Discourse Analysis - Science topic

Discourse analysis is an umbrella term of a family of different interdisciplinary methods. Simply put, it's a useful tool. I'm convinced that the "seriousness" of results depends on research questions and objectives. Ensure that your study addresses issues that are relevant and important in your field.

Moreover, consider incorporating multimodal analysis, which includes the study of visual and auditory elements of discourse alongside written or spoken language. This can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the discourse's impact. If possible, conduct longitudinal studies to track changes in discourse patterns over time. This can provide insights into how discourse shapes or reflects social and political developments.

Finally, in the title you refer to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The "critical" aspect of CDA signifies its aim to uncover and critique hidden power relations, ideologies, and social inequalities within discourse. It goes beyond surface-level analysis to reveal the underlying structures that contribute to oppression or dominance. CDA is not only about critique but also about social transformation. It seeks to empower individuals and marginalized groups by raising awareness of the ways in which discourse can be used to maintain or challenge the status quo. That's a very serious and important endeavour in itself. By focusing on this "critical" aspect, you will move beyond identifying communication patterns and examine how language both reflects and shapes social structures and ideologies.

Textual analysis can be incorporated into discourse analysis by examining the linguistic and structural features of a text, including metaphors, symbols, and rhetorical devices, while also considering the broader social and cultural context in which the text is situated. By analyzing how language functions both within the text and in its larger discursive environment, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of how language constructs meaning, power dynamics, and social identities in communication.

Are you thinking of machine learning and natural language processing? If so, conduct an academic search for both terms together. There is a learning curve.

In my opinion, qualitative content analysis and discourse analysis are so different that it is difficult to compare them at all. One key point is that there are at least two form of discourse analysis, one of which is more like conversation analysis, and the other of which is frequently called critical discourse analysis.

In terms of qualitative content analysis, the usual approach is build a codebook that allows you to mark and retrieve codes from the text. This differs from quantitative content analysis, which relies on counting codes.

Colleague, we can look at his political speeches through corpus-based approach. Through the frequency of the targeted lexical resource(s), we generate themes and draw conclusions on them. However, we can also look at metaphor in his speeches through a critical discourse analysis. I have co-authored similar works, one published and one unpublished.

Yes, it is possible to utilize multiple analytical methods in one article. In fact, using multiple methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research question or topic. In your case, combining discourse analysis and content analysis can help you gain insights into both the content and the communication patterns in the classroom interactions. To handle the two methods in your article, you can start by clearly defining each method and explaining why you chose to use them. Next, you can describe how you applied each method to the data, including any specific software or tools you used. You should also provide examples of the themes and categories that emerged from each method. When interpreting the results, you can discuss the similarities and differences between the two methods, and how they complement each other. For example, you can discuss how the content analysis provided information about the topics discussed in the classroom, while the discourse analysis helped you understand the power dynamics and social interactions between the teachers and students.

International journal of Discourse Analysis

I believe it is possible to do the same type of analysis using R. Could anyone suggest a script that would make this analysis possible?

Hello, I understand that your methodology is qualitative, but you can still have a look at some quantitative tools that are able to detect keywords, thematic words, collocations, etc. One of the best is LancsBox, which is available for free at #LancsBox: Lancaster University corpus toolbox.

Dear Pelin Cramer

I think you are more concerned with finding an appropriate object of study than with source materials, right? Well, I suggest you analyze something that interests you and/or something that is relevant in our society. For instance, yesterday I watched a presentation about the representation of gender in the current Brazilian president's public speeches during the beginning of the pandemic. I believe this to be an interesting and relevant topic. Anyway, you could take a look at some of the articles by Viviane Maria Heberle and see if you can find something that calls your attention.

Best.

episodic memory associations can be encoded and retrieved in a context-sensitive way; thus it can be evidenced.

I don't see why not. I'm simplifying CDA here, but stories narrated by children may very well reflect macro-discourses and give us insights on the maintenance and reproduction of social (in)equalities. Studies by Celia Kitzinger and Judith Baxter, even though they don't use CDA per se, show that children reproduce and resist macro-discourses in their talk. So, I wouldn't set CDA aside when analysing children's talk. Moreover, I may be mistaken here, Katarzyna Joanna Mruszczyk is analyzing texts that spans from childhood, not texts by children.

