DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE WRITTEN ELECTORAL MATERIALS FROM THE 7th PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN IRAN
The term discourse analysis has
come to be used with a wide range of meaning which cover a wide range of
activities. There are many existing approaches to the study of
language. One of them which this study is based upon, is critical
discourse analysis (CDA). This approach grew out of work in different
disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s, including linguistics,
semiotics, psychology, anthropology and sociology. CDA analyses social
interactions in a way which focuses upon their linguistic elements, and
which sets out to show up their generally hidden determinants in the
system of social relationships, as well as hidden effects they may have
upon that system. Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it
does not have a unitary theoretical framework. Therefore, in this
research project, in order to overcome the potential weaknesses of any
single method, a critical linguistic analysis will be adopted from some
of the most influential linguists in the field to analyse the formal
linguistic features of the written electoral materials from the 7th
presidential election in Iran, to explain discourse structures in terms
of properties of social interaction and especially social structure,
and to focus on the ways discourse structures enact, conform,
legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and ideology in
society.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
- To help correct a widespread underestimation of the significance of
language in the production, maintenance, and change of social relations
of power in Iran.
- To refer to the order of discourse of the society as a whole, which
structures the orders of discourse of the various social institutions in
a particular way.
- To show that orders of discourse are ideologically harmonized internally or (at the societal level) with each other.
- To stress both the determination of discourse by social structure,
and the effects of discourse upon society through its reproduction of
social structures.
- To examine the relationship between discourse and sociocultural change.
So this research project aims to answer the following questions:
- What were the formal textual features of the conservatives’ and reformists’ discourses at the 7th presidential election?
- How did their discourses and strategies change and why?
- What were the ideologies behind the discourse of each group?
- What was the relationship between language of each party and power?
SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY
There are many existing approaches to
the study of language (e.g. linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics,
cognitive psychology, etc.) but while each of them has something to
contribute to critical language study, they all have major limitations
from a critical point of view.
The critical discourse analysis upon
which this study is based, does not adhere to any particular approach.
It is similar to a qualitative research method in that it deals with
non-numerical data and can only be validated by other researchers
examining the same data. However, its similarity can only be detected
to a certain point because a qualitative research method is either
synthetic or holistic, whereas critical linguistics is analytic in
nature. A qualitative method on content analysis is rejected on the
grounds of its inability to get beneath the textual surface where the
crucial meanings lie. So in this research a critical linguistic
analysis will be adopted from some of the most influential linguists in
the field (in order to overcome the potential weaknesses of any single
method) including Fairclaough (1989, 1992, 1995), Fowler (1991) and van
Dijk (1981, 1985) to :
- Study the theoretical aspects of the subject i.e. explanation and
definition of the concepts of ideology, power, discourse, discourse
analysis, order of discourse, critical discourse analysis, etc.
- Study the descriptive aspects of the subject, i.e. giving a
systematic presentation of a procedure for critical discourse analysis;
setting out a view of interrelationship of language and society;
illustrating the place of language in society, and showing that language
connects with the social through being the primary domain of ideology,
and through being both a site of, and a stake in, struggles for power.
- Study the analytic aspects of the subject, i.e. analysing the formal
textual features of their statements, press interviews and electoral
speeches and manifestoes of the two main candidates for presidency –
Khatami and Nategh Noori and their main supporters.
As the primary sources of the present
study, the written electoral materials such as the speeches and
manifestoes published in newspapers and the published interviews and
debates of the candidates, and as the secondary sources the speeches,
statements and articles of other politicians as well as the editorials
of the newspapers regarding the presidential election, from the 8th of May, 1997 when the Council of Guardians announced the names of the eligible candidates upto the last day of election (23rd of May, 1997) would be taken into consideration.
Time period required to complete the research project: Approximately two years.
Field work: No specific field work is required in this research project.
Place/libraries where research work is to be carried out: In
order to establish a good, rich theoretical framework for the study, I
have to visit and search so many libraries and universities such s
American centre library, British council library, library of Delhi
University, library of JNU (all located in Delhi) as well as the library
of Panjab University, Changidarh.
Since this research project
aims to analyse the texts from the seventh presidential election in
Iran, and as per the recommendation of the committee I have co-opted a
co-supervisor from Iran in my research work, therefore for collecting
the relevant materials as well as visiting my co-supervisor I also have
to visit Iran.
