A faircloughian approach to cda: Principled eclecticism or a method searching for a theory?

R. Henderson
{"title":"A faircloughian approach to cda: Principled eclecticism or a method searching for a theory?","authors":"R. Henderson","doi":"10.1080/17508480509556422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For researchers wanting to take up critical discourse analysis (CDA) as an analytical tool, Norman Fairclough's (1989) early work provided a step‐by‐step approach that he called ‘a guide not a blueprint’. In response to calls for a more explicit theoretical justification, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) attempted to theoretically ‘ground’ CDA and to spell out its underpinning theories ‘explicitly and systematically’. Their recommendation for a ‘shifting synthesis’ of theoretical sources, however, has been criticised, raising significant questions about the extent to which this work is method‐driven and theoretically‐framed. This article explores some of the issues, considerations and advantages that surfaced as the author drew on a Faircloughian approach to CDA, its theory and method in researching literacy learning.","PeriodicalId":347655,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne Studies in Education","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"57","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480509556422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57

Abstract

Abstract For researchers wanting to take up critical discourse analysis (CDA) as an analytical tool, Norman Fairclough's (1989) early work provided a step‐by‐step approach that he called ‘a guide not a blueprint’. In response to calls for a more explicit theoretical justification, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) attempted to theoretically ‘ground’ CDA and to spell out its underpinning theories ‘explicitly and systematically’. Their recommendation for a ‘shifting synthesis’ of theoretical sources, however, has been criticised, raising significant questions about the extent to which this work is method‐driven and theoretically‐framed. This article explores some of the issues, considerations and advantages that surfaced as the author drew on a Faircloughian approach to CDA, its theory and method in researching literacy learning.
faircloughan的cda方法:原则性折衷主义还是寻找理论的方法?
诺曼·费尔克劳(Norman Fairclough, 1989)的早期工作提供了一种循序渐进的方法,他称之为“指南而不是蓝图”,对于希望将批评性话语分析(CDA)作为分析工具的研究人员来说。为了回应更明确的理论论证,Chouliaraki和Fairclough(1999)试图从理论上“奠定”批评性话语分析的基础,并“明确而系统地”阐明其基础理论。然而,他们对理论来源的“转移综合”的建议受到了批评,提出了关于这项工作在多大程度上是方法驱动和理论框架的重大问题。本文探讨了费尔克劳的批评性话语分析方法及其理论和方法在研究识字学习中所产生的一些问题、思考和优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信