1.1.1. The French School of Discourse Analysis
The French School of Discourse Analysis (FDA) emerged in the late sixties in an intellectual climate dominated by structuralism and Althusserâs (one of the leading French Marxist philosophers of the 20th century) theorisation of the concept of ideology paving the way for psychoanalysis (Maldidier, 1993: 105) cf. also infra. According to Althusser, specific socio-economic structures require particular ideologies instantiated by institutions such as state, family, school, church, etc. Whatever conceptions we have of the nature of human beings they are historically generated and serve to reproduce existing social relations and social structures. There is no human nature or essence and consequently no free will.1 A further ingredient to this intellectual landscape must be added, that of a more global cultural anchoring (Franco-European), in the tradition of textual analysis (European philology) and in France a pedagogical practice (explication of literary texts) (Maingueneau, 1991: 9â10).
In 1969, Michel PĂȘcheuxâs book Analyse automatique du discours (Automatic Analysis of Discourse) and the 13th issue of the journal Langages (Dubois & Sumpf, eds.) bearing the title Lâanalyse du discours (Discourse Analysis) were published, on the basis of which the characteristics of FDA can be gradually outlined.
As Maingueneau points out (1992: 117), to underline the fact that it was essentially political discourse analysis which was at stake is nearly tautological in the historical context in question: âas discursivity was defined as being internal to ideology, all discourses as object of analysis belonged ipso facto in the sphere of politicalâ. In Althusserâs thinking âideology had the same position as the illusionary autonomy of human consciousness had in psychoanalysisâ (ibid.: 116):
A theory of discourse starts evolving around 1966 and continues till the end of the seventies. Key concepts, such as conditions of production, discursive formation, preconstructed and inter/intradiscourse are introduced and elaborated during this period. These concepts form the raw material constituting the basis for numerous approaches and studies following the French tradition of discourse analysis.
In the first phase of FDA, M. PĂȘcheux reformulates Jakobsonâs communicative scheme and substitutes the sender (A) and the receiver (B) with roles assigned to specific social structures such as boss (patron), civil servant (cadre), foreman, worker etc. which are rooted in the imagination of the protagonists. With such a reformulation message gives way to discourse, which implies that âit no longer is a question of transmission of information between A and B but more broadly of âeffet de sensâ that is of meaningâ (PĂȘcheux, 1969: 15). The conditions of production are decisive, in addition to language, in what makes a discourse what it is: âa socio-historical tissue which constitutes itâ (Maldidier, 1990: 15). During this first phase of FDA, PĂȘcheux also sets the basis for interdiscourse in showing how fundamental the function of âalready-heardâ and âalready-said isâ (Peytard & Moirand, 1992: 112) and hence underlines the necessity âof considering all possible discoursesâ.
The second phase of FDA takes an even more explicit stance in aligning with Althusserian Marxism. There is also an important shift in the theoretical orientation as the concept of discursive formation3 is introduced. According to the perspective adopted, every discursive formation is rooted in specific and identifiable conditions of production. Discourse is understood as âtextual expression of written or spoken ideologies related to the social place of individuals analysed now as carriers of âthoughtsâ and âsubmittedâ rather than as conscient and active âactorsâ â (Bonnafous & Tournier, 1995: 76). The goal of the analysis now is to reveal in intradiscursivity (intradiscourse) the traces of subordination caused by the interference of former dominating discursive effects on the speaking subject. The concepts of preconstructed (prĂ©construit) and interdiscourse are elaborated following the above-mentioned lines of thought. The preconstructed (prĂ©construit) âcan be understood as the trace of prior discourse in enunciation as opposed to the constructed (construit) uttered at the moment of enunciation. A sense of âevidenceâ is present in what is felt as preconstructed since âit has already been uttered (already-said)â even if the original enunciator has been forgottenâ (Charaudeau & Maingueneau, 2002: 464). According to PĂȘcheux (1983, 1990: 297) interdiscourse4 designates the âexteriorâ of a discursive formation made accessible via the syntactically embedded intradiscursive element, the preconstructed.
In the third phase of FDA starting in the early eighties a change of focus takes place. The notion of interdiscourse which had for long dominated the FDA becomes less important as âthe relation inter-/intradiscourseâ is foregrounded (Maldidier, 1993: 117). Instead of History with a capital H, Structures and Events, FDA tries henceforth to respond to the challenges of history, in other words individual histories and events (ibid.).
From the eighties on, a multitude of studies appear having discourse as their object of study but opening up for different approaches within the FDA. Even if we no longer can speak of a School of French Discourse Analysis it is obvious that certain tendencies characterise the way of doing French discourse analysis:
In our analysis, we adhere to the following principles: (1) we study a more a less constrained corpus (2) situated in the socio-historical context in which it was produced and interpreted, (3) we analyse discursive phenomena as social constructs but also paying close attention to linguistic entities (and not only to their discursive functions) and to inter/intradiscursivity.
1.1.2. Critical Discourse Analysis vs. French Discourse Analysis
There are many commonalities but also differences between the French tradition of doing discourse (FDA) analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In the following some of the main characteristics of CDA (more recently known as Critical Discourse Studies, CDS) are briefly highlighted.5 To conclude this section a concise summary of the commonalities and discrepancies between FDA and CDA/CDS is proposed.
From the late eighties on, CDA became to gain ground in social sciences and became an established qualitative theoretical/methodological framework in Anglo-Saxon academia. According to Wodak (2001: 4), one of the crucial moments in the development of CDA as a network of scholars was in January 1991 when several leading scholars interested in Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis met: âDuring this meeting the very distinct and different approaches were confronted and discussed [âŠ] differences and sameness were exposed; differences towards other theories and methodologies in discourse analysis and sameness in a programmatic way which could frame the differing theoretical approaches of the various biographies and schools of the respective scholarsâ. The heterogeneity of theoretical and methodological approaches remains a characteristic of CDA/CDS even today (see below).
CDA/CDS researchers analyse not only language but language use as part of complex social phenomena. The relationships between language and society are so complex and multifaceted that an interdisciplinary approach making use of different methods is required (Wodak, 2001: 8; Unger, Wodak & KhosraviNik, 2016). Beside text linguistics and discourse anal...