PROPOSAL
Background of the Study: The
1970s saw the emergence of a form of discourse and text analysis that
recognized the role of language in structuring power relations in
society. At that time, much linguistic research elsewhere was focused
on formal aspects of language which constituted the linguistic
competence of speakers which could theoretically be isolated from
specific instances of language use (Chomsky, 1957). Where the relation
between language and context was considered, as in pragmatics (Levinson,
1983), with a focus on speakers’ pragmatic / socio-linguistic
competence, sentences and components of sentences were still regarded as
the basic units. Much socio-linguistic research at the time was aimed
at describing and explaining language variation, language change and the
structures of communicative interaction, with limited attention to
issues of social hierarchy and power (Labov, 1972; Hymes, 1972). In
such a context, attention to texts, their production and interpretation
and their relation to societal impulses and structures, signalled a very
different kind of interest (de Beugrande and Dressler, 1981). The work
of Kress and Hodge (1979) and Wodak (1989) serve to explain and
illustrate the main assumptions, principles and procedures of what had
then become known as critical linguistics.
Kress (1990 : 84-97) gives an account of
the theoretical foundations and sources of critical linguistics. By
the 1990s the label critical discourse analysis came to be used more
consistently with this particular approach to linguistic analysis.
Kress (1990 : 94) shows how critical discourse analysis by that time was
‘emerging as a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind
of linguistics’. Many of the basic assumptions of critical discourse
analysis that were salient in the early stages, and were elaborated in
later development of the theory, are articulated in Kress’s (1989) work.
Fowler et al. (1979) has been referred
to in order to ascertain the early foundations of critical linguistics.
Later work of Fowler (1991, 1996) shows how tools provided by standard
linguistic theories (a 1965 version of Chomskyan grammar, and Halliday’s
theory of systemic functional grammar) can be used to uncover
linguistic structures of power in texts. Not only in news discourses,
but also in literary criticism Fowler illustrates that systematic
grammatical devices function in establishing, manipulating and
naturalizing social hierarchies.
Fairclough (1989) sets out the social
theories under planning critical discourse analysis, and as in other
early critical linguistic work, a variety of textual examples are
anlaysed to illustrate the field, its aims and methods of analysis.
Later Fairclough (1992, 1995) and Chouliariki and Fairclough (1999)
explain and elaborate some advances in critical discourse analysis,
showing not only how the analytical framework for investigating language
in relation to power and ideology developed, but also how critical
discourse analysis is useful in disclosing the discursive nature of much
contemporary social and cultural change. Particularly the language of
the mass media is scrutinized as a site of power, of struggle and also
as a site where language is apparently transparent. Media institutions
often purport to be neutral in that they provide space for public
discourse, that they reflect states of affairs disinterestedly, and that
they give the perceptions and arguments of the newsmakers. Fiarclaugh
shows the fallacy of such assumptions, and illustrates the mediating and
constructing role of the media with a variety of examples.
Van Dijk’s earlier work in text
linguistics and discourse analysis (1977, 1981) already shows the
interest he takes in texts and discourses as basic units and social
practices. Like other critical linguistic theorists, he traces the
origins of linguistic interest in units of language larger than
sentences and in text - and context-dependency of meanings. Van Dijk and
Kintsch (1983) considered the relevance of discourse to the study of
language processing. Their development of a cognitive model of discourse
understanding in individuals, gradually developed into cognitive models
for explaining the construction of meaning on a societal level. Van
Dijk (1985) collected the work of a variety of scholars for whom
language and how it functions in discourse is variously the primary
object of research, or a tool in the investigation of other social
phenomena. This is in a way a documentation of the ‘state of the art’ of
critical linguistics in the mid 1980s.
Van Dijk turns specifically to media
discourse, giving not only his own reflection on communication in the
mass media (van Dijk, 1986), but also bringing together the theories and
applications of a variety of scholars interested in the production,
uses and functions of media discourses (van Dijk, 1985). In critically
analysing various kinds of discourses that encode prejudice, van Dijk’s
interest is in developing a theoretical model that will explain
cognitive discourse processing mechanisms. Most recently van Dijk has
focused on issues of racism and ideology (van Dijk, 1998).
By the end of the 1980s critical
linguistics was able to describe its aims, research interests, chosen
perspective and methods of analysis much more specifically and rigidly
than hitherto. Wodak (1989) lists, explains and illustrates the most
important characteristics of critical linguistic research as they had
become established in continued research. The relevance of
investigating language use in institutional settings is reiterated, and a
new focus on the necessity of a historical perspective is introduced
(the discourse – historical approach). This was followed by a variety of
research projects into discursive practices in institutional contexts
that would assist in developing an integrated theory of critical
discourse analysis.
Statement of the Subject: The
fruitless study of language in isolation has led linguists to
acknowledge the importance of considering social context in discourse
analysis. Deacon et al. (1999 : 147-8) propose : “Discourse conjoins
language use as text and practices. What we identify as ‘discourse’ and
what we identify as ‘social’ are deeply intervened ... . All talks,
all texts, are social in nature. Language is not some transparent
medium through which we see the world”. They make the point that “the
moving to discourse analysis enabled linguistics to tackle the
structures of whole texts, rather than just the sentences, words and
parts of words taken in isolation which it had to a great extent
concentrated on previously” (Deacon et al., 1999 : 179). So, the
analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use
and as such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic
forms independent of the purposes or functions which those forms are
designed to serve in human affairs.
