(L) Geert Wilders
Picture Courtesy of: http://freedutchman.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/another-day-another-hit-piece/
Discourse Analysis on broadcast media-David Kelly
1. An account of the approach you are taking to discourse analysis:
Before analysing van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis, I want to briefly introduce the key concepts of discourse and ideology, which I feel and van Dijk argues are an integral part of discourse analysis. Devereux (2007a, p.247) describes discourse simply as a ‘form of knowledge’. This implies the notion that it is something we know, however Devereux’s definition is a simplistic one that does not tell us how discourse is used and it does not imply that people have varying degrees of knowledge. Van Dijk 1998a (cited in Devereux 2007a, p.175) says that discourse “has a special function in the implementation and especially the reproduction of ideologies, since it is only through language use, discourse or communication (or other semiotic practices) that they can be explicitly formulated”.
Van Dijk (1995, p.23) defines ideology as having a social function that legitimates dominance or justifies oppression or power abuse by those in a position of authority and power. He also argues that ideology influences ways of behaviour, acting, thinking and being. Keeping these concepts in mind I will now move on to introducing van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis.
Van Dijk’s approach to discourse analysis is concerned with the function of ideology and power relations. Devereux (2007b, p.121) argues that van Dijk’s ideological square is “intended to highlight key ‘functional moves’ in developing an ideological strategy”. Central to this approach are what van Dijk terms “positive in-group description and negative out-group description” van Dijk 1998 (cited in Devereux 2007b, p.121).
Van Dijk’s (1995) model has three main levels of analysis: Social analysis, cognitive analysis and discourse analysis. I will introduce this tripartite model, with a particular focus to discourse analysis as this is what my project is based on.
Social analysis: A social analysis according to van Dijk (1995, p.20) would involve an examination of societal structures, political parties, group relations and structures. It is in these societal structures and group relations that ideology will be most evident. Group structures involve specifics such as identity, tasks, position and resources. This will not form the basis of my discourse analysis but may be evident in the context of my interview and in analysing any discourses and ideologies present.
Cognitive Analysis: A cognitive analysis argues that texts do not simply “have” meanings, but are given meanings by language users, readers, viewers, etc. These also include mental and structural processes where the language user will try to make sense of the information in relation to their own systems of beliefs and attitudes (Jensen and Jankowski 1991, p.117). A cognitive analysis would analyse what ideologies and systems of attitudes are evident in the text, however van Dijk (1995, p.20) also argues for the need to look at the sociocultural knowledge, i.e. what we know about society, groups and language. Entwined with this analysis is personal cognition which may be context free or context bound. These include thoughts, ideologies and attitudes shaped by personal convictions or models of events and contexts (van Dijk 1995, p.20). This too will not form the basis of my analysis; however it will be reflected along with social analysis from a micro-perspective.
Discourse analysis: Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the many media of communication. It is a method of research “focused on the analysis of text and talk, discourse analysis is concerned with the use of language in a social context and the relationship between language use and (unequal) power relationships” (Devereux 2007a, p.247). Discourse analysis looks at the various structures and frameworks of “text and talk”. These would include linguistic features such as nominalization, active/passive sentence as well as use of syntax, rhetoric, lexicon, local and global semantics to name but a few (van Dijk 1995, p.20). This will form the basis of my analysis as the structures of language use will help me to identify any outstanding major and minor discourses present as well as dominant ideologies.
2. A description of the context of the interview and your methodological framework:
The interview that I have chosen to complete a discourse analysis project on is Geert Wilders interview with Dale Hurd of CBN News in 2008. Geert Widers is a member of the Dutch parliament and the founder of the Freedom Party. He is an atheist who defends Judaeo-Christian civilizations and who directed a short internet film about the violence contained in the Qur’an. This film put him on a colliding path with Muslims around the globe and he was forced to live in prison cells and secret locations because his life was under threat.
Here Wilders talks about his film “Fitna”, the perceived threat of Islam, immigration and racism. He was in the news at this time because he was a leading politician and because his comments sparked outrage in the Netherlands and further afield. Being a controversial character he is being interviewed in my opinion because the interviewer knows that his answers are sure to be critical of the Islamic culture and further hype an already delicate situation in my opinion. I picked this interview because of its controversial nature and because many Islamic nations around the world wanted to put Wilders on trial for blasphemy. He lost his freedom of expression as a result and went into hiding. This is something that appeals to me as a student journalist as we are to strive for the public’s interest at all times.
