Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán một số bài nói chuyện về giáo dục của ken robison

ABSTRACT The thesis is a critical discourse analysis of the talks ―schools kill creativity‖ and ―bring on the learning revolution‖ by Sir Ken Robinson in TED conferences.. To fulfill the

-* * * - TRẦN THỊ LONG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE EDUCATION TALKS BY SIR KEN ROBINSON

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN MỘT SỐ BÀI NÓI CHUYỆN VỀ GIÁO DỤC CỦA KEN ROBINSON)

M.A MINOR THESIS

FIELD : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE : 60220201

HA NOI, 2013

FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

FIELD : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE : 60220201

SUPERVISOR : PROF NGUYễN HOÀ

HA NOI, 2013

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled ―A Critical discourse analysis of the education talks by Sir Ken Robinson‖ is my own study in the fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts at Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi

In addition, I give my sincere thanks to friends and classmates of the Post – Graduate Studies for their encouragement and assistance in accomplishing my paper

I also would like to give my warmest thanks to my loving parents and my relatives who have comforted and taken great care of me to help me finish my study

Finally, due to the limited time to complete this work, it is unavoidable to have mistakes; therefore I am solely responsible for them and would like to have comments from others who concern to my study

Hanoi, September22nd 2013

Tran Thi Long

ABSTRACT

The thesis is a critical discourse analysis of the talks ―schools kill creativity‖ and

―bring on the learning revolution‖ by Sir Ken Robinson in TED conferences The thesis aims at exploring the relations among language, power and ideology manifested in two of these talks Especially, the author wants to find out the ideology embedded in the talks via vocabulary and grammatical features At the same time macro-structure and argumentative strategies of the talks are also revealed to explain why these talks record the most view TED talks on the Internet

To fulfill the above purposes, an overview of discourse, critical discourse analysis, the relations among language, power and ideology are provided Though there are different approaches towards critical discourse analysis, the author chose the framework suggested by Fairclough with three stages of analysis which are textual description, interpretation and explanation, in combination with Hallidayan Systemic Functional Grammar to analyze the chosen discourse

The analysis of the discourse comes to the major findings that language is shaped

by society around it but it is also a powerful and effective tool to convey ideas, at the same time affect the listeners/readers‘ opinions with those ideas, and then affect society Moreover, through the analysis of Ken Robinson talks, we learn that sometimes we do not need flowery words to make our talks engaging and effective

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i

AKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES iv

ABBREVIATIONS v

TABLE OF CONTENT vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Significance of the study 2

3 Scope of the study 3

4 Aims of the study and research questions 3

5 Methodology 4

6 Background of the data 4

7 Design of the study 6

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6

1.1 What is discourse? 6

1.2 Critical discourse analysis 8

1.2.1 Concepts of CDA 8

1.2.2 Power in language 10

1.2.3 Language and ideology 11

1.3 Main approaches to CDA 13

1.4 Fairclough‘s analytical framework 15

1.5 Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) and its roles in CDA 22

CHAPTER 2: A CDA OF KEN ROBINSON’S TALKS 25

2.1 Textual description 25

2.1.1 Vocabulary analysis 25

2.1.1.1 Experiential value of words 25

2.1.1.2 The relational value of words 28

2.1.1.3 The expressive value of words 30

2.1.1.4 Metaphors 32

2.1.2 Grammar analysis 34

2.1.2.1 The experiential values of grammar 34

2.1.2.2 The relational values of grammar 38

2.1.2.3 Expressive values of grammar 44

2.1.2.4 Macro-structure and argumentative strategy analysis 46

2.2 Interpretation 49

2.2.1 Situational context 49

2.2.2 Intertexual context and presupposition 50

2.3 Explanation 53

PART C: CONCLUSION 55

1 Summary of findings 55

2 Conclusion 57

3 Suggestions for further study 60

REFERENCE 61 APPENDIX I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Language has been playing a very important role in the development of mankind through the history of society We use language to communicate with others Language helps us to express inner thoughts and emotions, make sense of complex and abstract thoughts It also helps us to establish and maintain relationship Moreover, it is a tool to help us get what we want and need Therefore we usually use language with specific and clear purposes in our mind We know we can transmit our ideas and affect other people‘s mind through ideology embedded in the language lexically and syntactically Thus, it is undoubted that language and power have a close connection Language can be a tool for social change On the other hand, language is shaped by social structure

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an approach of discourse analysis which is based on a speech act theory that says that language is used not only to describe things but to do things as well (Brown and Yule, 1985) Therefore, CDA focuses on language as it is used by real people with real intentions, emotions, and purposes.According to this approach, there is a correlation between linguistic production and social variables because people are members of the society and their speech is a reflection of a set of experiential, relational, and expressive values (Fairclough, 1992) Through CDA, we can clearly see the close relations among language, power and ideology Moreover, Fairclough adds that CDA is an orientation towards language, which associates linguistic text analysis with a social theory of the functioning of language in political and ideological processes By doing CDA, we are identifying these processes which help to identify the internal building of discourse and the connotations it implies

In this paper, I will examine two talks delivered by Sir Ken Robinson at TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference which is a global set of conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, under the slogan

―ideas worth spreading‖ These talks are also put online at the website

from England, supports teaching the arts in schools He frequently criticizes the current system for being too centered on math and language, and he argues traditional schooling not only limits students‘ potential, but actually destroys their creativity He has spoken around the world on the subject – in Europe, America, and Asia; and two of his most well-known presentations were at a TED conference in

