Correcting ‘a notional’ confusion for critical discourse analysis

IF 3.2 N/A PHILOSOPHY
R. Walker
{"title":"Correcting ‘a notional’ confusion for critical discourse analysis","authors":"R. Walker","doi":"10.1080/14767430.2022.2105617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The meaning and grammatical status of ‘a notional’ in the schema for critical discourse analysis (CDA) from Bhaskar’s posthumously published Enlightened Common Sense (2016) is somewhat ambiguous. An ambiguity that has persisted through a subsequent development of the schema. Following the publication of Bhaskar’s original manuscript, it can now be seen that erroneous grammatical changes were made to the manuscript during the publication process. The original version provides a more coherent schema for CDA. This paper discusses the implications of the original version coming to light. This shows that Bhaskar created a more coherent schema for CDA than the published version indicated. Clarifying the meaning and grammatical status of ‘a notional’ in Bhaskar’s schema for CDA and a schema that was subsequently derived from it is an important corrective for future critical realist critical discourse analysts.","PeriodicalId":45557,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Critical Realism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Critical Realism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2105617","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The meaning and grammatical status of ‘a notional’ in the schema for critical discourse analysis (CDA) from Bhaskar’s posthumously published Enlightened Common Sense (2016) is somewhat ambiguous. An ambiguity that has persisted through a subsequent development of the schema. Following the publication of Bhaskar’s original manuscript, it can now be seen that erroneous grammatical changes were made to the manuscript during the publication process. The original version provides a more coherent schema for CDA. This paper discusses the implications of the original version coming to light. This shows that Bhaskar created a more coherent schema for CDA than the published version indicated. Clarifying the meaning and grammatical status of ‘a notional’ in Bhaskar’s schema for CDA and a schema that was subsequently derived from it is an important corrective for future critical realist critical discourse analysts.
纠正批评话语分析中的“概念上的”混淆
巴斯卡尔死后出版的《开明的常识》(2016)中,“一个概念”在批评性话语分析(CDA)图式中的意义和语法地位有些模糊。在模式的后续发展中一直存在的模糊性。随着巴斯卡尔原稿的出版,现在可以看到在出版过程中对手稿进行了错误的语法更改。原始版本为CDA提供了更连贯的模式。本文讨论了原始版本的含义。这表明Bhaskar为CDA创建了一个比发表的版本更连贯的模式。澄清巴斯卡尔的批评性话语分析图式中“一个概念”的意义和语法地位,以及随后由此衍生出的图式,是对未来批判现实主义批评话语分析的重要纠正。
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
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
30.80%
发文量
26
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信