Widers is also in the news because his comments came at a time when the global economic crisis was unfolding and there were a number of labour shortages in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has been an immigration country since the 1960’s according to the OECD (2008) Economic Survey of the Netherlands, so for his comments to come at a time of economic uncertainty and unrest, perhaps there is a discourse of blame and negativity about Muslims and migrants to be found. My analysis should take these sociocultural factors into consideration.
Using van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis I will investigate the role that rhetoric and lexicon play in shaping any discourses and ideologies present. I chose this approach because I want to see the effect that language and power have in creating discourse and ideology and how in particular Wilders uses language and discourse in shielding himself from criticism and in putting forward his beliefs and attitudes about Muslim culture, immigration and violence, etc.
3. A strong hypothesis/research question(s):
What role, if any, does language play in creating and maintaining discourse?
I want to investigate whether language plays a major/minor role in formulating discourse. I want to see if there is any correlation and patterns of particular language that have an effect in creating and maintaining discourses and ideologies. Using rhetoric and lexicon as linguistic features for a thorough analysis instead of an under-representation I want to investigate what discourses and ideologies are present in the interview I have selected.
4. An account of the discourses present and the evidence you have to support your claim:
Firstly it should be noted that my analysis will focus on discourses (ways of language communication) and ideologies, which are systematic beliefs-e.g. racism, religion, etc. In my opinion, as shared by van Dijk (1995) the two are interconnected and I will treat them as such.
Rhetoric: Rhetoric is a function of ideology where information that is unfavourable to ‘us’ is glossed over and negative information about ‘them’ is emphasized through over-statements and/or exaggerations for example (van Dijk 1995, p.29). This also links in with Thompson 1990 (cited in Devereux 2007a, p.153) where he describes this rhetoric as having a ‘unification’ function, where all members of a particular group are united against the ‘threat of terrorism’ or the assumed ‘threat that immigration brings”.
This observation I believe can be shown in my selected interview. Widers tries to create a sense of panic when he describes the Qur’an as “not just an old book from am fifteen hundred years ago it’s a book am that is still very alive ah today and people get a lot of wrong incentives from it today”. He then moves on to discuss “the actual danger that am Islam brings am to our society and our freedom”.
His use of “our” and “people” in my opinion helps him to unite western society against what he perceives as being the terrorist threat of Islam. He uses rhetoric and overstatements when he calls Islam “a fascist ideology full of hatred submission and anything else we should fight against” and denounces Islamic cultures as a “culture of backwardness of retardedness of barbarism”.
When he speaks of the Islamic threat it is shown as something ‘we’ must fight against. The words ‘they’, ‘us’ and ‘our’ help create in and out groups. I think the fact that Wilders compares Islam to a fascist ideology is interesting as it helps him to mask and obscure his argument. The discourses of blame and negativity are clearly evident from my analysis of the interview. Wilders blames Muslims for terrorism, although he attempts to “make a distinction between the ideology I believe Islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorist”. This is an interesting statement as Wilders uses the discourse of blame targeting Islam and then attempts to soften the blow in my opinion by what Thompson 1990 (cited in Devereux 2007, p.154) calls ‘fragmentation’-breaking or creating divisions in a group to remove opposition to the discourse, i.e. breaking Muslim groups into two categories-non-terrorist and terrorist.
The discourse of blame and negativity are clearly evident in this interview. Wilders uses Lexicon and Lexicalization as a form of ideological expression to foster the differences between the Islamic culture and western culture (van Dijk 1995, p.25). This links in to Fairclough 2003 (cited in Philo 2007, p.16) where he notes that discourse can be differentiated into how they classify certain locations. Widers uses lexicalization to create the ‘peaceful’ culture of the Netherlands and wider western society while damning the destructive nature of Islamic countries. “They are not here to integrate but to dominate and they they they they don’t give a damn excuse my words for am am all the criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today there are people living here from Morocco for thirty years who don’t speak one word of Dutch” is a clear accusation aimed at the Muslim population as the discourse of blame and negativity merges with a discourse of migration.
The prosperity of the Netherlands is seen to be at stake from the enemy, which is Islamic culture. Wilders describes the Netherlands as an ‘Islamic intifada’- this has further connotations as he suggests their culture is being subjected to an uprising. His final phrase “If we really don’t get a sense of urgency and act and defend our culture, defend our freedom that am am it’s too late” has a deliberate purpose-it is being used to create a sense that the Netherlands has to act through government intervention and that the Dutch culture is under attack from a foreign enemy that has now become domestic.
