On the Evaluation of Fairclough’s Interpretation Stage through a Goodness Criterion: An Iranian Case

محورهای موضوعی : language teaching

علی منصوری نژاد ¹ ( گروه انگلیسی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، بوشهر،ایران )

تاریخ دریافت : 1400/07/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1400/07/11 تاریخ انتشار : 1400/05/10

کلید واژه: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Iranian Context, interpretation model, analytical induction (AI),

چکیده مقاله :

The present study was an evaluation attempt to investigate the practicality of interpretation procedures proposed by Fairclough (1989) in the critical analysis of Persian texts. The evaluation was implemented on the basis of a goodness criterion, analytical induction (AI) framework developed by Silverman (1993). In so doing, we went about the interpretation of the inaugural speech made by the president of Iran, Dr. Rohani to the United Nations General Assembly in New York in 2013. The interpretation was done according to the Fairclough’s interpretation model in light of AI theoretical framework. The outcome of the study supported the practicality of the overall interpretation model in the Iranian context. However, considering Iranian special sociolinguistic context, the study also put forward some suggestions with respect to the interpretation of local coherence and text structure in the lower section of the model as well as situational context and intertextual context in upper section.

چکیده انگلیسی:

مطالعه حاضر تلاشی ارزیابی برای بررسی کاربرد روشهای تفسیر ارائه شده توسط فرکلاف (1989) در تحلیل انتقادی متون فارسی بود. ارزیابی بر اساس معیار نیکی ، چارچوب القا تحلیلی (AI) ایجاد شده توسط سیلورمن (1993) انجام شد. با این کار ، ما به تفسیر سخنرانی افتتاحیه رئیس جمهور ایران ، دکتر روحانی در مجمع عمومی سازمان ملل متحد در نیویورک در سال 2013 پرداختیم. تفسیر مطابق با مدل تفسیر فرکلاف با توجه به نظریه القا تحلیلی انجام شد چارچوب نتیجه مطالعه از عملی بودن مدل کلی تفسیر در زمینه ایرانی حمایت کرد. با این حال ، با توجه به زمینه خاص جامعه شناختی ایرانی ، در این تحقیق همچنین پیشنهادهایی با توجه به تفسیر انسجام محلی و ساختار متن در بخش پایین مدل و همچنین شرایط موقعیتی و زمینه بینا متنی در بخش بالا ارائه شده است.

منابع و مأخذ:

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: a critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. G. (Eds.). (1994). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. S-Gravenhage: Mouton.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. (2^nd ed.). Essex: Longman

Fowler, R. (1991). Critical linguists. In K. Halmkjaer (Ed.), The linguistic encyclopedia (pp. 89-93). London, New York: Routledge,

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics-the ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kelle, Udo (2005, May). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of empirical data? A crucial problem of "Grounded Theory" reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved September 7, 2014, from http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-27-e.htm.

Kress, G., & Hodge, B. (1979). Language as ideology. London: Routledge.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage Ltd.

Sardabi, N., Biria, R., & Azin, N. (2014). Rouhani’s UN speech: A change in ideology or strategy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 7(3), 84-97.

Schegloff, E. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society 8, 165--187.

Scriven, M. (1991). Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 55-76.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3^rd ed.) London: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: critical comments on critical discourse analysis. In Ryan, A., & Wray, A. (Ed.) (1997). Evolving models of language (pp. 202-241). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (2), 237-246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748.

van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (1985). Handbook of discourse analysis (4 vols). New York: Academic Press.

van Leeuven, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1995). Discourse analysis: a critical review. Language and literature, 4(3), 157-172.

Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Reply to Fairclough: Discourse and interpretations: conjectures and refutations. Language and Literature, 5(1), 57-69.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Review article: the theory and practice of critical discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics 19 (1), 136-151.

Wodak, R., (1992). The Discursive construction of national identity. In: Wodak Ruth, et al. (Eds.), The Discursive construction of national identity (p.7-10). Edinburgh.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (eds.) (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.