A CDA Approach to Text

Implied Attitudes in The New York Times Reports on Political Issues Concerning Iran and Israel in 2007:

A CDA Approach to Text

By:

Mohammad Ghazanfari (PHD)

Mohammad Rahiminejad (M.A)

Sabzevar University for Teacher Education

Abstract

The present study was conducted to see whether is there any underlying meaning in the New York Times political reports which are written on Iran and Israel in 2007, and whether there is any bias in the reports since Iran and Israel are considered America’s opponent and proponent respectively. To do so, 50reports of the Times were randomly extracted out of the many reports which are available on the Times site in 2007. To analyze the reports, the researcher adopted the Hallidayan model as his framework of analysis.The analysis focusedon the linguistic choices within the three functions or meanings of Hallidayan model of language. Therefore, the linguistic choices chosen to be analyzed in political reports on Iran and Israel were: active and passive voices, andnominalization within ideational meaning, modality within interpersonal meaning and thematization within textual meaning. After the analysis, the researcher came to this conclusion that the New York Times has used the mentioned features to show its biased attitude towards Iran and Israel.

Key words: critical discourse analysis, media discourse, Hallidayan model of language. Lexical choice

1.Introduction

During the 1970s in the USA, there was an increasing concern about the language used by people in power to confuse or deceive ordinary people. This type of language was named “double speak” by the National Council of Teachers of English (Crystal, 2004, p. 176). Lutz, a member of the council, has described “doublespeak” in this way:

Language which pretends to communicate, but in reality it doesn’t. It is the language which makes the bad seem good, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant appear attractive, or at least tolerable. It is language which avoids and shifts responsibility, language which is at variance with its real or its purported meaning. It is language which conceals or prevents thoughts (cited in Crystal, ibid.).

This type of language is used in speeches as a means by which men in power can impose their ideologies to their listeners, and in discourses by which people in charge of mass media around the world can imply their worldviews and attitudes towards different issues in news reports and articles.

Using double speak in 1970s has asked for the analysis of this language in order to uncover and describe the hidden intentions of the producers of such language. Therefore, in 1970s there was the emergence of a form of discourse and text analysis that recognized the role of language in structuring power relations in society. A structuralist approach to media studies has the advantage of opening up many new areas for analysis and criticism. However, questions about structuralist assumptions and methods still remain, and we are seriously lacking satisfactory answers, many of which remain beyond the scope of this investigation.

But if we persist in the conviction that audiences should be granted the role of subject, that is, a role of "active agent" in television production, one capable of constructing meanings from the language of the media, then it is also necessary to continue under the assumption that language and meaning are in some way social constructs. Although much of the methodology and research goals used in the study of language have resisted this trend, today "society" and "criticism" have become key words in various new approaches to language study and its application to the analysis of media as discourse.

The work of Kress and Hodge (1979), Fowler, Kress, Hodge and Trew (1979), van Dijk (1985), Fairclough (1989), and Wodak (1989) serve to explain and illustrate the main assumptions, principles and procedures of this form of discourse which had then become known as Critical Linguistics (cited in van Dijk, 1985).

In Simpson’s words (1993), Critical Linguistics analysis will seek to interpret, rather than simply to describe the linguistic structure of texts (p. 105). In fact, “Critical Linguistics seeks to interpret texts on the basis of linguistic analysis. This tradition of analytic enquiry is traced directly to the work implemented by Roger Fowler and his associates” (Simpson, 1993, p. 5).

In the 1990s, the analysis of such discourses aimed more at analyzing discourses in a critical way in order to find the ideologies and worldviews in them. This kind of analysis with the CDA label came to be used more consistently to describe this particular approach to linguistic analysis.

The critical use of discourse analysis (CDA) in applied linguistics has led to the development of a different approach to understanding media messages. The undeniable power of the media has inspired many critical studies in many disciplines: linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics, and discourse studies. Traditional, often content analytical approaches in critical media studies have revealed biased, stereotypical, sexist or racist images in texts, illustrations, and photos.

The New York Times, as one of the most commonly read newspapers in the US is not an exception. It is assumed that the language by which reporters of that paper write their reports may have some underlying meanings, and will probably show the implied attitudes of the writers of those reports and editors of the papers. The case in this study consists of reports - concerning political issues - on Iran and Israel,the two political states which are known as America’s worst opponent and best proponent, respectively.

In this study, the researcher will try to find the underlying meanings and attitudes in the political news reports ofTheNew York Timesissues published in 2007. This will be done by analyzing the texts in terms of Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar, as practiced by scholars in critical discourse analysis such as van Dijk, Fairclough, and some others.