Every method has its limitations, which we need to reflect on during the analysis and when reporting the findings. But these limitations may not matter so much if there is a good fit between the RQ and the methodology.

Wish you all the best with the project. If you need reading materials about discourse analysis, send me a message and I'd be glad to give you some recommendations.

请你看看中国语言之中的修辞，回环、顶针……接龙，那些都是

A quantitative research will be relevant ( *but not exclusive* ) to highlight the many points of details making a difference in some linguistic aspect.

A guidebook:

Deborah Schiffrin, _Approaches to Discourse_ (1994).

Deborah Schiffrin et al.,

_The handbook of Discourse Analysis_ (2005).

you can do so by adopting an eclectic model of analysis.

Nb.

The main key word will be the *content* word (not grammatical one) displaying the highest lexicometric frequency of use.

Its score will be generated automatically on the Lexico3 data chart/sheet right after text treatment and analysis.

I wouldn't say that one is better than the other. It all depends on the way you conduct your analysis and discussions in your work. This choice is part of your methodological cut, so it must be integrated to the other parts of your work. I would say that the interpretation provided to the data are even more important than the representation itself, be it a graph, be it a tree. We can continue our conversation, but I hope my main point here be clear.

I wrote the CLASS program to accomplish your goal. See http://class.wceruw.org/index.html & http://class.wceruw.org/class.html.

Good luck.

Martin Nystrand

The borderline between both approaches is the role and range of human agency,

with respect to the interplay of physical reality and human psychology (perception is everything, reality is nothing refers more to the constructionist explanation model, while psychological perception is limited by physical reality refers more to structuralist view, post or not). In terms of ontology, constructionism focuses more on communication, structuralism is more centered around consequences of human inter-action. A cybernetic approach is able to integrate both positions or viewpoints, e.g. in the tradition of Hv Foerster (Understanding Understanding).

In order to construct a coherent framework, it is crucial to be aware of the philosophical, theoretical and methodological differences and similarities among the approaches. Obviously, this requires an overview of the field.

I am having the same problem with my research design at the moment. I don't have enough participants for an experiment design and my data will be mainly qualitative, so I am looking into doing a case study. But I also have an intervention whose effectiveness I want to test and varify. So I guess it would be a case study with intervention then.

I think it is reliable. To what extent the results of a discourse analysis then really meet the criteria of reliability and validity is difficult. From my point of view, they do not have to meet these criteria, because a discourse analysis wants something else. It shows power structures, repetitions, legitimations in processes.

There are no standardised quality criteria for qualitative research. However, three quality criteria seem to make sense: transparency, intersubjectivity and range.

Your discourse analysis should be transparent, which means that you document the work steps and present them in a comprehensible way. In a further step, you could reflect on and discuss the subjectively obtained data, thus fulfilling the criterion of intersubjectivity. The presentation of the limitations and scope of your discourse analysis would also be important.

I agree with both Zouheir and Pierre-Carl Link. Discourse analysis is primarily intertwined with language and culture. Michel Foucault's viewpoints about discourse are prominent and numerous scholars within sociolinguistics, sociology, and cultural studies and in the broader field of social sciences have contributed to conceptualizing discourse analysis (e.g., Norman Fairclough, Anthony Giddens, among others).

With respect to the relationship between discourse and culture, it is depending on the field and context, but one of the crucial points of discourse analysis is to increase an in-depth understanding of public dialogues, debates, arguments, and communications, or popular inferences and assumptions about a specific topic or event function. Thus, scholars consider various types of methods such as historical narratives, media representations, and oral testimonies as empirical evidence to communicate with audiences. Overall, discourse analysis entails written and textual data and at times demands hermeneutics to interpret specific themes as discourse.

1. It is not clear what do you mean by different studies.

2. What do you want to achieve/ what are you looking at? What kind of data are you examining? You need to clarify your objectives- the research questions, aims, and methodology.

3. I suggest that after you are clear about the 2 steps above, then do read and understand all the kind of analysis that you have stated. Choose the most appropriate kind of analysis accordingly. Best wishes.

Post-truth means that anybody can make any kind of claim and the original claim goes farther and faster than the rebuttal or fact check does.

Therefore, conspiracy theories and false claims are often seen by more people than the truth. This can greatly affect what people believe about environmental issues, such as climate change.

A good researcher can diagnose the practical aspects of data through statistical applications, but the problem is that some researchers are weak in statistical skills.