2006 – titled ―schools kill creativity‖ and in 2010 – titled ―bring on the learning revolution‖

I will analyze these talks, using as a base, the framework for CDA described by Fairclough (1989), which I feel provides a suitable set of analytical questions for the data I have chosen The speaker of these talks does not belong to authority system

as other speakers of political talks; thus he also has less power on the audience However, language is still an effective tool for him to transmit his ideas and affect the audience Therefore, when analyzing these talks I also focus more on the relation between discourse and ideology

2 Significance of the study

Political and social-matter-related discourses are considered to be the targets of CDA Plenty of speeches on these issues by George Bush, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, etc have been critically analyzed However, there is no CDA of speeches delivered by Sir Ken Robinson though he is a well-known speaker on education in the world Moreover, social-matter-related issues embedded in the discourses which have been critically analyzed usually are globalization, nuclear weapon, population and anti-terrorism war, environment, etc There is rare analysis

on the issues of education, though education is also among the most concerned ones today

Therefore, the thesis hopes to discover and prove how effective language is used to transfer ideas, affect people‘s perception about things in education in particular and affect society in general

3 Scope of the study

In this thesis, I only chose to analyze two talks delivered by Sir Ken Robinson at TED conferences because they are not only among Robinson‘ most popular talks but also have a considerably large number of views on Internet In addition, I just focus on the transcript of two talks Hence, the spoken version (including non-linguistic features, gesture, voice of speaking, stress, etc.) is temporarily neglected The thesis is a linguistic study rather than an educational one; thus not all information surrounding education, creativity and innovation is explored The thesis only tries to explore the speaker‘s use of language first, then and more importantly

to make explicit his ideologies of education, creativity and innovation

In addition, this is a CDA research and ―critical‖ here could be understood as

―having distance to the data… and having focus on self-reflection as scholars doing

research‖ (Wodak, 2002: 9) That means critical discourse analysts have to take a

clear stance or explicit position in understanding and analyzing discourse Therefore, in this thesis I take a social view to look at the two talks by Ken Robinson because the main themes of both talks are related to social – matter issues However, as stated above, the main object of this study is still linguistics, not social matters

4 Aims of the study and research questions

By doing a critical discourse analysis of these talks, the author aims at discovering the relations among language, power, and ideology, especially the relations between

language and ideology, then finding out the ideas of the speaker implied by the language he uses, and prove how he can use language as a tool of action

To fulfill these purposes, the following questions should be answered:

1 What and how is Robinson‘s ideology (and/or power) reflected lexically and syntactically in the talks?

2 What is the relationship between texts, their producers and consumers and the social environment in which text production and interpretation occur?

5 Methodology

This study uses, as a base, the analytical framework of Fairclough It includes three discourse analysis stages: description, interpretation, and explanation This framework will be described in detail in part B, chapter 1, and section 1.4

Quantitative and qualitative methods are also employed through three stages, with the dominance of the later Quantitative method will be used to analyze linguistic features (vocabulary, processes, etc.) Qualitative method will be used in the description stage to assess the effects of such linguistic features on expressing ideology, and/or power, and the persuasiveness of the talks This method is also used in interpretation and explanation stage

The data of the study, two talks, is collection from the website www.ted.com Some

of his online articles on the websites of HuffingtonPost, The New York Time are also collected to provide more insight in the production and interpretation of the text

To understand more about the background of two talks, including Sir Ken Robinson – the speaker, TED conferences, and the main theme of two talks, an overview will

be provided in the next part

6 Background of the data

Sir Kenneth Robinson, or Ken Robinson, (born 4 March 1950) is an internationally recognized leader in the development of creativity, innovation and human resources

in education and in business He was Director of The Arts in Schools Project (1985–1989) which influenced the formulation of the National Curriculum in England, Chairman of Arts work - the UK‘s national youth arts development agency (1985–1989), Professor of Arts Education at the University of Warwick (1989–2001) In

1998, he led a UK commission on creativity, education, and the economy and his report, ―All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture, and Education‖, was influential He was knighted in 2003 for services to education and in 2005 he was named as one of Time/Fortune/CNN‘s ―Principal Voices‖

He has served as advisor to a succession of high-profile public and private organizations - including the governments of Hong Kong and Singapore, the European Commission, and Paul McCartney's Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts He is currently senior advisor to the J Paul Getty Trust in Los Angeles

A popular speaker at TED conferences, Robinson has given two presentations on the role of creativity in education – ―schools kill creativity‖ in June 2006 and ―bring

on the learning revolution‖ in May 2010, viewed via the TED website over 18 million times (2013) Robinson‘s presentation ―schools kill creativity‖ is the most watched TED talk of all time (2013)

TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) founded in 1984 is a global set of conferences owned by the private non-profit Sapling Foundation, formed to

disseminate ―ideas worth spreading‖ The two annual TED conferences with about

1200 participants, on the North American West Coast and in Edinburgh, Scotland, bring together the world‘s most fascinating thinkers and doers such as Bill Clinton, Jane Goodall, Malcom Gladwell, Al Gore, Gordon Brown, Bill Gates, Google founder Larry Page, etc., who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes or less) They address a wide range of topics within the research and

practice of science and culture, often through storytelling Since June 2006, the talks have been offered for free viewing online through Ted.com

