Talk:Critical discourse analysis

Three-dimensional framework

An anonymous editor recently added a citation that appears either to have copied a portion of this article, or to have been the original source of the Wikipedia text.

Benham and Mahmoudy (2013) reads in relevant part:

Fairclough (1989) developed a three-dimensional guideline for studying discourse. His aim was to map three distinct forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as examples of sociocultural practice. Specifically, he combined micro, meso and macro-level interpretations. At the micro-level, the analyst is concerned with the text's syntax, metaphoric structure and certain rhetorical devices. The meso-level comprised studying the text's production and consumption, concentrating on how power relations are enacted. At the macro-level, the analyst considers intertextual relationships, trying to understand the broad, societal currents that are influencing the text being studied.

[Behnam, Biook; Mahmoudy, Behzad (December 2013). "A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Reports Issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General on Iran's Nuclear Program during the Last Decade" (PDF). Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 3: 2196–2201.]

Compare this version of the Wikipedia article, from 6 January 2012:

Fairclough developed a three-dimensional framework for studying discourse, where the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. Particularly, he combines micro, meso and macro-level interpretation. At the micro-level, the analyst considers the text's syntax, metaphoric structure and certain metorical devises. The meso-level involved studying the text's production and consumption, focusing on how power relations are enacted. At the macro-level, the analyst is concerned with inter-textual understanding, trying to understand the broad, societal currents that are affecting the text being studied.

I think it is inappropriate to use the former as a source for the latter. It seems likely either that one was copied from the other, or that both were (co)written by the same person. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Critical discourse analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231054624/http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10350330.asp to http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10350330.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)