I agree with your argument that a text of (a sign) is not enough to be considered as a discourse in terms of its textual structure. However, coherence in discourse is much more essential for the texturness of a text to be a discourse. Therefore, any sign has a kind of mutual comperhension (contextual interaction) between the reader and the writer (the one who has a message behind making such sign).

Thanks, interesting question

Yes, you can use this data but this data much be authentic and you need to give citation of that specific data in your research as well. That data need to be selected via certain sampling technique and much be sufficient to fulfill your objectives and answer your research questions.

The amount of data needed for any research depends primarily on the nature of the question being asked. The role of data is to support a logical and reasonable answer to a question asked. The role of theory is to inform question development and formulation, and to make sense of data, since data does not explain itself, nor is self-evident.

In discourse analysis a corpus or corpora should similarly be chosen based on the research question. If you can devise a research that seems worthwhile and can contribute to knowledge (standard academic criteria for research publications) then your next question is how much data is needed to provided a reasonable answer to that question. This could be a single political speech dissected systematically and thematically manually, or thousands of media articles assessed using software (for example Nvivo) and coding techiques, or somewhere in between.

Hence there is no definable correct amount of data, absent the context of the research question. In the context of a specific question the criteria is: "does this data allow me to answer my question to an appropriate degree".

that sounds great, I bet it is better for you to have an eclectic model. Will discuss it for sure.

Hi Urgessa,

I recomendo Reading the attached articule.

Good luck!

Last time we used it with two politicians debating. We had some interesting charts and statistics which helped us a lot in analysis. May be, these will consolidate your analysis as well.

Individuals change society for good and bad. Individuals get angry at the system and begin movements to change it. Revolutions start with a single person. Sometimes we know their names - Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Hitler, Trump* - but mostly we don't.

Yes. Provided that your corpora are available. It could be in a form of written text.

Multimodal analysis and feminist analysis would be much more helpful for you. See Kress's Multimodal Discourse Analysis.

It depends on the theory you use to define "speech". Commonly, speech is the process while discourse is the result, and a speech act, verbal or no verbal is the obtention on an effect

Hello Adelina, I suggest social semiotics first, and if you are looking for ideologies, you can add a critical discourse analysis approach. And lexicometric approches like Quantitative Discourse Analysis should be a plus to highlight representations, stereotypes and ideologies.

Good luck

please read this

Michal Bron Jr - Thank you so much! This is very helpful!

Best,

Seong

PROJECT

A NEW BOOK ON CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR THEORY BY ZOLTÁN KÖVECSES

Here is a brief description of the book:

The phenomenon known as metaphor is an extremely complex mental event - we cannot capture its complexity if we tie ourselves to existing standard views on metaphor. This book offers fresh insight into metaphor, updating an established theory, conceptual metaphor theory (CMT), in the context of current cognitive linguistic theory, and clarifying many of the issues that researchers in the study of metaphor have raised against conceptual metaphor theory. Starting with an introduction to CMT, the subsequent chapters set out propositions for Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory, including a discussion on whether literal language exists at all, whether conceptual metaphors are both conceptual and contextual, and whether they are both offline and online. Providing a fresh take on a constantly developing field, this study will enrich the work of researchers in areas ranging from metaphorical cognition to literary studies.

Source of work cited: (https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-new-book-on-conceptual-metaphor-theory?replyToId=6012d454b425ca00016ed39b)

Regarding identity construction through discourse, Bamberg, Bamberg etl. and Defina, etl. are more that great books to revise in this matter.

As other colleagues suggested, everything depends on what you want to know. But from my sociology perspective, I would consider two paths:

- The characters as a content you want to analize. Thus, it is applying regular content analysis techniques which will give you a general and global view of the characters".

- Secondly, I would rather think to analyze the characters itselves as a creation coming from the director/productor/etc...From this perspective, the characters are viewed as discourse positions designed from other actors (you could also consider to open the analysis to these other actors to establish their role and interests on the creation of characters). I hope that is helpful and the best of luck with your research.