7 Design of the study

This paper consists of three main parts:

Part A: Introduction This part contains rational, significance, scope, aims, research questions of the study and background of the data

Part B: Development This part includes two chapters Chapter 1 literature review includes an overview of discourse, critical discourse analysis, the relations among language, power and ideology, and Fairclough‘s analytical framework, including systematic functional grammar‘s roles in CDA Chapter 2 is the CDA of two talks which consists of the textual description (vocabulary and grammar analysis, macro structure and argumentative strategy analysis), the interpretation (situational context, intertexual context and presuppositions) and the explanation

Part C: Conclusion This part includes the findings, the conclusion, and suggestion for further study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

As the aim of providing theoretical background for the analysis of the talks, this chapter will cover the overview of discourse, critical discourse analysis, the relations among language, power and ideology, main approaches to CDA, Fairclough‘s analytical framework and systemic functional grammar in CDA

1.1 What is discourse?

Before discussing about critical discourse analysis, we should make clear what we

are analyzing because there are various definitions of ―discourse‖

When using the term ―discourse‖ we are referring to the interpretation of communicative event in context (Nunan, 1993) Sometimes the term ―discourse‖ is

also referred to text (both in written and spoken) which is often considered to be the product of discourse

Fairclough and Wodak (1997) states that texts are the only evidence for the existence of discourses, one kind of concrete realisation of abstract forms of knowledge; at the same time, they are interactive and influenced by sociolinguistic factors Therefore individuals internalise discourses that comprise the core of a community of practice, in the sense that such discourses control and organise what can be talked about, how it can be talked about and by whom Social practices are meaningful and coherent in that they conform to discourse principles

In addition, according to Jager and Maier (2009), quoted in Wodak & Meyer (2009), discourse is the manifestation of ideologies; thus, form individual and collective consciousness, and consciousness influences people‘s actions Through the repetition of ideas and statements, discourse solidifies knowledge and reflects shapes and enables social reality Moreover, discourse can be defined by the

activities participants engage in, and the power enacted and reproduced through them

In Fairclough‘s view (2001) language and society has an internal and dialectical relationship Language phenomena are social phenomena of a special sort in the sense that people communicate in ways which are determined socially, even when people are most conscious of their individuality On the other hands, social phenomena are linguistic in the sense that language activity which goes on in social contexts is not merely a reflection or expressions of social processes and practices, but also a part of those processes and practices

Moreover, when regarding language as social practice or a social process, Fairclough (2001) use the term ―discourse‖ to the whole process of social interaction of which a text is just a part This process includes the process of production, of which text is a product, and the process of interpretation, for which the text is a resource In the productive and interpretative processes, there exists the

interplay between properties of texts and a considerable range of ―members

‗resources‖ (MR), which people have in their heads and draw upon when they

produce or interpret texts – including their knowledge of language, representations

of the natural and social worlds they inhabit, values, beliefs, assumptions, and so

on People internalize what is socially produced and made available to them, and use this internalized MR to engage in their social practice, including discourse At the same time, people‘ MR are shaped by social convention which is formed by social practice

As a result, discourse can affect parts of society and at the same time is conditioned

by parts of society and obviously a sort of social practice Therefore, seeing language as discourse and as social practice, one does not only analyze texts or processes of production and interpretation, but also analyze the relationship between texts, processes and their social conditions, both the immediate conditions of the

social context and the more remote conditions of institutional and social structures

We will discuss more about this in the next part – critical discourse analysis

1.2 Critical discourse analysis

Later the term Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are used interchangeable Recently the term CDA has been preferred and is being used

to denote the theory formerly identified as CL However, CDA is seen as an interdisciplinary approach, so there is no unitary definition of CDA We will look at the views of some famous scholars in this field, though

According to van Dijk (1998a) Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a field that is concerned with studying and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality and bias It examines how these discursive sources are maintained and reproduced within specific social, political

and historical contexts Van Dijk (2005) adds that CDA is discourse analysis ―with

an attitude‖; ―it focuses on social problems and especially on the role of discourse

in the production and reproduction of power abuse and domination‖ (2005: 96)

Hence, ―critical‖ in CDA does not imply ―judgmental‖ as many people may think

CDA is understood to be critical in a number of different ways: Its explicit and unapologetic attitude as far as values and criteria are concerned (van Leeuwen, 2006); its commitment to the analysis of social wrongs such as prejudice, or unequal access to power, privileges, and material and symbolic resources (Fairclough, 2009); its interest in discerning which prevailing hegemonic social practices have caused such social wrongs, and in developing methods that can be applied to their study (Bloor and Bloor, 2007)

In addition, ―critical‖ also implies that the analyst is to have his/her own personal

view or stance when analyzing discourse; although they are not politics and their main object is discourse, they hope to make a social change by analyzing social relationship embedded in the discourse (Nguyen Hoa, 2006) All this makes CDA

an example of research aiming for social intervention

Similarly, Fairclough (1993:135) defines CDA as ―discourse analysis which aims to

systematically explore opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes, to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideological shaped by relations of power and struggles over power, and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.‖

Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-280) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:

1 CDA addresses social problems

2 Power relations are discursive

3 Discourse constitutes society and culture

4 Discourse does ideological work

5 Discourse is historical

6 The link between text and society is mediated

7 Discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory

8 Discourse is a form of social action

In short, CDA regards language as social practice It seeks to describe language, and

at the same time provides critical linguistic resources to reveal hidden power, ideology, etc Hence, the scope of CDA is not only language-based but also requires multidisciplinary research Its critical perspective attracts scholars from various disciplines, as well as activists.