1.2 Conceptual and theoretical frameworks

Since CDA is not a specific type of research, it does not have a unitary theoretical framework. Within the aims mentioned above, there are many types of CDA, and these may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Critical analysis of conversation is very different from an analysis of news reports in the press or of instructional materials . Yet, given the common perspective and the general aims of CDA, we may also find overall conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are closely related. As Beaugrande(2006) suggested, most kinds of CDA will ask questions about the way specific discourse structures are deployed in the reproduction of social dominance, whether they are part of a conversation or a news report or other genres and contexts. Thus, the typical vocabulary of many scholars in CDA will feature such notions as "power," "dominance," "hegemony," "ideology," "class," "gender," "race," "discrimination," "interests," "reproduction," "institutions," "social structure," and "social order," besides the more familiar discourse analytical notions(Beaugrande, 2006, p. 42).

2. Review of Literature

Discourse refers to expressing oneself using words. Discourses are ubiquitous ways of knowing, valuing, and experiencing the world. Discourses can be used for an assertion of power and knowledge, and they can be used for resistance and critique.This perspective is valuable to the linguist because it affords an insight into why language is as it is (Halliday, 2001). Discourses are used in everyday contexts for building power and knowledge, for regulation and normalization, for the development of new knowledge and power relations, and for hegemony (excess influence or authority of one nation over another). Given the power of the written and spoken word, CDA is necessary for describing, interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing social life reflected in text (Beaugrande, 2006). CDA is concerned with studying and analyzing written texts and spoken words to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality, and bias and how these sources are initiated, maintained, reproduced, and transformed within specific social, economic, political, and historical contexts (van Dijk, 1988b, cited in van Dijk, 2006). It tries to illuminate ways in which the dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favour their interests. By unmasking such practices, CDA scholars aim to support the victims of such oppression and encourage them to resist and transform their lives (Wodak, 2002).

Stemming from Habermas’s critical theory(1973, cited in Fairclough, 2004), CDA aims to help the analyst understand social problems that are mediated by mainstream ideology and power relationships, all perpetuated by the use of written texts in our daily and professional lives. The objective of CDA is to uncover the ideological assumptions that are hidden in the words of our written texts or oral speeches in order to resist and overcome various forms of power (Fairclough, 1989, cited in Faitclough, 2004). CDA aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships between discursive practices, texts, and events and wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes. It strives to explore how these non-transparent relationships are a factor in securing power and hegemony, and it draws attention to power imbalances, social inequities, non-democratic practices, and other injustices in hopes of spurring people to corrective actions (Fairclough, 2004).

2.1 Media discourse

Perhaps the best known outside of discourse studies is the media research carried out by Stuart Hall and his associates within the framework of the cultural studies paradigm.

An early collection of work by Roger Fowler and his associates (Wodak, 2002) also focused on the media. As with many other English and Australian studies in this paradigm, the theoretical framework of Halliday's functional-systemic grammar is used in a study of the "transitivity" of syntactic patterns of sentences(Matthiessen & Halliday, 1997). The point of such research is that events and actions may be described with syntactic variations that are a function of the underlying involvement of actors (e.g., their agency, responsibility, and perspective). Thus, in an analysis of the media accounts of the "riots" during a minority festival, the responsibility of the authorities and especially of the police in such violence may be systematically de-emphasized by defocusing, for example, by passive constructions and nominalizations; that is, by leaving agency and responsibility implicit. Fowler's later critical studies of the media continue this tradition, but also pay tribute to the British cultural studies paradigm that defines news not as a reflection of reality, but as a product shaped by political, economic, and cultural forces (Wodak, 2002). More than in much other critical work on the media; he also focuses on the linguistic "tools" for such a critical study, such as the analysis of transitivity in syntax, lexical structure, modality, and speech acts. (Moore, 2007)

Similarly van Dijk (2006) applies a theory of news discourse in critical studies of international news, racism in the press, and the coverage of squatters in Amsterdam.

2.2 CDA and media discourse

Media and politics are particular subjects of CDA because of their manifestly pivotal role as discourse-bearing institutions (Bhatia, 2006). One main arena for CDA is media discourse, and since mass media report from the world of politics, and since politicians need to be in the news, the two fields – or orders of discourse – have become increasingly intertwined or interdependent or as Bhatia (2006, p.174) puts it, they are sharing a paradoxical relationship whereby one needs the other to survive, or rather thrive, yet each endorses considerable hostility for the other.

The interest in media discourse is important not only because media are a rich source of readily accessible data for research and teaching, but because media usage influences and represents people’s use of and attitudes towards language in a speech community. Thus, media use can tell us a great deal about social meanings and stereotypes projected through language and communication, as well as reflect and influence the formation and expression of culture, politics and social life (Bell & Garrett, 2004, cited in Bhatia, 2006, p. 22).

In some of his studies, Fairclough has focused particularly on the mass media, scrutinizing the assumption that media language is transparent. Media institutions often purport to be neutral, that they only provide space for public discourse, that they reflect states of affairs disinterestedly, and that they give the perceptions and arguments of the newsmakers. This is, of course, a complete fallacy, Fairclough insists that one must not forget that journalists have quite a prominent role in their own right, they do not just ‘mediate’ others (Fairclough, 2004, p.148).

According to Fairclough, journalists are just one of many categories of agents that figure in mass media. Hence,mediatized political discourse as an order of discourse is constituted by a mixing of elements of the orders of discourse of the political system – the lifeworld (ordinary life), sociopolitical movements, various domains of academic and scientific expertise, and so forth – with journalistic discourse. (Fairclough, 2004)

Van Dijk also calls for a critical look at media discourse, especially considering that the increasingly influential role of the mass media not necessarily paves the way for more objective reporting: “Control of knowledge crucially shapes our interpretation of the world, as well as our discourse and other actions. Hence, the relevance of a critical analysis of those forms of text and talk, for example, in the media and education, that essentially aim to construct such knowledge” (van Dijk, 2007, p. 258). He also points out that it is through mental models of everyday discourse such as conversations, news reports and textbooks that we, in fact, acquire our knowledge of the world, our socially shared attitudes and finally our ideologies and fundamental norms and values (van Dijk, 2006, p. 114).

2.3News as discourse

Critical examination of news can be traced back to research that focused on its biased or distorted nature in the 1970s (van Dijk, 1988a, cited in Bhatia, 2006). Connell (1980) contends that news does not distort ‘objective reality’; rather, the reality presented in news is socially, politically, and ideologically constructed (Lassen, 2006). Mander (1987) argues that ‘objective journalism’ is a rhetorical coup that affirms the apolitical nature of news and the empirical bias in American society. Schudson (1982) maintains that the form of news discourse serves as a tacit contract between journalists and audience, which legitimates the kinds of truth that can be told(Lassen, 2006). Althusser (1971) asserts that, rather than merely reflecting the social or producing a system of meaning supporting the existing social order, media texts present particular meaning systems as the real or natural (Lassen, 2006).

Critical media scholars have traditionally located the origin of ideology in the process of news production. In addition to institutional structure and ownership, the larger social political context in which news is produced is also viewed as the locus of ideological origin. For example, Curran and Seaton (1991), and Parenti (1993) argue that the media have close ties with the government (cited in Bekalu, 2006).

3. Methodology

To show the critical approach to media and especially political reports, the researcher has decided to work on the political reports which are published in TheNew York Timesin 2007. The researcher has applied Halliday’s systemic-functional linguistics. Therefore, within that framework, I have intended to indicate how the real intentions, attitudes and viewpoints of the authors of the political reports are reflected.

3.1 Sources of data and sampling procedure

The data for the present study are the 50 political reports concerning Iran and Israel. The rationale for choosing such topic is the critical importance of the issue for Iranian politicians, and those students who are interested in such linguistic analysis of the news. The data were collected through a search in The New York Times site . In order to have the least bias on the reports selected, the researcher tried to randomly select the 50 reports out of a collection of 110 reports which the searching system of the mentioned site had found.

3.2 Procedure

To conduct the analysis, the researcher has tried to pick up the linguistic choices in the reports based on the framework of the study, then the hidden meanings and attitudes underlying the lexicon and the structures used in the reports were extracted and elaborated.

3.3 Methodological framework of analysis

The framework of the analysis of the study involves some features which are mentioned below:

• Transitivity including Passivization within ideational meaning.
• Nominalization within interpersonal meaning.
• Thematic structure within textual meaning.
• Lexical choice

The framework of analysis has been elaborated in the following section:

3.3.1 Ideational meaning

Halliday (1985) believes that the ideational component of languagedeals with happenings in the outside world. The ideational function enables people to demonstrate the reality by showing the happenings into clauses. The ideational component of Halliday's theory of grammar explores the range of linguistic choices available to a person when representing his experiences or the outer realities of the world.This part of the thesis examines how ideational meaning is found in the languageemployed by the reporters of TheNew York Times in order to speak in the case of Iran and Israel. By analyzing the reports, we want to know how the writers of the reports showtheir attitudes, feelings and ideology towards Iran and Israel. The researcher is going to analyze these linguistic choices and infer the underlying attitudes, feelings and ideology. At the level of ideational meaning, we are mainly concerned with the process of 'transitivity'. This term is elaborated more in the following section.

3.3.2 Transitivity

In Halliday’s terms (1985), transitivity is a part of the ideational function of the clause. He explains that transitivity includes the basic grammatical categories through which language describes the world in terms of agency and action, a world in which events happen, and where agents (persons, organizations, etc.) perform actions on objects. Devices of interest include, for example, the use of passive forms for example “twelve rioters were shot” and nominalizations such as “a shooting”, the use of which enables a speaker/writer to obscure, downplay, or omit mention of agency—whoever did the shooting.