discourse Analysis is offered, along with a full examination of the numerous criticisms levied at CDA and its practitioners over the previous two decades, both by scholars working within the "critical" paradigm and by other critical critics. Reader response and integration of contextual aspects are discussed, as well as a range of objections directed at the underlying premises and analytical technique. Additionally, there is discussion of contentious issues, such as the negative focus of much CDA work and CDA's developing standing as a "intellectual orthodoxy". They highlight the major criticisms that have emerged from this overview and provide some ways to overcome these shortcomings.