As states above, power and ideology are important concepts in CDA; so in the next part we will look at the relations among language, power and ideology

1.2.2 Power in language

According to Teun Van Dijk (1998), power involves control, namely by (members of) one group over (those of) other groups Such control may pertain to action and cognition: that is, a powerful group may limit the freedom of action of others, but also influence their minds Modern and often more effective power is mostly cognitive, enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other strategic ways to change the mind of others in one‘s interests It is inevitable that managing the minds of others is a crucial function of text and talk Therefore language and power has an intertwined relation

Language is not powerful on its own but it is a tool of manipulating power; in other words, it obtains power by the use powerful people make of it It is entwined in social power in a number of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved where there is contention over and a challenge to power

Obviously, language obtains power by the use powerful people make of it or in other words people are affected by the way other people use language People‘s ideas are expressed and adopted by others According to Fairclough (1995), discoursal practices are invested by ideology so far as they contribute to sustaining

or undermining power relations However, ideology is more than that Thus, ideology is an important concept in CDA which should be considerably concerned besides power

1.2.3 Language and ideology

In this part, we will look at some concepts about ideology, its relation to language and how important it is in CDA

In relation to power or hegemony and in term of the implicit and unconscious

materialization of ideologies in practices, Gramsci defines ideology as ―a

conception of the world that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in the manifestations of individual and collective life‖ (quoted in

Fairclough, 1995: 76)

According to Van Djik (1995a), in the framework of a critical discourse analysis, ideology is articulated within a conceptual triangle that connects society, discourse

and social cognition 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,

1995a: 17-18) Social cognition is defined as the system of mental representations and processes of group members (Fiske and Taylor, 1991 in Van Dijk, 1995a: 18) Part of the system is the sociocultural knowledge shared by the members of a specific group, society or culture Members of groups may also share evaluative beliefs, viz., opinions, organized into social attitudes Ideologies, then, are the overall, abstract mental systems that organize such socially shared attitudes

Van Dijk (1995a) also states that as systems of principles that organize social cognitions, ideologies are assumed to control, through the minds of the members, the social reproduction of the group The cognitive functions of ideologies lie in the way they organize, monitor and control specific group attitudes Possibly, ideologies also control the development, structure and application of sociocultural knowledge.

Van Dijk (1995a) also assumes that ideologies more specifically control evaluative beliefs, that is, social opinions shared by the members of a group ―At this mental

interface of the social and the individual, however, ideologies and the attitudes and knowledge they control, also - indirectly - influence the personal cognitions of group members, e.g., the planning and understanding of their discourses and other forms of (inter)action‖ (Van Dijk, 1995a: 19)

In short, language and ideologies have a mutual relation Ideologies are manifested

in language Language is a tool to express ideologies and makes them understandable

1.3 Main approaches to CDA

To have a broader picture of CDA, we will take an overview of different approaches

to CDA Although all the approaches have the notions of ideology, critique, and power in common, they could be distinguished in their theoretical foundations or methodology Generally, there are five main approaches to CDA

Van Dijk: Socio-cognitive Discourse Analysis

Van Dijk is one of the most influential CDA practitioners What noticeably distinguishes van Dijk‘s approach from other approaches in CDA is the cognitive

analysis For van Dijk it is the sociocognition – social cognition and personal

cognition – that mediates between society and discourse (van Dijk: 2001) This cognition is the lost segment of many critical linguistic studies and critical discourse analysis; therefore he offers the triangle of society, cognition, and discourse A large part of van Dijk‘s practical investigation deals with stereotypes, the reproduction of ethnic prejudice, and power abuse by elites and resistance by dominated groups

Besides, he also regards discourse analysis as ideology analysis ―Ideologies … are

the overall, abstract mental systems that organize … socially shared attitudes‖ (van

Dijk, 1995a: 18) Ideologies, thus, ―indirectly influence the personal cognition of

group members‖ in their act of comprehension of discourse among other actions

and interactions (van Dijk: 1995a: 19)

Wodak: Discourse-Historical Approach

What distinguishes this approach from other CDA approaches, especially from van Dijk‘s is that it focuses on the historical contexts of discourse in the process of explanation and interpretation The general approach reflects sociolinguistics and ethnography Its central tenet is the importance of bringing together the textual and contextual levels of analysis The model of context used in this approach invokes historical knowledge understood in terms of four layers: the linguistic co-text, the intertextual and interdiscursive level, the extralinguistic level, the socio-political and historical level (Wodak and Meyer, 2009) Another important feature of Wodak‘s approach is that readers and listeners, depending on their background knowledge and information and their position, might have different interpretations

of the same communicative event (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999)

Jager: The Duisburg School

The Duisburg School with the representative scholar – Jager, is heavily influenced

by Foucault‘s work For Jager, knowledge is the basis of action and formative action that shapes reality; so CDA is not only to analyze discursive practices but also non – discursive practices and so-call manifestation/materializations and relationship between these elements (Jager and Meier, 2009) The interplay of these

elements is called ―dispositive‖ This kind of approach, sometimes referred to as

Dispositive Analysis, draws on social constructivism (Laclau, 1980) and activity theory (Leont‘ev, 1978), and claims that social selves are constituted in a semiotic network that includes not only linguistic mediation of various kinds but also architectural arrangements, legal practices, customs, rituals, modes of moral thought, social institutions and so forth

