The Role of Text Structure in Encoding Ideology and Individual Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.200011004Keywords:
critical discourse analysis, ideology, text structure, genre, schemataAbstract
Although any aspect of discourse can be ideologically significant, research on the relation between discourse and ideology has generally focused on the ideological investment of lexis and grammar. This paper analyses the ideological significance of the structure of the text. The role of text structure in perpetuating existing power relations is examined and described in terms of naturalisation and manipulation. Naturalisation of discourse structure refers to the fact that a structure associated with a specific social group is considered to be universal and thus the ideology which invests it is not regarded as ideology, but as common sense. Manipulation is concerned with the fact that, when encoding an argument, the writer considers the reader’s expectations regarding the structure of the text in order to articulate the different elements and organise the discourse in a specific way, which reflects the ideological position from which the text is constructed.
Downloads
References
BAZERMAN, C. 1983. “Scientific Writing as Social Act: a Review in the Literature of the Sociology of Science.” In Anderson, P. V. J. Brockmann and C.R. Miller. (eds.). New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory and Practice. Farmingdale, New York: Baywood Publishing: 156-184.
BERGER, P. and T. LUCKMANN. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
BERKENTOTTER, C. and T. HUCKIN. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/ Culture/ Power. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BROWN, G. and G. YULE. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
CARRELL, P. 1983. “Some Issues in Studying the Roles of Schemata, or Background Knowledge, in Second Language Comprehension”. Reading in a Foreign Language 1: 81-92.
---. 1988. “Some Causes of Text-boundness and Schema Interference in ESL Reading.” In Carrell, P. L., J. Devine and D. Eskey. (eds.). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.: 101-103.
COOK, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford U. P.
DIJK, T. A., van. 1980. Macrostructures: an Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse Interaction and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DIJK, T. A., van. (ed.). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. IV. London: Academic Press Inc.
---. 1988. News Analysis. Case Studies of International and National News in the Press. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. 1989a. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
---.1989b. “Language and Ideology.” Language and Ideology. ELR
Journal 3: 9-28.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
FOWLER, R. 1985. “Power”. In van Dijk, T. A. van. (ed.): 61-82.
---. 1991. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London and New York: Routledge.
FOWLER, R., R. HODGE, H. KRESS and T. TREW. 1979. Language and Control. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
HALLIDAY, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotics: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
HOEY, M. 1983. On the Surface of Discourse. London: Allen und Unwin.
KNORR-CETINA, K. D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon.
KRESS, G. 1985. “Ideological Structures in Discourse.” In Dijk, T. A. van. (ed): 27-42.
---. 1990. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11: 84-99.
LACOSTE, M. 1981. “The Old Woman and the Doctor: a Contribution to the Analysis of Unequal Linguistic Exchanges”. Journal of Pragmatics 5: 169-180.
MEY, J. 1985. Whose Language? A Study in Linguistic Pragmatics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
MURDOCK, G. 1973. “Political Deviance: the Press Presentation of a Militant Mass Demonstration”. In Cohen, S. and J. Young. (eds.). The Manufacture of News. London: Constable: 48-67.
SEIDEL, G. 1895. “Political Discourse Analysis.” In Dijk, T. A. van: 43-60.
SHARROCK, W.W. and D. WATSON. 1989. “Talk and Police Work: Notes on the Traffic in Information”. In Coleman, H. (ed.). Working with Language: a Multidisciplinary Consideration of Language Use in Work Contexts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 105-125.
SIMPSON, P. 1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View. London and New York: Routledge.
SINCLAIR, J. MCH. and R. M. COULTHARD. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford U. P.
SWALES, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P.
SYKES, M. 1985. “Discrimination in Discourse.” In Dijk, T. A. van. 1985: 83-102.
WIDDOWSON, H. G. 1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford.U. P.
WINTER, E. 1977. “A Clause Relational Approach to English Texts: a Study of Some Predictive Items in Written Discourse”. Instructional Science 6 (1): 1-92.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2000 María José Luzón Marco
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