Finally these discourses of blame, negativity and migration are met with ideologies on racism and religion. After establishing blame to the government for failing to act “And the Government am looks eh in the other direction and ignores it it puts it under the carpet all the problems” Wilders moves on to racism and religion. He denies point blank that he is a racist because he is not involved with the likes of the ‘British National Party’ and because he is a ‘democrat’. Yet he has chosen to discuss the superiority of western white culture-“I believe that the Christian and the Judaic culture is a better one and I am not ashamed to say it I’m not a racist”. By using Turkey and Morocco as analogies and describing the Islamic culture as rooted in ‘our cities’ and ‘villages’ I think he is masking these ideologies under the less critical discourse of blame. He cannot as a member of parliament openly admit to being a racist-it would not serve his own vested interest and he would more than likely be removed from office.
5. A concluding paragraph that links your analysis back to your approach to discourse analysis:
Using van Dijk’s approach to discourse analysis I was able to see what role language plays in creating discourse. I have found that language plays a key role in creating and maintaining discourse. As such, the linguistic features that I have introduced: rhetoric and lexicalization helped me to analyse effectively what discourses and ideologies were present in my broadcast interview. While van Dijk’s approach also includes a social and cognitive analysis, I was very limited in how I could incorporate this into my work.
Nevertheless, by using these features of “text and talk” van Dijk (1995, p.20), I was able to provide a limited analysis of the role of language in shaping discourse and ideology. I found discourses of blame, negativity, migration and ideologies of religion and racism. From these findings I know that language is not neutral and is a key component of social action and control. However, my findings should not be taken at face value. Being based on broadcast media, they need to be transcended into other media, e.g. new and print media and critiqued by using qualitative and quantitative analysis to help identity any consistency.
Van Dijk’s (1995, p.32) statement that self-serving information will be emphasized while dispreferred information will be rubbished and disregarded certainly holds sway in my analysis.
Bibliography
Devereux, E. (2007a) Understanding the Media, 2nd ed., London: Sage Publications.
Devereux, E. (2007b) Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, London: Sage Publications.
Jensen, K.B. and Jankowski, N.W., eds. (1991) A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research, London: Routledge.
Louwerse, M.M. and Graesser, A.C. (2005) ‘Coherence in Discourse’, in Strazny, P. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 216-218.
OECD (2008) ‘Economic Survey of the Netherlands’ [online], available: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_33733_39991250_1_1_1_1,00.html [accessed 3 Mar 2010].
O’Keeffe, A. (2006) Investigating Media Discourse, London: Routledge.
Philo, G. (2007) ‘Can Discourse Analysis Successfully explain the Content of Media and Journalistic Practice’, Journalism Studies, 8(2), 1-34.
Stewart, C., Lavelle, M. and Kowaltzke, A. (2001) Media and Meaning: an Introduction, London: BFI Publishing.
Van Dijk, T. (1995) ‘Discourse analysis as ideology analysis’, in Schaffer, C. and Wenden, A.L. (eds.) Language and Peace, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 17-33.
Widers, G. (2008) Interview on CBN [television], YouTube, 14 Oct 2008 (See Appendix).
Appendix
Transcription Conventions (Limerick Corpus of Irish English © Fiona Farr)
<$1> Our eh country in the Netherlands am as many other European countries is based on Christianity is based on Judaism is even based on humanism but not eh eh on Islam and this is what I wanted to show people not by using actors but by using real images and real verses from the Qur’an that the Qur’an is not just an old book from am fifteen hundred years ago it’s a book am that is still very alive today and people get a lot of wrong incentives from it today so I wanted to wrong eh the people and and I was quiet successful whatever you may think.
<$2> I’m sure that people <$X> who’ve who have watched you provoke Muslims over the years wonder if you have a death wish are you secretly daring Muslims to try to kill you?
<$1> No and I’m not even provoking eh eh them am as you said I try to eh warn the people in the Netherlands and maybe even abroad and western societies about the actual danger that am Islam brings am to our society and to our freedom.
<$2> Do you believe that a moderate or democratic Islam can exist?
<$1> No I don’t believe in it Islam as I see it is a fascist ideology full of hatred submission am and anything else that we eh we should fight against however I make a distinction between the ideology I believe Islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorist who are am the majority of the Muslims in my country are law abiding people are not terrorist at all.