Scollon: Mediated Discourse Analysis

This approach highlights the role of ethnography and semiotics, emphasizes the diachronic dimension, and texts are viewed as situated discourse (Scollon, 2003).For Scollon, social matters are related to discourse For example, the discourse on

TV or in newspapers is related to social issues such as unemployment, pollution,

security or drug abuse, etc He describes the individual as an actor ―embodied in the

society of various social groups‖ (Scollon, 2003: 172) Subsequently, one of their

goals is to find the link between individual action and public discourse

Fairclough

There is a prominent strand of CDA that advocates the use of Halliday‘s Systematic Functional Grammar (SFG) This is the framework of linguistic description used by Fairclough, as it was also by Fowler et al (1979) and Hodge and Kress (1988) For

Fairclough, CDA ―brings social science and linguistics … together within a single

theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue between them‖

(Chuliaraki and Fairclough, 1999: 6) The linguistic theory referred to here is SFG, which has been the foundation for Fairclough‘s analytical framework Fairclough‘s approach also draws upon a number of critical social theorists, such as Foucault (i.e

concept of orders of discourse), Gramsci (concept of hegemony), Habermas (i.e concept of colonization of discourses)

In his approach, there are three analytical focuses in analysing any communicative

event (interaction) They are text (e.g a news report), discourse practice(e.g the process of production and consumption), and sociocultural practice (e.g social and

cultural structures which give rise to the communicative event) (Fairclough: 1995b;

Chuliaraki & Fairclough: 1999) For him, the term ―discourse‖ is also referred the complete process of social interaction Text is merely a sector of this process, because he considers three elements for discourse as text, interaction, and social

context In comparison to the three aspects of discourse, Fairclough (1989: 26-27)

identifies three dimensions for CDA: description, interpretation, explanation

More detailed account of Fairclough‘s analytical framework will be discussed in the next part because it is the framework I use in this study

1.4 Fairclough’s analytical framework

Among different approaches to CDA, Fairclough‘s analytical framework is chosen for it is one of the most comprehensive ones In addition, it provides a suitable set

of analytical questions for the amount of data I have chosen Moreover, it is based

on a linguistic foundation – Halliday‘s Systemetic Functional Grammar, which makes the discourse analysis not only ―running commentary‖

For Fairclough, the model for CDA consists of ―three inter-related processes of

analysis tied to three inter-related dimensions of discourse‖ (Rogers, Berkes,

Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005: 371) These three dimensions of discourses are: text (description: formal prosperities of the text), discourse practice (interpretation: relationship between text and interaction), and sociocultural practice (explanation: social determination of the processes of production and interpretation and their social effects)

The first analytical focus of Fairclough‘s three-part model is text Analysis of text involves linguistic analysis in terms of vocabulary, grammar, semantics, the sound system, and cohesion-organization above the sentence level (Fairclough: 1995b) Linguistic analysis is concerned with presences as well as absences in texts that

could include ―representations, categories of participant, constructions of

participant identity or participant relations‖ (Fairclough, 1995: 58) For him, any

sentence in a text is analyzable in terms of the articulation of these functions, which

he has relabeled representations, relations, and identities:

- Particular representations and recontextualizations of social practice (ideational function) - perhaps carrying particular ideologies

- Particular constructions of writer and reader identities (for example, in terms of what is highlighted - whether status and role aspects of identity, or individual and personality aspects of identity)

- A particular construction of the relationship between writer and reader (as, for instance, formal or informal, close or distant)

(Fairclough, 1995: 58)

The second analytical focus is discourse practice This dimension has two facets:

institutional process (e.g editorial procedures), and discourse processes (changes

the text go through in production and consumption) Discourse processes, however,

can be best explained through discussing a core concept in his approach:

intertextuality

Fairclough (1992: 84) defines intertextuality as, ―basically the property texts have

of being full of snatches of other texts, which may be explicitly demarcated or merged in, and which the text may assimilate, contradict, ironically echo, and so forth‖ He adds that linguistic analysis is descriptive in nature, whereas intertextual

analysis is more interpretative

―Intertextual analysis focuses on the borderline between text and discourse practice in the

analytical framework Intertextual analysis is looking at text from the perspective of discourse practice, looking at the traces of the discourse practice in the text.‖

(Fairclough, 1995b: 16)

Fairclough (1992: 85) identifies two types of intertextuality: ―manifest

intertextuality‖, and ―constitutive intertextuality‖ The former refers to the

heterogeneous constitution of texts by which ―specific other texts are overtly drawn

upon within a text.‖ This kind of intertextuality is marked by explicit signs such as

quotation marks, indicating the presence of other texts Constitutive intertextuality,

on the other hand, refers to the ―heterogeneous constitution of texts out of elements

(types of convention) of orders of discourse (interdiscursivity)‖ (Fairclough, 1992:

104) This kind of intertextuality refers to the structure of discourse conventions that

go into the new text‘s production

The third focus is sociocultural practice which ―concerned with issues of power—

power being a construct that is realized through interdiscursivity and hegemony Analysis of this dimension includes exploration of the ways in which discourses operate in various domains of society.‖ (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep,

2005: 371)

Fairclough proposes three stages of CDA including: description, interpretation and explanation

Description

In this stage formal prosperities of the text will be analyzed According to

Fairclough ―the set of formal features we find in a specific text can be regarded as

particular choices from among the options (e.g of vocabulary and grammar) available in the discourse types which the texts drawn upon‖ (2001: 92) He also

proposes ten main questions the analyst should answer in this stage

A Vocabulary:

1 What experiential values do words have?

- What classification schemes are drawn upon?

