(no subject)

May 15, 2005 21:17

This is my midterm presentation It is about chapter three of Fairclough's book. I struggled with explaining how this chapter is useful in analyzing anything, and also struggled reading it - his writing is conviluted, and vague while at the same time being overly specific. I don't know how he does it! Any comments will be appreciated.

Intertextuality - the incorporation of a text into a given text.

At the end of Chapter 2 in his book Analyzing Discourse, Fairclough makes a distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ relations of texts. Basically, an ‘External’ relation in a text is just any kind of link to a larger idea that can’t be addressed (I believe anyway, Fairclough doesn’t articulate this, instead gives a quasi-definition that states that: ‘External’ relations of texts relate to their relationships to other elements of social events, and how they figure in Actions, Identifications, and Representations - words that are capitalized for some reason, but never given one of Fairclough’s special definitions and are not in the glossary.) Using a common sense approach, I can hypothesize that ‘external’ relations are simply any element that a text incorporates that lies outside of said text. Like if Fairclough were to say “Hodge and Kress haves suggested that…” then that would be an external relation.
‘Internal’ relations are simply the way that the text itself is arranged, how it ‘relates to itself’, for example, in a book, its internal relations are its’ semantic, and grammatical structure, and its’ vocabulary.
Fairclough states that intertextuality lies behind the idea that “what is ‘said’ in a text takes place against a background of what is ‘unsaid.’ The idea and concept he is getting at is what is known throughout the world as “common knowledge.” That is, what is assumed to be known and not. Fairclough of course assigns new labels where they are applicable.
Intertextuality is central to the idea of ‘external’ factors which I summarized earlier, a concept prevalent throughout most of the theory we have read thus far.
Intertextuality is linked to the concept of ‘assumptions’ - quite obviously, as some things are just “assumed”, meaning that they don’t need to be elaborated on - or even acknowledged. Many ideas are just implicitly built into texts. Fairclough distinguishes three types of assumptions.

Existential Assumptions - assumptions about what exists.

Example: “Social cohesion is threatened by a widespread sense of unease,
Inequality, and polarization”

This is an existential assumption because the author is assuming that
Social cohesion exists.

Propositional Assumptions - assumptions of what can and will be the case.

Example: “But (globalization) is also a demanding process, and often a painful
one.”

This is a propositional assumption because it assumes that globalization is a
“Demanding” process.

Value Assumptions - assumptions about what is good or desirable.

Example: “Social cohesion is threatened by a widespread sense of unease,
Inequality, and polarization”

This is a value assumption because, according to Fairclough: “If X is a threat to
Y, this is an assumption that X is undesirable and Y is desirable”

(This may or may not be true, if I were to say that “peace is threatened by the
Invading forces” I don’t think that would imply that Invading forces are desirable
And peace is not. Fairclough seems unable to even separate these terms in an
example. He is the spongiest guy in the world.)

- Assumptions counteract intertextuality. This is a very important point that Fairclough makes. By incorporating other texts, a text opens up diversity, or ‘difference’, but by making ‘assumptions’ a text acts to exclude other voices, or stances, as it simply assumes that what it says is correct. This is where Fairclough goes into the stake of intertextuality. He begins to articulate, (kind of) how ‘assumptions’ leads to a dominant group controlling another group, because their ‘assumptions’ are considered the norm. Instead of ‘the norm’, Fairclough uses the terms Universal and Particular. The ‘universal’ is anything that pertains to human beings in general, while the ‘particular’ is that which pertains to a specific group. This pertains to the ‘Hegemonic Struggle’, that is, the struggle between political forces to have their ideas be represented as ‘universal.’ Hegemony emphasizes the importance of ideology, not just force, in sustaining power.
- These various groups that are struggling for ‘hegemony’ are certainly made up of a specific group of people, which share certain characteristics. The term that Fairclough uses for various groups of people, instead of ‘demographic’ , or ‘identity’ is ‘Social Difference.’ ‘Social difference’ is (sort of) defined as the presence of a particular social group (Women, lesbians, ethnic groups, so forth.) ‘Difference’ in this chapter is related to ‘Dialogicality.’ ‘Dialogicality is basically a text’s awareness of other points of view. A text which is highly dialogical would be an article written by someone who takes into account other opinions and stances on the same topic, and has a low presence of ‘social difference’, that is, that the author does not appear to identify with a particular social group. As Fairclough puts it, a text undergoes dialogization when it becomes “…aware of competing definitions for the same things.” It is also important to remember that undialogized language is “Authoritative or absolute.”
The phrase “Homosexuals are evil and will burn in hell” is not dialogized, as it doesn’t factor in other points of view.

Conclusion:

All of these terms are used in order to explain why certain viewpoints are more prevalent in certain societies. It goes to show how opinions are shaped by groups with large amounts of ‘Difference’ and how power depends on ideological manipulation (i.e. an influence over the ‘universal’ and ‘particular.’ This concept, collectively called “intertextuality.” This is similar to the study of social semiotics, in that it looks to explain why certain groups function as being dominant, and how they are able to continue this dominance. It connects to Hodge and Kress’ idea of the ideological complex, which is “A functionally related set of contradictory version of the world, coercively imposed by one social group on behalf of its’ own distinctive interests or subversively offered by another social group in attempts at resistance in its own interests.” The main difference is that Fairclough attempts more to explain why and how a particular group may remain or become dominant, while H and K look at the effects of this phenomenon. Both, however, look at the presence of inherent bias and dominance of particular groups in the shaping of texts.

Mode of Analysis:

Basically lies in applying these various definitions to a certain text, sorting out what the ‘assumptions’ are, and then what the particular ‘difference’ is and then how this effects what is ‘universal’ and ‘particular’ and how dialogized it is, and how this relates to ‘hegemony’ and how this effects the ‘public sphere.’
This is the only possible way that I can think to apply this concept, Fairclough doesn’t offer a method for analysis in the book.

Problems:

- Fairclough doesn’t define any of his terms, which means that, during the reading, half of the work is spent simply trying to find out what he’s talking about. He should definitely take a more traditional approach to his discourse, or, just use common sense, like, if you introduce a new term, try defining it as well.

- Aside from his quasi-definitions, which usually are simply a reference to the term, which serves the purpose of giving you a vague idea as to the way he is using the term, he doesn’t go into any self-criticism, or ask any questions of the work itself. There is nothing ‘meta’ involved. For example, good points to consider would be:

Can anything really be totally ‘universal’ or ‘particular’? He does not give any criteria as to being able to separate and solidly conclude that anything. He gives no advice as to how to use this terminology. No mode of analysis is present, other than himself attempting to clarify what he has already stated, by using examples, which many times don’t add up or offer contradictions. The only way to use this as a mode of analysis would be to express Fairclough’s definition of something, and then point out how you believe your text is an example of this.
Previous post Next post
Up