<$2> I have heard you call Islamic culture “retarded”.
<$1> It it is a culture of backwardness of retardedness of barbarism.
<$2> In your speech to the parliament a few days ago you referred to Muslim colonists what did you mean?
<$1> Well people eh am that are coming to the Netherlands to stir up problems or who are in the Netherlands and sometimes they are even born in the Netherlands the younger generation and the parents or their grandparents were born here eh they are not here to integrate but to dominate and they they they they don’t give a damn excuse my words for am am all the criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today that’s why I call them colourless there are people living here from Morocco for thirty years who don’t speak one word of Dutch.
<$1> Most of the em em political elite or political parties believe really do believe that all cultures are equal whereas I believe they are not equal I believe that the Christian and the Judaic culture is is is far better and I am not ashamed to say it I’m not a racist eh to say that the Christian culture is a better one than the Islamic culture there is an enormous gap between the the political elite and the vox populi and they see that our country is changing they see in their street and in their neighbourhoods and in the cities and the villages they see that its its often not the Netherlands anymore they feel that they live live in Morocco or live or eh Turkey we have an Islam Islamic intifada today I’m not exaggerating in many many cities and villages of the Netherlands this is the problem and the Government am looks eh in the other direction and ignores it it puts it under the carpet all the problems.
<$2> Are you tired of living with a death threat over your head?
<$1> My mission is very strong and I really believe in it and I know that if we really don’t get a sense of urgency and act and defend our culture defend our freedom that am am it’s too late.
[5:38] available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHLM0-NbMi4
1. An account of the approach you are taking to discourse analysis:
Before analysing van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis, I want to briefly introduce the key concepts of discourse and ideology, which I feel and van Dijk argues are an integral part of discourse analysis. Devereux (2007a, p.247) describes discourse simply as a ‘form of knowledge’. This implies the notion that it is something we know, however Devereux’s definition is a simplistic one that does not tell us how discourse is used and it does not imply that people have varying degrees of knowledge. Van Dijk 1998a (cited in Devereux 2007a, p.175) says that discourse “has a special function in the implementation and especially the reproduction of ideologies, since it is only through language use, discourse or communication (or other semiotic practices) that they can be explicitly formulated”.
Van Dijk (1995, p.23) defines ideology as having a social function that legitimates dominance or justifies oppression or power abuse by those in a position of authority and power. He also argues that ideology influences ways of behaviour, acting, thinking and being. Keeping these concepts in mind I will now move on to introducing van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis.
Van Dijk’s approach to discourse analysis is concerned with the function of ideology and power relations. Devereux (2007b, p.121) argues that van Dijk’s ideological square is “intended to highlight key ‘functional moves’ in developing an ideological strategy”. Central to this approach are what van Dijk terms “positive in-group description and negative out-group description” van Dijk 1998 (cited in Devereux 2007b, p.121).
Van Dijk’s (1995) model has three main levels of analysis: Social analysis, cognitive analysis and discourse analysis. I will introduce this tripartite model, with a particular focus to discourse analysis as this is what my project is based on.
Social analysis: A social analysis according to van Dijk (1995, p.20) would involve an examination of societal structures, political parties, group relations and structures. It is in these societal structures and group relations that ideology will be most evident. Group structures involve specifics such as identity, tasks, position and resources. This will not form the basis of my discourse analysis but may be evident in the context of my interview and in analysing any discourses and ideologies present.
Cognitive Analysis: A cognitive analysis argues that texts do not simply “have” meanings, but are given meanings by language users, readers, viewers, etc. These also include mental and structural processes where the language user will try to make sense of the information in relation to their own systems of beliefs and attitudes (Jensen and Jankowski 1991, p.117). A cognitive analysis would analyse what ideologies and systems of attitudes are evident in the text, however van Dijk (1995, p.20) also argues for the need to look at the sociocultural knowledge, i.e. what we know about society, groups and language. Entwined with this analysis is personal cognition which may be context free or context bound. These include thoughts, ideologies and attitudes shaped by personal convictions or models of events and contexts (van Dijk 1995, p.20). This too will not form the basis of my analysis; however it will be reflected along with social analysis from a micro-perspective.
