The research is set to carry out a Critical Discourse Analysis of the Urdu language (National language in Pakistan). Since the journal of Norman Fairclough’s Language and Power and Ruth Wodak’s Language, Power and Ideology Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has not only developed int an important area of study in its own but also has been extensively accepted by investigators in a variety of disciplines from Biblical educations (Van Noppen 1996) to city development (Hastings 1999).In the overall introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (1995), an assortment of his documents written in the 1980s, Fairclough described CDA as having “passed through the first flush of youth” and “embarked upon the maturation process”. CDA has indeed sought a repute, though it has produced challenging arsenal, and established substantial ability by means of its manoeuvres. In my opinion, it has improved past a revolutionary derogatory from the limitations to an efficacious attack on the gun’s mouth. The chief invention employed by Critical Discourse Analysis is the incorporation of the spectator’s role in the clarification of discourse and the extension of the space of investigation past the written, spreading it to intertextual report. Critical Discourse Analysis does not have a unitary theoretical framework or methodology. It is best viewed as a shared perspective comprising a variety of approaches instead of a school. Historically, Critical Discourse Analysis is an evolution from the Critical Linguistics developed in late 1979 by several theorists at the University of East Anglia. In this discussion am will focus on the Critical Discourse Analysis as a tool to analyze the short new article to understand how discourse is implicated in relations of power. By employing Fairclough’s model for CDA, which has three inter-related dimensions of discourse; the object analysis; the process investigation; and the socio-historical conditions are leading these procedures. I will analyze the language into description, interpretation, and explanation parts to be able to focus on the signifiers that make up the text.
Linguistic philosophy can also be termed as dialectal philosophy is described to as collective body of communal views, beliefs and insights of linguistic, including culture (Sikandar 2017). Assumptions about language, nature and purpose of communication and pattern of open character as an enactment of a collective order (Woorlard 1992). It is through linguistic philosophy that one can discern implicit and latent assumptions about reality as it informs us how people analyze situations and events. Among other aspects, a field of linguistic philosophy focuses on socio-political and historical processes of calibration of languages. A language is purposefully chosen by those in power and made the standard language which (Rahman 1999) defines as standardization of a language. By generating disparity and devaluation of other languages this process becomes political. At the academic point and social point, the use of one language in authority fields brands it the language of the elites, a mark of dominance and honor (Kroch 1978). This process results in the status of standard language and national language. It creates a sense of authority emanating from a center, marking particular forms of speech as emblematic of group identity and bringing in a socio-political evaluative stratification in language usage with better and worse ways of usage (Blommaert 2004, Gal & Woorlard 2001, Kroskirty 2000). The people in authority justify the use of the variety of a language in their interest to promote it as the single model of correctness (Cooper 1989, Rahman 1999). Through stratification, power uses language by ascribing big and small varieties of language to attain the desired social order, which is the order of indexicality of the social meaning of language (Blommaert 2005). Blommaert (2006) talks of Critical Discourse Analysis as “Power… producing people as topic themes in a specific disciplined manner thus becoming somebody.” Presently, power is related to the instrumental value of language, such as what it can buy in the market. Entirely the pieces of machinery of the state serve the purpose of creating inequality in the masses by the denial of access to an elite language and education. Language ideologies are generated through a combination of specific discourses and registers, institutional structures and professional practices. Linguistic forms are indexical, indexing context through ideological inferences (Silverstein 1979). A specific way means specific social and cultural meaning (Silverstein, 2006). Consistently we portray social meanings through grammatical forms, lexical items, phrases and sentence structures to attain a specific social purpose. The implications are as well suggested through textualization as discourse is picked up out of its environment and conveyed in cooperation with the new proposition of framework (Bauman & Briggs 1990). This means that the unique fragments of discourses encompassing primary texts from social, cultural or historical inimitable proceedings are picked out of their original context and conveyed into a different background or discourse (Blommaert 2006). Inter-textuality is the other strategy used by the participants to send language ideologies from one discourse to another. It is the use of numerous references suggestive of other texts present in the discourse of an individual as people pick recommendations and ideas from different experts and disciplines like politics, history, and others to increase value to their discourses. Linguistic philosophies are as well concerned with studying the patterns of discourse, referring to the way people speak write in a specific organization.
Furthermore, it is this same discourse that proposes their identity as a director or clerk. However, in linguistic philosophies ideologies explore the issue of identity which is two dimensional (Blommaert 2006); inhabited identities (the identities that ourselves construct and articulate) and ascribed identities (the identities that are attributed to us by other people). The politics of identity is always between both of these dimensions: the personality we claim for ourselves clash with the characters that we are attributed to by others.
