Talk:Critical discourse analysis

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 JPS^{talk to me} 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Please do not modify it.

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)
  • 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)

• 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)

Simplifying the language

I'm not an expert in this subject, so I don't know to what degree this is possible. But I know enough that I can tell there is plenty of advanced technical language here that can be simplified or explained in plain English. I can see no conceivable reason for the terms macro level, meso level, and micro level, just for starters, and there's plenty more of that kind of thing in there. Could someone knowledgeable about the subject please take this on? Bastemhebet (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

I agree that the article needs developing. CDA is politically motivated, intending to expose power relations. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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 JPS^{talk to me} 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree, couldn't you invite the readers of that mailing list to help ocntribute to this article? all it needs is attention :) --Percival500 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some mention of Critical Theory? Habermas is mentioned, but not Critical Theory as such. My reading of Fairclough and of Paul Chilton (who, by the way, might be mentioned in conjunction with Critical Linguistics) is that Critical Theory, while not the only influence on CDA, holds a special place.Cnilep (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the deal is, if you want something added, then add it. don't wait for consensus. improvement comes from people taking responsibility and acting. --Buridan (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is completely incomprehensibly to a lay-person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.46.210 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs examples

The subject of this article remains abstract. I think it needs some examples to make clear to the reader precisely what it's referring to. Who is able to do that? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs clarfication

The text refers to "certain, metorical devises". What are these? Should this be "certain metrical devices"? Fconaway (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable Academics

on wikipedia, the standard of notability is set. redlinked people are always going to be non-notable until you make a page for them. if you add someone to the list, make sure they have a page first. --Buridan (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor example of CDA's criticism

Vincent Tyson's article seems like a poor example of academic criticism. It is nonacademic and potentially Christian/pro-Capitalist propaganda if anything. He even cites the Bible. I'm sorry, but I have to ask: why is this even included? --ThePhantasos (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Still needs major work

As I'm sure most reading this will agree, this article needs major re-editing. I realise that nobody has to wait for consensus, but does anybody know of any academic (sub-)discipline articles that may provide a useful template for this one? It would make sense to cover CDAs history, some of its methods (certain methods are more associated with CDA than others - I've never seen a social network diagram in a CDA analysis for example, but have certainly seen terminology from systemic-functional grammar), the sorts of "texts" that are studied (e.g. topics such as gender, the media, and racism reoccur), etc. Not sure where wikipedia stands on how much depth to go into criticisms, but it would make sense to have a section for these given that a number of articles that have criticised CDA are listed in the further reading section. Many of these criticisms have been answered by more recent research (e.g. through developing a cognitive approach, or by using methods derived from corpus linguistics). All of these issues are worth including in an article such as this but given the variability between disciplinary articles, I'm not sure what best practice is in this case. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.118.164 (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)