- Are there words which are ideologically contested?

- Is there rewording or overwording?

- What ideologically significant meaning relations (synonym, hyponym, antonym) are there between words?

2 What relational values do words have?

- Are there euphemistic expressions?

- Are there markedly formal or informal words?

3 What expressive values do words have?

4 What metaphors are used?

B Grammar:

5 What experiential values do grammatical features have?

- What types of process and participant predominate?

- Is agency unclear?

- Are processes what they seem?

- Are nominalizations, active/ passive sentences, and positive/ negative sentences used?

6 What relational values do grammatical features have?

- What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?

- Are there important features of relational modality?

- Are the pronouns ‗we‘ and ‗you‘ used? And if so, how?

7 What expressive values do grammatical features have?

- Are there important features of expressive modality?

8 How are sentences linked together?

- What logical connectors are used?

- Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or subordination?

- What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?

C Textual Structure:

9 What interactional convention are used?

- Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?

10 What larger scale structures does the text have?

(Fairclough, 2001: 92,93)

Interpretation

In this stage we have to find out the relationship between text and interaction

―Interpretations are generated through a combination of what is in the text and

what is ‗in‘ the interpreter, in the sense of the members‘ resources (MR) which the latter brings to interpretation‖ (Fairclough, 2001: 118)

This stage is well described in the following figure:

Explanation

This stage aims at finding social determination of the processes of production and

interpretation and their social effects This stage is to ―portray a discourse as part of

a social process, as a social practice, showing how it is determined by social structures, and what reproductive effects discourses can cumulatively have on those structures, sustaining them or changing them‖ (Fairclough, 2001: 135) These

social determinations and effects are ―mediated‖ by MR: social structures shape

MR, which in turn shape discourses; and discourses sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain or change structures As we can see, two dimensions which are focused

in this stage are the social effects of discourse and the social determinants of discourse These two dimensions are to be examined at three levels of social organizations: Societal, Institutional, and Situational which are illustrated as in following figure:

Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136)

Fairclough (2001: 138) also summarizes what can be asked of a particular discourse under investigation into the form of three questions:

1 Social determinants: What power relations at situational, institutional and societal levels help shape this discourse?

2 Ideologies: What elements of MR which are drawn upon have an ideological character?

3 Effects: How is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the situational, institutional and societal levels? Are these struggles overt or covert? Is the discourse

normative with respect to MR or creative? Does it contribute to sustaining existing power relations, or transforming them?

In short, Fairclough‘s analytical framework includes three stages: description, interpretation and explanation Besides, this framework uses Halliday‘s SFG as a base; so more details of this grammar approach and its role in CDA will be discussed in the below part

1.5 Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) and its roles in CDA

Halliday‘s view of language as a ―social act‖ is central to many of CDA‘s practitioners In SFG, language is viewed as ―a network of systems or interrelated

sets of options for making meaning‖ (Halliday, 1994: 15) Similarly, for CDA

―language is an integral part of social process‖ (Fowler et al., 1979: 189) Both

CDA and SFG assume that speakers make choices regarding vocabulary and

grammar, and that these choices are consciously or unconsciously ―principled and

systematic‖ (Fowler et al., 1979: 188) Thus choices are ideologically based

Language is a social act and it is ideologically driven Following this perspective, the main aim of CDA and SFG is to look at how language acts upon social context and is constrained and influenced by this context Therefore, SFG is obviously a useful tool to reveal this dialectical relationship between language and social context and very helpful in doing CDA Now we will look at how SFG can help in revealing this relationship

In SFG, language has three metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual The ideational function is about the natural world in the broadest sense, including the world in our mind Clauses here is considered as representations and realized through Transitivity system Apparently, this system expresses the experiential aspect of meaning of clauses The system of transitivity consists of three components which are process, participants and circumstances In English, there are

six process types namely Material, Mental, Verbal, Behavioral, Relational, and Existential Process These process types are summarized in the table below:

Material: ‗doing‘ Actor, Goal, Recipient Action ‗doing

Attribution ‗attributing‘ Identified/ Token

Identification ‗identifying‘ Indentifier/ Value

Existential: ‗existing‘ Existent

Table 1: Process types, their meanings and participants (Halliday, 1994: 143)

The interpersonal function is the function of language to establish and maintain social relationship between the speaker and the listener, to influence the others and

to express the speaker‘s attitudes to the world Clauses with this function are seen as exchanges and realized through the Mood structure Mood consists of two functional

elements which are the Subject and the Finite As the nominal component of the Mood, Subject identifies a proposition Whereas, Finite functions as the element making the proposition finite

The textual function represents the speaker‘s text-forming potential and enables the other two functions to operate This function relates our abilities to construct texts out of our utterances and writings

To the nutshell, SFG is a very useful tool in the analysis of text and make Fairclough‘s framework distinguish from the others In the following part I will use this framework to analyze Robinson‘s talks