Critical Discourse Analysis
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is placed within essential theories paradigm and mainly focuses on analyzing linguistic artifacts (Fairclough 2001, Gee 2005, Van Dijk 1993) this is intending to investigate the association of power, linguistic, and humanity (Gee 2005, Rogers 2004). Conferring to Fairclough and Wodak (1997) the elementary doctrines of Critical Discourse Analysis are the opinions of discourse as a mode of handling societal issues, recognizing supremacy relations as lengthy, involving society as well as culture and furthering ideological work. Critical Discourse Analysis focuses on the crucial information that empowers people to free up themselves from structures of authority and powe r conferring to Bourdieu’s concept of violence symbolique. Critical Discourse Analysis tries to create awareness among the partners about their own needs and interests. It is concerned in further concealed and dormant normal day views that always seem camouflaged as theoretical allegories and fables; besides, it tries to seek out the veiled meaning or rea between the lines as participants in a discourse create meanings, which Fairclough (1995) infers to as intertextuality of discourses. The chief concern of critical discourse analysis is to discover the institutional practices in the perspective of power and control. It looks at how the choices ae made about what to present, what to emphasize as well as equally what to exclude. Through this method, the institutions via their chief actors seize unlimited control in deciding norms, standard practices or ideologies of an institution
This research design is built to analyze data from three semiotic categories; the orders of discourse, including genres, discourses, and styles. Besides, it will look at the lengthy strategies of textualization, intertextuality, and guidelines of discourse. The role of the researcher is indicated and as the leading participant for facts gathering, investigation and clarification of results. Throughout the facts collection and investigation process, individual assumptions and biases were bracketed to attain the consistent outcome. One limitation of this study is that the respondents may deliberately provide false information because they don’t want to give a socially undesirable response. It is also entirely based on the respondent’s understanding of the question and in case of misunderstanding, they might give an incorrect answer. Furthermore, the respondents might not be able to remember specific crucial details, and that poses a limitation to the participants and the research itself.
To investigate this feature, an elder member from the school will be invited to participate in the research and to share the insights and practices of the institution from the side of his elder position. He will be taken as the main actor within whom other associates of the hypothetical public circle; He is also accountable for creating and sending ideological standards in the speculative public of the institution. In this paper, Mr Ichabod has been castoff as a pseudonym for the elder member of academia who will be interviewed.
Data collection and analysis
Data will be collected through an organized interview with a member of elder academia. The discussion will be transcribed verbatim and analyzed adapting Sinclair and Coultbard’s (1975) model of Discourse Analysis, concentrating mainly on the orators’ high and low tones, pauses and flow of speech.
The study should adhere to the CDA’s tradition guidelines and examine amalgam methods including insights from journalism education, literacy, teacher education, with references from sociology, history, and politics as apparatuses of social practices. The data is to be analyzed utilizing Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis Model (CDA 2009) of the dialectical-relation approach using Fairclough’s four phases of analysis shown beneath.
The first stage: Concentrate on relations of power and domination in its semiotic factors.
Second stage: Detect hindrances for addressing the power relations.
Third stage: Reflect whether the social order requires power relations.
Fourth stage: Detect probable wats past the hindrances.
Findings and Discussion
The first phase of analysis will investigate how Urdu, as the National language is represented in conversational practices of elder journalism academia. It will look at the association flanked by the national dialectal and official dialectal as well as how they are placed in this discourse. The participant’s discourse is suggestive of particular socio-cultural, historical and education realities. The following themes should be extracted from the interview:
a) Language ideology.
b) Main actor’s role.
Conferring to Fairclough (2009), the text part of discourse analysis combines specific discourses, institutional structures, and particular linguistic forms for studying language ideologies. The participant of the research ought to employ confident linguistic choices such as proverbs and adjectives, to achieve this ideological effect. Previous investigations have shown the role and status of Urdu, and the participant said: “Treatment to Urdu has been severe in this country.” Linguistically, the use of the adjective ‘severe’ is for the effect of accentuating the significance of the national language and is also highlighted further by code-switching of a proverb from Urdu to English, saying “A crow tried to walk like a swan and forgot its gait.” Code mingling and swapping is a resource for the English learners as they extend their repertoire of English in formal and other contexts. The participant’s discourse becomes individually intensified when talking about the dismal situation of education and students and he will attain this by using labels that were used in previous researches, for example, “functional illiterates,” “literates who are functionally illiterate.” It was also evident for the prior study that lamenting the loss of the national language, and the participant had adopted a rapid, machine-gun style. Both the interviewer and the respondents are to be involved in the meaning-making, for example, Researcher: We have maltreated Urdu. Do you think it was done on purpose in this country? The participant also will visualize sentimentally the era when Urdu books were read at all levels, an ideal scene of the Pakistan society that thrived on literary texts and reading habits of pedestrians, vendors and men of knowledge. Mr Ichabod is to pick references from history, sociology and literature to narrate picturization of bygone days when education-as-knowledge was valued rather than today’s instrumental value of education as political-economy. He will employ contrastive socio-cultural beliefs about literacy as knowledge rather than literacy as a commodity that can aid people to attain their money or position. Language identity is a particular area for language ideology, where the participants will ascribe personalities to themselves and to the others to achieve an ideological effect. The research should portray connection with one language a distancing from another language. Mr Ichabod, who is incidentally an Urdu speaker, should flag his identity as an Urdu speaker and talk about the standardization of Urdu. As mentioned earlier, an analysis is to be conducted using Fairclough’s Critical Discourse analysis model (2009). During the data analysis, the following phenomena are anticipated to emerge:
The first stage: Concentrate on relations of power and domination in its semiotic factors. Having an understanding of the power relations of discourse is indeed essential. The ability to define terms determines the outcome of discourse (Foucault 2009).