The spoken text expresses discourse and usage more than the written text, which can describe the discourse, not its pragmatic analysis, while all the discursive formats are clear from the written because it represents a continuous documented system

An idea would be to identify the increased use of phrases or co-occurrence of words. Who used it first? Here is some literature in network analysis:https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/mali-ans091118.phphttps://www.scinexx.de/news/technik/facebook-wie-geruechte-zur-lawine-werden/https://phys.org/news/2019-06-explores-gossip-social-networks.htmlhttps://phys.org/news/2012-05-rumors-fast-social-networks.htmlhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4431http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/kdd03-inf.pdfhttps://idw-online.de/de/news478431https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5285https://www.impactlab.com/2013/04/25/masdar-institute-researchers-create-way-to-prevent-misinformation-from-spreading-through-social-media/https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21961-facebook-study-reveals-what-makes-someone-a-leader/https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000968Regards,Joachim

Discourse and text: linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis .

Dear Read it would be helpful.

Oluwole Badmus I would agree that an iterative approach is helpful. Each document in a corpus should be initially read on its own terms for the discourses within. But it is also the case that no text is an island unto itself, but is dialectically related to its broader discursive environment (see Norman Fairclough's work on this relationship) and indeed to ongoing empirical events, given that the times in which we read a text impacts and transforms our interpretation.

You will also have a wider selected corpus within which a single text is hypothesized as having some relationship. That relationship will only emerge iteratively over time, as you read more texts within the corpus, note emergent thematics, and then begin the process of coding. It really is a fascinating and rewarding process, but takes a lot of reading, thematizing, re-reading, coding in a stepwise process to get there.

Hope that helps.

Naoise.

There are many publications in this field. A simple literature search should provide you with many publications relating to your research area. Other than what has been mentioned, you can also check, among others, Richardson, J. (2006), Analysing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis; Talbot, M. (2007), Media Discourse: Representation and Interaction: Kalyango, Y. & Kopytowska, M.W. (2014), Why Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World.

There are nowadays digital sources in most of the European archives, including for the II World War. For Germany consult https://www.bundesarchiv.de/EN/ Navigation/ Use/Using-specific-types/Military-Records/military-records-en.html

For The Netherlands, you can access The Netherlands Institute for War Documentation at http://www.niod.nl/

For France, try searching at http://www.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/archives-de-la-seconde-guerre-mondiale

Dear Yanda Daggers,

Your research design is good. Your research goal is good, but it seems quite wide. If you brain storm a little, and check what is it that you want to focus about land administration, then write down five to six mini goals about then. In the next step collect all your material/ primary data, and highlight different discourses with different colours. Are there any "global discourses", "modernisation discourses", "climate discourses", "Eurocentric discourses" etc? Depending on the scope of your thesis, choose which discourses you want to focus on, and start your analysis.

I work with discourse analysis of policy discourses as well. You can check my MA thesis called "Chronicles of the English language in Pakistan" where I focus on colonial discourses. You should also check Jan Blommaert & Normam Fairclough's work for theoretical frameworks. do let me know if you have any further questions.

Best wishes,

Alia

Thats really kind of you - thanks a lot

An interpretation is considered admissible if it's not in contradiction with the text, but since the text is open and polysemous, the return to the text is often insufficient to determine the validity of the interpretations, which are diverses and can be contradictory. Literary interpretation is both subjective and in part conditioned by interpretative communities (Fish). We cannot use a criterion of truth (true / false) but an intersubjective validation process (admissible / contestable), in other words to be admissible an interpretation must be recognized as such by other readers. We must then turn to the explanation by the readers of the sources of their interpretations. In my educational research, I have shown that teachers refer more to literary culture and students to the values ​​shared in their communities as well as to their personal experiences of the world. Thank you for the rich discussion!

Hola Luis,

Puedes estudiar el discurso de tu ámbito a partir de categorías comunicativas, discursivas y lingüísticas. Puedes apoyarte en varios autores, tales cómo van Dijk, Patrick Chaeaudeau, entre otros. Hay distintas corrientes (francesa, holandesa, inglesa, americana, latinoamericana por mencionar algunas).

All the previous respondents have made excellent points. The only addition I would make is to consider the context of the communication. Norman Fairclough might be worth reading, particularly for examining power dynamics.

Hello everybody!! I think that Appraisal Theory would be a fine and accurate method, considering the nature of your research.

Is there anyone here

I wonder why you are carrying out this study?

What questions are you trying to answer, through examining social media language from different speakers in this way?

Why are these questions interesting?

If you are clear about your own answers to questions like these, you will be better placed to judge which analytical methods are likely to be appropriate.