CHAPTER 2: A CDA OF KEN ROBINSON’S TALKS

In this part, Robinson‘s talks will be critically analyzed basing on Fairclough‘s framework What is encoded in sentences and its interaction with context will be figured out by analyzing lexical and grammatical choice The clues found are

interpreted, and some explanation is expected about them

2.1 Textual description

2.1.1 Vocabulary analysis

2.1.1.1 Experiential value of words

According to Fairclough, experiential value of words is ―a trace of and a cue to the

ways in which text‘s producer‘s experience of the natural and social world is represented‖ and it is to ―do with contents and knowledge and beliefs‖ (2001: 93)

The analysis of the experiential value of words is to see ―how ideological differences between texts in their representations of the world are coded in their vocabulary‖

It can be seen that both texts are about education in general; so there are plenty of words and expressions related to education in these texts For example, in the talk

―schools kill creativity‖, there is a frequent use of the following words and

expressions: education, university, teacher, professor, academic ability,

mathematics, arts, dance, drama, language, humanities, and etc Similarly, in the

talk ―bring on the learning revolution‖, we can easily find the words and

expressions concerning education sector such as education, school, college, teacher,

and etc

In term of classification scheme, according to Fairclough (2001:115) a classification

scheme is ―a particular way of dividing up some aspects of reality which is built

upon a particular ideological representation of that reality‖ In the talk ―schools

kill creativity‖, Robinson makes a moving case for creating an education system that nurtures rather than undermine creativity He also include a reality that academic subjects are often more concerned than art subjects in school and that we are educating people out of their creativity Thus, we can easily find a scheme for

academic subjects with the words depicting their importance in schools: top, useful,

dominate Another scheme is for ways that creativity is evaluated and educated in

schools: stigmatize, wasn‘t valued, worst thing; and it is implicit in the stories he

tells: a famous choreographer received a remark from her teacher that she had a learning disorder when she was a little girl because she couldn‘t sit still

In the second talk, ―bring on the learning revolution‖, he makes the case for a radical shift from standardized schools to personalized learning — creating conditions where children‘s natural talents can flourish Thus, we can easily see a

scheme for standardized schools or for things we take for granted: linearity, go

through a track, conformity, fast food, standardized, depleting, mechanical process;

and a scheme for personalized learning – creating conditions: organic process,

customized, customizing to your circumstances, personalizing education, personalized curriculum

In addition, a similar system of adjective employed to manifest the characteristics of

human‘s intelligence or talent such as diverse, distinct, dynamic, etc are found in

both talks

In term of rewording, there is a high appearance of key words in both talks In the talk ―schools kill creativity‖, Robinson sparks the idea that we are educating people out of their creativity Thus, the words such as ―education, creative, creativity, talent‖ are often repeated

E.g: - So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity My

contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we

should treat it with the same status.(line 35-37)

- What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent

And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents and we squander them,

pretty ruthlessly (line 31-34)

In the talk ―bring on the new learning revolution‖, Robinson raises the issue of human resource crisis He also states that we poorly use talents – people endure life rather than enjoy it and education is one of the major reasons why people do not do what they love That is the reason why we need a learning revolution Hence, in this

talk it is easily to see repeated words such as ―education, talent, crisis, challenge,

standardized, customized, transform‖

E.g: - You see, he‘s right I mean, there is a major climate crisis, obviously, and I

think if people don't believe it, they should get out more But I believe there's a

second climate crisis, which is as severe, which has the same origins, and that we

have to deal with the same urgency (line14-17)

- I believe fundamentally, as many speakers have said during the past few days, that

we make very poor use of our talents Very many people go through their whole lives having no real sense of what their talents may be, or if they have any to speak

of (line 21-24)

- And high among them is education, because education, in a way, dislocates very many people from their natural talents And human resources are like natural

resources; they're often buried deep (line 39-41)

When analyzing the experiential values of words, we should mention the main meaning relations of words which are synonymy, antonymy and hyponymy Interestingly, there are very few synonyms in both of the talks For the antonyms, there is almost no antonym in the talk ―schools kill creativity‖ and only a few in the

talk ―bring on learning revolution‖ like endure – enjoy, mechanical – organic,

standardized – customized For the hyponyms, we can find couples of hyponyms in

both of the talks, for example, the hyponyms of school: teacher, professor, children,

university, subject, academic, etc; the hyponyms of academic subjects: mathematics, languages, humanities, etc in the talk ―schools kill creativity‖

Similarly, in the talk ―bring on the learning revolution‖ we can find out the

hyponyms of ―education‖: school, college, kindergarten, teacher, etc

2.1.1.2 The relational value of words

Relational value ―focuses on how a text‘s choices of wordings depends on, and help

create, social relationships between participants‖ (Fairclough, 2001: 97) This

value of words is worth noticed because the speaker of these talks creates a close connection with the audience with the language he uses

First, we should look at formality - formal choice of wording – one property of vocabulary which has to do with relational values Formal language, even when spoken, is often associated with the conventions expected of written Standard English Formal English follow rules of grammar very strictly Sentences tend to be longer and more complex The vocabulary tends to be elevated, using big words and avoiding colloquial or slang vocabulary It avoids split infinitives and prepositions

at the end of sentences Formal language uses a Latinate vocabulary and rhetorical devices to create literary-like effects Informal language is characterized by a simpler grammatical structure (i.e loosely-connected sentences and phrases), and personal evaluation