Second stage: Detect hindrances for addressing the power relations. Here there should be a sense of realization of the practical and pragmatic necessity.
Third stage: Reflect whether the social order requires power relations. Discourses are ideological, and ideologies are ideational as well as practical and should be demonstrated in the participant’s discourse. The operational difficulty of putting Urdu into practice at the official level is to come out clearly.
Fourth stage: Detect probable wats past the hindrances. At the last stage of the analysis, the study will try to acquire from the informant if there were ways to address the social wrong of marginalizing one’s national language. The order of the centring actor adopts the roles of an academic head; He will be of the view that it is not possible to use Urdu for formal or official purposes. However, Journalism should focus more arguments on sustaining dialogues bilingually (English and Urdu) to involve students from underprivileged backgrounds.
This research needs ethical approval since it involves human participants to guarantee their rights, self-respect, security and welfare of every member are put into prime attention of this study scheme. It is a mandatory necessity to have complete approval of the institution for all the study schemes it caters for and must be pursued prior to the beginning of the study. Ethics approval is lawfully required for this research and participants should consider the moral, lawful and governing standards as well as norms for this kind of study concerning humanoid characters in their own republic and also the appropriate global rules and ethics. The regulations and protocols of the state which study will be carried out should be taken into consideration; however, these should not reduce or eliminate the fortification for study members. Danger refers to the possibility of injury which can be bodily, psychologically, social, lawful or fiscal taking place as a result of one’s involvement in the study scheme. The magnitude as well as the likelihood of injury differ from negligible to noteworthy, and proper research should pose minimal risk to the participants. For this research, the participant had better be informed that risks would involve instant dangers of research involvement, dangers of confidentiality violation, and dangers of long-term-effects. For example, this study could present a danger of bodily injuries to the participants as a result of conflict from the respondents; however, the investigator should make effort and lessen bodily danger to the utmost degree probable. Furthermore, it can also pose a psychological risk to the subjects in the sense that it may lead to unwanted deviations in mental processes and feelings in cases where one’s confidentiality is violated, and they lose their self-esteem. This research will also involve dealing with confidential data that can upshoot in hurt to the participant via violation of their confidentiality causing embarrassment.
In conclusion, the study will analyze the discourse of an elder member of academic through Fairclough’s (2009) critical discourse analysis in the construct of language ideology on the standing and title role of the national linguistic (Urdu) in a private journalism school of Pakistan. Data will be collected via an organized interview and the information accessible on the institute’s website should expose the ideological procedure of language preference and hierarchy building as social processes. Through the discursive strategies of textualization and intertextuality of texts, the participants create an ideological effect of his emotional connections with Urdu. Ideological touches should be prevalent in the discourse of the participant and expressed via critical discourse analysis orders of discourse encompassing the effects of the genre (interview), discourse (way of representation) and style (way of being-hybrid identities). The importance of the study is to argue for appropriate placement of the national language by including it as a resource for the academics. The study design is to consider generalizability as its goal rather than insights through critical discourse analysis of the research participant, and his context will be to guide the future researchers in understanding the language ideologies about their specific settings. The focus of this study being to explore the national language policies of Pakistan, it will expose the medium of instruction dilemma and academia’s discourses about Urdu-English controversy in seminars, talks and informal dialogues. It will also reveal the identity mark and consolidation for the Muslims of the subcontinent regarding their religious, ethnic, and cultural ideologies. Since a little is known about the discursive practices as orders od discourse on the status of Urdu as the national language, a critical discourse analysis of discursive practices at institutional lever will help to comprehend how elder members of journalism school view Urdu based on the research outcomes and background information that will be provided by the participants.
Blommaert, J. (2006). Language ideology. In: K. Brown, Editor-in-Chief (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, (2nd ed.). 6, (pp. 510-522). Oxford: Elsevier.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert (2004). Rights in places: Comments on linguistic rights and wrongs. In D. Patrick., & J. Freeland (eds.) Language rights and language survival (pp.55-65). Sociolinguistic and Socio-cultural Perspectives. Manchester: St Jerome Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research: Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: SAGE.
Fairclough, N. (1995a). Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (2001b). Language and power (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Gal, S. & Woolard, K. (2014). Constructing languages and publics: Authority and representation. Languages and Publics, 1-12.
Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Gee, P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory & method. Psychology Press.Government of Pakistan (2009). National Education Policy.
Rahman, T. (2002). Language, ideology and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (1999). Language, education and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogers, R. (ed.) (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. NY: Routledge.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Silverstein, M. (2006). Pragmatic Indexing. In Keith Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition, 6(14017), Oxford: Elsevier.
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. Proceedings from The Elements, a Para-session on Linguistic Units and Levels (pp. 193-247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Woolard, K. A. (1992). Language ideology: Issues and approaches. PRAGMATICS: International Pragmatics Association, 2(3), 235- 2 49.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principle of critical discourse analysis (CDA). Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.