Shilong put you on the right track. If I need to add something, it has to do with the way your students bring about coherence in their writing by analyzing the theme-rheme organization (Halliday's textual metafunction) into the various types such as constant theme, simple linear progression, derived theme, split theme, and thematic lapse. Since you want to investigate Writer Identity, an analysis along these lines may be fruitful in reinforcing your decisions as to what counts as different writer identities. As you may know, these types are variously complex, which would enable you to stream students into different personalities through their writings. An author that you might ant to consult on the ideational metafunction, though he is a social psychologist, is Pennebaker who has written extensively on the importance of lexical choices. A final word about the interpersonal metafunction: Depending on what topic students have been given to develop, this function may be slightly difficult to investigate. I take it that you start with hypotheses about what to expect to find in your students' writing, in which you might suggest which metafunction might be more represented.

Well, I am going to give a few recommendations which I wish, might help you in your research as :

You have to define your corpus / data that is oral or written discourse

Your analysis / study will be focused :

- the substantives /nouns - the pragmatics

- the verbs i-e tenses - the structure

- the semantic aspects - tne enunciation

- the speaker / writer should involve the receiver

If it is an oral discourse, you add :

- the supra segmental features / prosody,

- speed of the speech,

- the intonation (psychological aspect),

- the accentuation

Good Luck

التحليل البلاغي قد يكون لخطاب او نص او اي قطعة ادبية معينة يراد تفكيك مكوناتها لإعادة تشكيلها وفق المعاني الجديدة المستخلصة من عملية التحليل.

أما تحليل الخطاب البلاغي فهومحدد بخطاب بلاغي يراد تحليله

Maria Grazia Sindoni hi.I really want your feedback,so what do you think ? what I mean is that how discourse analysis can help ESP teachers to enhance or let's say to develop his/her language knowledge ( related to the specialism).Because in the case I'm working in most ESP teachers are general English teachers ,and they find themselves in an ESP class ,so they are not prepared or trained.Thus they have to design their ESP courses .So my research is about how to apply discourse analysis on what've said(i.e., ESP teacher language knowledge and course materials)

There is a very good model which I used in one of my papers. It was proposed by Prof. Reem Bassiouney (2012). It uses a number of discoursal and structural tools to analyze the identity of the speaker or how the speaker is trying to establish the identity of another party.

Bassiouney, R. (2012). Politicizing identity: Code choice and stance-taking during the Egyptian revolution. Discourse & Society, 23 (2), 107-126. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926511431514

Hi Ilaria. I'm sorry to disagree with the two previous answers by Sergio and Weimin, but I assure that the suggested readings have nothing to do with your specific question and are not relevant at all with MDA.

To start off, my suggestion is that you read

Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives (2004) edited by Kay O'Halloran. It's old, but it is foundational and basically sets out to introduce the field of multimodal discourse studies within SFL. Some people wrongly refer to another foundational book, that is the celebrated Reading Images (2006, second edition), bu Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. Impossible to udnerstand what multimodal studies are and where they come from without this reading, but please be informed that this is NOT about multimodal discourse analysis - that is a strand iniatiated more systematically by Kay O'Halloran in the early 2000s. Much stuff has been circulating from O'Halloran's edited collection, but I always suggest novice readers in multimodality to start from it all began.

You may also wish to selectively read chapters from The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis edited by Carey Jewitt (2nd edition, 2013, the first edition, 2009, includes less chapters) and/or as the best introduction with clear and concise explanations of the different strands within multimodal approaches to semiosis of communication (including MDA) I recomment the excellent Introducing Multimodality (2016), written by Carey Jewitt, Jeff Bezemer and Kay O'Halloran.

These are basic and most useful readings to my knowledge.

hope this helps!

I agree with prof Nicola that the works of Entman May give you appropriate frames for deducing or structuring your frames for your discourse study. Once you arrive at selecting those frames for analysis then you can plan your discourse ideology and theory accordingly.

I recommend two publications from Paul Gee that can be very detailed in terms of a more systematic DA. One is How to do discourse analysis and the second is An introduction to Discourse Analysis. Try that as an introduction. Good luck.

Actually, you have listed four items instead of three. For what I know, factor analysis is a statistical method. Descriptive and critical discourse analysis are analyses of texts with different foci. Not sure about the last one.

