Combining Functional Systemic Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Quo Vadis?

 
In a book entitled Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change (Young, L., & Harrison, C. (Eds.) :( 2004), it stated that SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS (SFL) and CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS are two very different fields. SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS (SFL) is a functionally based theory developed in the past 45 years that examines the functioning of language as it develops in society. This view involves examining "real" language events to understand the purposes of language in various contexts and its functions. Wodak stated that the contribution of linguistic theory (including SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS (SFL)) was significant. Since linguistic theory is essential, Wodak and Weiss said that language is used to reveal social inequality. It is also through language that the purpose of CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS can be explained: "CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, legitimized, and so on, by language use (or in a discourse) (Weiss & Wodak, 2007:15) in Wiratno, 2018:397).
In connection with CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, linguists such as Roger Fowler, Gunther Kress, Robert Hodge, and Tony Trew, on the other hand, in line with the development of SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS (SFL) theory, developed CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS as a branch of discourse analysis in the 1970s in the East Anglia Region, England. 

Tuen A. Van Dijk (2001: 96) says CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS is "Analysis by determining attitudes," an analysis of different discursive events to explore the relationship between language and power and how language is used to produce, maintain and reproduce positions of power employing discursive tools. Kress (1995) says that the purpose of CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS is to shift the focus of linguistics to the relevance of the social and political realms to provide or present social criticism by documenting structures of injustice or inequality.
In further studies, CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS cannot be equated with SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS (SFL) because CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS is only an approach or perspective that examines social problems that are realized discursively, so linguists say that CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS is not a methodology or theory of language. This has been discussed by Ruth Wodak, who, in her thoughts on Appraisal in CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (2002:12), identifies the importance of operational theory that links linguistic dimensions to social matters.

 

The WHAT and SO WHAT?: The IMRAD Structure

 

Source:  (5) What is the structure of research papers/article? - Quora

“The Sum of All Fears” from Novel to Film: Shifting the Discourse of Terrorism

 

“The Sum of All Fears” from Novel to Film: Shifting the Discourse of Terrorism

Mundi Rahayu, Sahiruddin Sahiruddin, Faizal Risdianto, Rusdiah Rusdiah, Sitti Rabiah, R. Taufiqurrochman

Abstract

This article aims at exploring the terrorist representation in the film The Sum of All Fears (2002), which is adapted from the novel with the same title. The study is drawn from Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, with its three dimensions of analysis. The first dimension is the micro level that deals with the language used in social practice. The second dimension analyzes the discourse practice, such as intertextuality, text production, and consumption, that relate to the reference of ideas presented. The third dimension, called the macro level, deals with the social context of a text, such as the practice of exercising power through particular discourse. The finding reveals that the adapted film directed by Phil Alden Robinson represents the terrorists whose identity differs from the one in the novel. Besides, the discourse of terrorism developed in the film has three essential elements, the nuclear weapon, the terrorist, and the international relation between America-Russia in danger. The novel and film share the same idea of nuclear weapons as the threat. The other similar aspect is the implication of a nuclear bomb attack on the international relations between the USA and Russia, which might lead to war. However, the terrorist identity in both media is shifted. In the novel, the terrorist is depicted as an Arab-nationalists, while in the film, the terrorist is a neo-Nazi. Both portrayals of terrorists involve stereotyping and labeling and represent different political discourses. The discourse of terrorism in the novel is represented as the Arab-origin terrorist. At the same time, the film underpinned the idea that terrorism implies the contestation of the Cold War or two superpower nations. The film also reveals that the individual breakthrough done by Jack Ryan proves the solution to the rigid bureaucracy at the top executive level.  

Full Text:

PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n7p186

World Journal of English Language
ISSN 1925-0703(Print)  ISSN 1925-0711(Online)

Copyright © Sciedu Press

The concept of native-speakerism

Native-speakerism refers to a form of discrimination or bias that favors native speakers of a particular language over non-native speakers. It is a term commonly used in the context of language teaching and learning, but it can also extend to other areas where language skills are relevant, such as employment, immigration, or social interactions.

Native-speakerism assumes that native speakers of a language possess superior language skills, cultural knowledge, and communication abilities compared to non-native speakers. This bias can lead to various forms of discrimination, including:

1. Employment discrimination: Non-native speakers may face barriers when seeking employment, promotions, or equal opportunities in industries where language proficiency is considered crucial. Employers may prioritize native speakers, assuming that they possess better communication skills.

2. Language teaching: Native-speakerism can impact the field of language teaching, where native speakers are often seen as the ideal language instructors. Non-native speakers may face challenges in finding teaching positions or may be relegated to teaching non-native speakers of the language, despite their proficiency and qualifications.

3. Stereotyping and bias: Native-speakerism can perpetuate stereotypes and biases against non-native speakers. Non-native speakers may be seen as less intelligent, less proficient, or less knowledgeable about the culture associated with the language they are learning.

4. Language policies and immigration: Some language policies or immigration regulations may prioritize native speakers or native-like proficiency in order to grant certain privileges or opportunities. This can create barriers for non-native speakers who may be equally capable or qualified.

It is important to challenge native-speakerism and recognize the value and expertise that non-native speakers bring to language learning, teaching, and other areas. Language proficiency should be assessed based on an individual's actual skills and abilities rather than their native or non-native status.

 Native-speakerism is an ideology that has wide-ranging impact on how teachers are perceived by each other and by their students. It falsely positions teachers as either "native speakers" or "non-native speakers," creating a hierarchy where "native speakers" are seen as culturally superior and "non-native speakers" as inferior.

This ideology is pervasive within English Language Teaching (ELT) and is characterized by the belief that "native-speaker" teachers represent a "Western culture" from which the ideals of the English language and teaching methodology originate.

It is seen as a chauvinistic and discriminatory practice that ignores the dynamic nature of language and the impact of time, people, and places on language use.

The concept of native-speakerism has been a subject of discussion and critique in the field of ELT, with scholars highlighting the political inequalities and negative labeling associated with it. It is argued that this ideology perpetuates stereotypes and restricts the recognition and value of other "non-native speaker" cultures.

The British Council emphasizes that while "native speakers" may possess an intuitive understanding of the language, it is important to recognize the diversity and contributions of "non-native speakers" in language teaching.

Efforts have been made to address and challenge native-speakerism in ELT. Educators and organizations advocate for inclusive and equitable practices that value the expertise and contributions of all teachers, regardless of their native language background. The focus is on promoting diversity, intercultural understanding, and recognizing the strengths and experiences that "non-native speaker" teachers bring to the classroom.

In conclusion, native-speakerism is an ideology that perpetuates a hierarchy between "native speakers" and "non-native speakers" in the field of language teaching. It is seen as discriminatory and limiting, and efforts are being made to challenge and address this ideology in order to promote inclusivity and diversity in language education.

JOLCC CALL FOR PAPERS VOL 1 NO.2 December 2023

 

JOLCC CALL FOR PAPERS VOL 1 NO.2 December 2023

 

Journal of Linguistics, Culture, and Communication

E-ISSN : 2988-1641 

CALL FOR PAPERS VOL 1 NO.2 December 2023

FOCUS & SCOPE:

The journal is particularly interested in research whose impact crosses disciplinary and sub-field borders because it aims to provide a public venue for language, culture, and communication scholarship.

SUBMISSION DEADLINE: November 1, 2023

AUTHOR GUIDELINES: Submission> Author Guidelines

Article template: https://tinyurl.com/JOLCCtemplate2023

Website: https://jolcc.org/

E-mail: editor@ijolcc.org

APC: IDR. 300.000,-

Contact: (Admin) WA: 0821-3819-2095