Critical discourse analysis which this
research work is based upon, analyses social interactions in a way which
sets out to show up their generally hidden determinants in the system
of social relationship as well as hidden effects they may have upon that
system. Critically study of language would place a broad conception of
the social study of language at the core of language study. Critical
discourse analysis regards ‘language as social practice’ (Fairclough and
Wodak, 1997), and takes consideration of the context of language use to
be crucial (Wodak, 2000; Benke, 2000). Moreover, critical discourse
analysis takes a particular interest in the relation between language
and power.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997) have put forward an eight-point programme to define critical discourse analysis as follows :
- Critical discourse analysis addresses social problems.
- Power relations are discursive.
- Discourse constitutes society and culture.
- Discourse does ideological work.
- Discourse is historical.
- The link between text and society is mediated.
- Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory.
- Discourse is a form of social action.
Interpretation of text and discourse is,
therefore, interpretation of socially determined language, and this
means being involved in understanding the processes, functions and
meanings of social interaction, and as Birch (1989 : 153) claims, this
means being involved in “politics of interaction”. In this way the
links between people and society are not arbitrary and accidental, but
one institutionally determined. Critical language study aims to select
and deconstruct these links and to understand the nature of language and
society and their mutual effect on each other. Critical discourse
analysis sees discourses as parts of social struggles, and
contextualizes them in terms of broader (non-discoursal) struggles, and
the effects of these struggles on structures. It puts emphasis not only
on the formal textual features of discourse but also on the social
effects of discourse, on creativity, and on future. On the other hand,
through critical discourse analysis the analyst can show what power
relationships determine discourses; these relationships are themselves
the outcome of struggles, and are established (and, ideally,
naturalized) by those with power. It lays emphasis on the social
determination of discourse, and on the past – on the results of past
struggles.
The 7th presidential election
in Iran took place following a series of happenings which in fact was
the aftermath of social forces in a broader competition between ideology
and culture. This event was a turning point in the history of Iran
because, for the first time two different discourse types, based on two
different ideologies, faced and challenged with each other. For the
first time some slogans such as “civil society”, “liberalism”, “human
rights”, “freedom of expression” etc. were brought up by the reformist
party and these new concepts entered the current discourse of the
society and somehow changed the social structure. So in this research
project critical discourse analysis will be used to describe the formal
properties and features of these two discourses in Iran; to interpret
the relationship between texts and interaction; to explain the
relationship between interaction and social context and their social
effects; to explore the relationship between language and ideology; and
to illustrate the relationship between language and society and
discourse and social structure in Iran.
TENTATIVE CHAPTER DIVISION
Chapter one: Introduction contains
the background of the study, statement of the subject, aims and
objectives of the study, research methodology, data collection, primary
and secondary sources of the study, significance of the study as well as
limitations of the study.
Chapter two : Review of Literature
provides detailed definition of the concepts such as discourse,
discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, etc. and gives a brief
overview to the approaches to discourse analysis. Then it proposes a
systematic presentation of a procedure for critical discourse analysis.
This chapter also sets out a view of the interrelationship of language
and society, with the emphasis upon power and ideology.
Chapter three : Discourse Analysis of the Reformist Party.
In this chapter a critical linguistic analysis will be adopted to
analyse linguistic features of the electoral speeches, debates and
interviews as well as electoral statements of the reformist party, and
to investigate the ideology behind the discourse of this party, and to
explore the relationship between their language and power.
Chapter four : Discourse Analysis of the Conservative Party brings
into focus the formal textual features of the electoral statements,
debates and speeches of the conservative party during the seventh
presidential election in Iran and explores their ideological structures.
Chapter five : Conclusions and Suggestions
summarizes that language connects with the social through being the
primary domain of ideology, and shows the links between linguistic
features of electoral written texts and social, political and
ideological structures, relations and processes they belong to.
SCHEME OF CHAPTERIZATION
Chapter One : Introduction
Chapter Two : Review of Literature
- Definition of the concepts
- History of discourse analysis
- Approaches to discourse analysis
- The relationship between language, power and ideology
Chapter Three : Discourse Analysis of the Reformist Party
- Critical discourse analysis of electoral speeches
- Critical discourse analysis of the electoral debates and interviews
- Critical discourse analysis of the electoral statements
Chapter Four : Discourse Analysis of the Conservative Party
- Critical discourse analysis of electoral speeches
- Critical discourse analysis of the electoral debates and interviews
- Critical discourse analysis of the electoral statements
Chapter Five : Conclusions and Suggestions