See this article please: Western and Arabic Islamic Architecture Discourse

Dear Colleague @Sue Hamzah,

I agree with @Cameen Kettanun. You shd consider the purpose of your use of a style of analysis.

This question is very tricky. There is a generic body of activity, which will probably give more depth of answers than the confrontation of two very contrasted although professionally published views. You know Wikipedia. The generic term of such activity as Wikipedia is Commons Based Peer Production. An interesting EU project names P2P value has worked on it. Look it up. I have heard some years ago at a conference, a presentation on the study of the edition of a controversial Wikipedia article, with two very polarised groups with different opinions rewriting what the others had drafted. A trace of how people opposed each other through the sentences was very visible and analysable.

Analysing the language to understand history, even history happening now, is not new.

You probably want to establish:

-facts

-opinions

-intents

-bias.

You may also trace methods and influence of methods.

To do this, you need to start from a model of:

-players on the ground

-confrontations

-"big brothers" behind the players on the ground, clearly foreign influence included.

-propaganda (bias in speech and claims).

Wars are sometimes fought by proxy.

You may be inspired by previous work on other conflicts, and the methodology used. Why not do a search on the language used in conflict times?

Just from the top of my mind, I remember a book by German linguist Viktor Klemperer with title "LTI" (referring to Latin Lingua Tertii Imperii, the language of the Third Reich). In this book, starting from a glossary of key words, the author analyses myths and propaganda which were instrumental in "controlling by the language" during this dark era of Germany.

According to Lambrecht (1994) a topic must satisfy the following conditions:

1. The topic constituent must be referential.

2. It must be focus of attention. That is, it must be currently under discussion.

3. The predicate must be about the topic and more importantly, provide relevant information.

4. The referent of the topic must be part of the discourse register. To put it differently, the topic referent must be among the referents common between the speaker and the listener at the time of the utterance.

Two examples with minimal context:

1a. What did the children do next?

b. The children went to school.

(stress on school)

2a. Who went to school?

b. The children went to school.

(stress on children)

In 1b, the children as the subject possesses all the prerequisites; therefore, it is the topic, and the sentence has a topic_comment reading.

In 2b, the subject (children) satisfies non of the above_mentioned conditions, hence serving as focus, the non_ recoverable information at the time of utterance. The sentence is an identificational one. It identifies the children as focus, as an element equalling X in the presupposition " X went to school".

First of all, appreciations to you for having reached this level of depth in qualitative enquiry as a whole. I believe one of the viable entry to this debate will be to acknowledge the fact that epistemological differences always runs us into the trouble of comparison as regards to which is better and which is not. But, the fact of the matter is the relationship between the researcher and how he finds the truth varies depending upon the factors and objectives. One who is interested to see the pattern and overall truth will look at the quantitative enquiry and one who is much interested in the outliers will go for qualitative enquiry. Theories can be built in many ways as rightly pointed by you, but at the end we seek to justify how our way is better or improved than others (depending on the context). The premise being there is nothing like absolute truth and hence it is the way how the researcher builds the theory that matters more, rather than the theory itself.

I consider myself a beginner in qualitative enquiry and hence, excuse me if the response is found unsuitable.

Sabri Thabit Saleh Ahmed Thanks for your participation in my discussion and your nice answer. In my opinion, the authors of the mentioned book intended to mention that teaching the knowledge of a language with the aim of reaching to the skill in the second step is not a successful path. Therefore, it seems that it might be better to change the initiation point to the skill side.

what do you want to emphasise in the dissertation? could you please clarify it?

Check this one: https://ksiegarnia.pwn.pl/Interpretacja-materialow-wizualnych,157876331,p.html

and Saras's Pink Visual Ethnography. Best intro. We have been using visual ethnography working with refugees. Unfortunately did not publish it in visual form. You can check in my works: Generation 1.5...

Best

Dear Jamal,

You have to have a good command of Systemic Functional Grammar by M. Halliday. The common denominator of Fairclough, van Dijk , Hodge and Kress and van Leeuwen is their employment of Systemic Functional Grammar. If you would like to focus on "who did what to whom, what is not said rather than what is said" concerning social power abuse, dominance and inequality, read Halliday.

Best,

N. Kansu-Yetkiner

A very insightful question. You have astutely observed the functional role of discourse analysis in demystifying the byzantine complexities underlying the argumentation models dominating acts of communication.