Discourse analysis: Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the many media of communication. It is a method of research “focused on the analysis of text and talk, discourse analysis is concerned with the use of language in a social context and the relationship between language use and (unequal) power relationships” (Devereux 2007a, p.247). Discourse analysis looks at the various structures and frameworks of “text and talk”. These would include linguistic features such as nominalization, active/passive sentence as well as use of syntax, rhetoric, lexicon, local and global semantics to name but a few (van Dijk 1995, p.20). This will form the basis of my analysis as the structures of language use will help me to identify any outstanding major and minor discourses present as well as dominant ideologies.
2. A description of the context of the interview and your methodological framework:
The interview that I have chosen to complete a discourse analysis project on is Geert Wilders interview with Dale Hurd of CBN News in 2008. Geert Widers is a member of the Dutch parliament and the founder of the Freedom Party. He is an atheist who defends Judaeo-Christian civilizations and who directed a short internet film about the violence contained in the Qur’an. This film put him on a colliding path with Muslims around the globe and he was forced to live in prison cells and secret locations because his life was under threat.
Here Wilders talks about his film “Fitna”, the perceived threat of Islam, immigration and racism. He was in the news at this time because he was a leading politician and because his comments sparked outrage in the Netherlands and further afield. Being a controversial character he is being interviewed in my opinion because the interviewer knows that his answers are sure to be critical of the Islamic culture and further hype an already delicate situation in my opinion. I picked this interview because of its controversial nature and because many Islamic nations around the world wanted to put Wilders on trial for blasphemy. He lost his freedom of expression as a result and went into hiding. This is something that appeals to me as a student journalist as we are to strive for the public’s interest at all times.
Widers is also in the news because his comments came at a time when the global economic crisis was unfolding and there were a number of labour shortages in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has been an immigration country since the 1960’s according to the OECD (2008) Economic Survey of the Netherlands, so for his comments to come at a time of economic uncertainty and unrest, perhaps there is a discourse of blame and negativity about Muslims and migrants to be found. My analysis should take these sociocultural factors into consideration.
Using van Dijk’s ideological approach to discourse analysis I will investigate the role that rhetoric and lexicon play in shaping any discourses and ideologies present. I chose this approach because I want to see the effect that language and power have in creating discourse and ideology and how in particular Wilders uses language and discourse in shielding himself from criticism and in putting forward his beliefs and attitudes about Muslim culture, immigration and violence, etc.
3. A strong hypothesis/research question(s):
What role, if any, does language play in creating and maintaining discourse?
I want to investigate whether language plays a major/minor role in formulating discourse. I want to see if there is any correlation and patterns of particular language that have an effect in creating and maintaining discourses and ideologies. Using rhetoric and lexicon as linguistic features for a thorough analysis instead of an under-representation I want to investigate what discourses and ideologies are present in the interview I have selected.
4. An account of the discourses present and the evidence you have to support your claim:
Firstly it should be noted that my analysis will focus on discourses (ways of language communication) and ideologies, which are systematic beliefs-e.g. racism, religion, etc. In my opinion, as shared by van Dijk (1995) the two are interconnected and I will treat them as such.
Rhetoric: Rhetoric is a function of ideology where information that is unfavourable to ‘us’ is glossed over and negative information about ‘them’ is emphasized through over-statements and/or exaggerations for example (van Dijk 1995, p.29). This also links in with Thompson 1990 (cited in Devereux 2007a, p.153) where he describes this rhetoric as having a ‘unification’ function, where all members of a particular group are united against the ‘threat of terrorism’ or the assumed ‘threat that immigration brings”.
This observation I believe can be shown in my selected interview. Widers tries to create a sense of panic when he describes the Qur’an as “not just an old book from am fifteen hundred years ago it’s a book am that is still very alive ah today and people get a lot of wrong incentives from it today”. He then moves on to discuss “the actual danger that am Islam brings am to our society and our freedom”.
His use of “our” and “people” in my opinion helps him to unite western society against what he perceives as being the terrorist threat of Islam. He uses rhetoric and overstatements when he calls Islam “a fascist ideology full of hatred submission and anything else we should fight against” and denounces Islamic cultures as a “culture of backwardness of retardedness of barbarism”.
When he speaks of the Islamic threat it is shown as something ‘we’ must fight against. The words ‘they’, ‘us’ and ‘our’ help create in and out groups. I think the fact that Wilders compares Islam to a fascist ideology is interesting as it helps him to mask and obscure his argument. The discourses of blame and negativity are clearly evident from my analysis of the interview. Wilders blames Muslims for terrorism, although he attempts to “make a distinction between the ideology I believe Islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorist”. This is an interesting statement as Wilders uses the discourse of blame targeting Islam and then attempts to soften the blow in my opinion by what Thompson 1990 (cited in Devereux 2007, p.154) calls ‘fragmentation’-breaking or creating divisions in a group to remove opposition to the discourse, i.e. breaking Muslim groups into two categories-non-terrorist and terrorist.