It is easy to see that in both of the talks, Robinson often uses informal patterns to make his talk less like a formal speech but like a conversation more Many phrasal

verbs are used instead of single-word verbs For example, he uses ―blown away,

play out, went over, pop into, carry on, came across, look at, come out, go on‖

instead of more formal alternatives ―encounter, conduct, appear, continue, etc.‖ He also uses the phrase with ―get‖ in ―I‘m fascinated by how people got to be there‖

(schools kill creativity, line 183) Passive voice is also rarely used in his speech

There are only 11 and 7 passive sentences in the talk ―schools kill creativity‖ and

―bring on the new learning revolution‖ respectively In addition, Informal

connecting words and, but, so are frequently used as following:

E.g: - And you‘re never asked back, curiously That‘s strange to me But if you are,

and you say to somebody, you know, they say, ―What do you do,‖ and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face (Schools kill creativity, line 12-15)

- And I referenced that at the end of my last talk So I want to pick up from there

because I only had 18 minutes, frankly (Bring on the learning revolution, line 13)

11-In addition, when delivering the talk ―schools kill creativity‖ he was the final speaker in the post-lunch time slot and was following a musical act He engaged

the audience by staring with the following laugh inducer: ―Good morning How are

you? It‘s been great, hasn‘t it? I‘ve been blown away by the whole thing In fact, I‘m leaving.‖ (line 1-2)

Especially, by sharing the common ground, Robinson tries to build a relationship with the audience In the opening of ―schools kill creativity‖, Robinson references

―three themes that have been running through the conference‖ This is a reference to the TED conference at which he is presenting A few moments later, he references

the four days of the conference with ―despite all the expertise that‘s been on parade

for the past four days‖ Then he also mentions Sirena, another speaker in Ted

conference: ―I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, …‖ (line 28) In addition, in

the part which he references to Sirena he wants to illustrate for his point of the extraordinary capacities that children have By mentioning a person who the audience knows, he increase his credibility He then also mentions Helen, another

speaker at Ted Later ―as we heard yesterday‖, then ―Al Gore spoke the other

night‖

Along with funny anecdotes such as the anecdote about Shakespeare in ―schools kill

creativity‖ and about kindergarten ―applications‖ in ―bring on the learning

revolution‖, Robinson also includes moving stories in his appeal to the audience‘s emotions He talks about a high school senior whose teacher humiliates him in front

of the class, telling the student he was wasting his talents and that he should pursue further education instead of becoming a fireman A few years later, the student – a professional fireman, by then – saves the teacher and his wife‘s lives The irony of this story is just too good to be true, and the sense of justice is overwhelming Indeed, Robinson practically forces the audience to become emotionally invested in the fireman‘s initial struggle and ultimate triumph As a result, these anecdotes and stories make him more trustworthy, personal and closer to the audience It is clear that he makes the audience accept him because people are more likely to agree with those they like

By anchoring his talk content around experiences or beliefs that he shares with his audience or illustrate his points by anecdotes and moving stories, he can build a close relationship with his audience and boost his incredibility, and then make the audience accept his ideas more easily

2.1.1.3 The expressive value of words

According to Fairclough (2001: 98-99), ―differences between discourse types in the

expressive values of words are again ideologically significant‖ and ―the expressive value of words has always been a central concern for those interested in persuasive language‖ As the main aim of these talks is ideas worth spreading, the speaker

tactically employs ideologically contrastive schemes to transmit his ideas

As the talk ―schools kill creativity‖ mentions the negative sides of education system which prevent the development of children‘s creativity The speaker creates

contrastive schemes For example, he states that ―all kids have tremendous talents‖

(line 33) but ―we squander them, pretty ruthlessly‖ (line 34) He also adds that

―they‘re not frightened of being wrong‖ (line 61) and ―if you‘re not prepared to be

wrong, you‘ll never come up with anything original‖ (line 63), but ―we‘re now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make‖ (line 68), etc Likely, in the talk ―bring on the learning revolution‖, the

speaker wants to makes the case for a radical shift from standardized schools to personalized learning — creating conditions where kids‘ natural talents can flourish;

thus he states that ―we have built our education systems on the model of fast food …

where everything is standardized‖ (line 137, 140), but ―human talent is tremendously diverse‖ (line 145) and ―people have very different aptitudes‖ (line 146), so ―we have to change from the industrial model to an agricultural model, where each school can be flourishing tomorrow‖ (line 178-180)

Besides, the speaker also includes anecdotes and moving stories to illustrate his standpoints, to evoke the emotion among the audience and to create humour For example, to mention that every child is inherently creative, he tells a story about a little girl drawing a picture of God in a drawing lesson although the teacher said nobody knows what God looks like Or in the talk ―bring on the learning revolution‖, to raise the issue that our talent is diverse while schools are making us obsessed with getting people to college, he tells a story of a fireman who was humiliated by his teacher because he wanted to become a fireman A humour is created by the part of the story when the fireman saved the teacher‘s life in a car wreck

In addition, Robinson provokes laughter from the audience many of times through his entire speech Especially, when he makes the audience laugh, he does not pause but continues as a riff For example, in the talk ―schools kill creativity‖, he provokes the humour when he tells the story of a little girl drawing a picture of God, he continues with the story of his son playing in the Nativity play

Moreover, the quotation of archaic prophet and famous people and poetic sayings of great writers is employed not only to emphasize his points but also to create the credibility and emotion on the audience For example: