Jump to content

Talk:Critical discourse analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gregbard (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 14 December 2007 (phil). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconSociology Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political / Continental Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
Taskforce icon
Continental philosophy
This section is preserved as an archive of a discussion from the proposal that Discourse should be merged with CDA. Consensus has been reached to oppose the merge. The JPStalk to me 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Please do not modify it.[reply]

Merger

On 23 January 2006, Lapaz proposed a merger between this article and Discourse.

  • Oppose - Critical discourse analysis should not be merged into Discourse. The concepts are too complex for this. Discourse, especially, can be used and implemented in such a number of ways that this article can become huge if related concepts were moved into it. Both articles are manageable sizes, with sufficient content to justify seperate articles. CDA should not even be merged into discourse analysis. The JPS 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have left the following on the person who proposed the merger's talk page:
You have proposed a merger between discourse and critical discourse analysis. Could you please show some wikiquette by providing a reason for your proposal. The JPS 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree. The terms are not at all interchangeable and neither term has a single definition. Phil Graham
  • Opposing Merger - Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a complex theory and model that has interpretations of texts and languages that go beyond the study of discourse analysis, and exceed the scope of many schools of thought on the interpretation of discourse.

    CDA should remain independant from Discourse Analysis (DA) due to its innovative and complex nature. Whilst similar, the studies achieve different results when applied, and thus CDA and DA should remain apart, and more people should focus on the addition of Critical Linguistics (CL) as a conterpoint to CDA and as a resource for those interested in Discourse Analysis. The combination of CDA, DA, and CL would improve the understanding of the masses and no one would have even suggested such a merger be allowed.

    Adam Moreland

  • Strongly Oppose - for many reasons, the major one being the very principle of Wikipedia to provide correct, detailed and relevant information: (a) CDA obviously is a specific part (approach, perspective) within discourse studies in general, and hence cannot be identified or collapsed with the broader field: we do not collapse syntax with grammar, or grammar with linguistics either: an encyclopedia should also have items that are specific; (b) CDA is now a vast field of research with many scholars, its own journals, meetings, etc. in many countries (c) Many users search the internet specifically for CDA and should thus also find it in Wikipedia (indeed the Wikipedia item on CDA comes out on top in Google!). The article is not perfect, and there are regular intrusions that add blatant errors or information that has nothing to do with CDA, but as it stands the article gives the essential. More specifically what is needed is (i) more history of the development of CDA in several disciplines, (ii) a longer section on methods of CDA (also showing that there is no such thing as specific methods of CDA), (iii) more information about the applications of CDA in real world problems. Teun A. van Dijk (Nov 17, 2006)

CDA and Discourse Analysis

What exactly diferentiates CDA from plain and simple DA? I think the article should make the distinction clear. 201.37.176.252 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs developing. CDA is politically motivated, intending to expose power relations. The JPStalk to me 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up needed

We need to give this article a complete overhaul. It's been commented on a mailing list (frequented by those working with CDA) that this is poor.

A history would be good, for one. Let's aim to have this good by the end of the summer. The JPStalk to me 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_discourse_analysis&oldid=177868486"