The discourse of blame and negativity are clearly evident in this interview. Wilders uses Lexicon and Lexicalization as a form of ideological expression to foster the differences between the Islamic culture and western culture (van Dijk 1995, p.25). This links in to Fairclough 2003 (cited in Philo 2007, p.16) where he notes that discourse can be differentiated into how they classify certain locations. Widers uses lexicalization to create the ‘peaceful’ culture of the Netherlands and wider western society while damning the destructive nature of Islamic countries. “They are not here to integrate but to dominate and they they they they don’t give a damn excuse my words for am am all the criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today there are people living here from Morocco for thirty years who don’t speak one word of Dutch” is a clear accusation aimed at the Muslim population as the discourse of blame and negativity merges with a discourse of migration.
The prosperity of the Netherlands is seen to be at stake from the enemy, which is Islamic culture. Wilders describes the Netherlands as an ‘Islamic intifada’- this has further connotations as he suggests their culture is being subjected to an uprising. His final phrase “If we really don’t get a sense of urgency and act and defend our culture, defend our freedom that am am it’s too late” has a deliberate purpose-it is being used to create a sense that the Netherlands has to act through government intervention and that the Dutch culture is under attack from a foreign enemy that has now become domestic.
Finally these discourses of blame, negativity and migration are met with ideologies on racism and religion. After establishing blame to the government for failing to act “And the Government am looks eh in the other direction and ignores it it puts it under the carpet all the problems” Wilders moves on to racism and religion. He denies point blank that he is a racist because he is not involved with the likes of the ‘British National Party’ and because he is a ‘democrat’. Yet he has chosen to discuss the superiority of western white culture-“I believe that the Christian and the Judaic culture is a better one and I am not ashamed to say it I’m not a racist”. By using Turkey and Morocco as analogies and describing the Islamic culture as rooted in ‘our cities’ and ‘villages’ I think he is masking these ideologies under the less critical discourse of blame. He cannot as a member of parliament openly admit to being a racist-it would not serve his own vested interest and he would more than likely be removed from office.
5. A concluding paragraph that links your analysis back to your approach to discourse analysis:
Using van Dijk’s approach to discourse analysis I was able to see what role language plays in creating discourse. I have found that language plays a key role in creating and maintaining discourse. As such, the linguistic features that I have introduced: rhetoric and lexicalization helped me to analyse effectively what discourses and ideologies were present in my broadcast interview. While van Dijk’s approach also includes a social and cognitive analysis, I was very limited in how I could incorporate this into my work.
Nevertheless, by using these features of “text and talk” van Dijk (1995, p.20), I was able to provide a limited analysis of the role of language in shaping discourse and ideology. I found discourses of blame, negativity, migration and ideologies of religion and racism. From these findings I know that language is not neutral and is a key component of social action and control. However, my findings should not be taken at face value. Being based on broadcast media, they need to be transcended into other media, e.g. new and print media and critiqued by using qualitative and quantitative analysis to help identity any consistency.
Van Dijk’s (1995, p.32) statement that self-serving information will be emphasized while dispreferred information will be rubbished and disregarded certainly holds sway in my analysis.
Bibliography
Devereux, E. (2007a) Understanding the Media, 2nd ed., London: Sage Publications.
Devereux, E. (2007b) Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates, London: Sage Publications.
Jensen, K.B. and Jankowski, N.W., eds. (1991) A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research, London: Routledge.
Louwerse, M.M. and Graesser, A.C. (2005) ‘Coherence in Discourse’, in Strazny, P. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 216-218.
OECD (2008) ‘Economic Survey of the Netherlands’ [online], available: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_33733_39991250_1_1_1_1,00.html [accessed 3 Mar 2010].
O’Keeffe, A. (2006) Investigating Media Discourse, London: Routledge.
Philo, G. (2007) ‘Can Discourse Analysis Successfully explain the Content of Media and Journalistic Practice’, Journalism Studies, 8(2), 1-34.
Stewart, C., Lavelle, M. and Kowaltzke, A. (2001) Media and Meaning: an Introduction, London: BFI Publishing.
Van Dijk, T. (1995) ‘Discourse analysis as ideology analysis’, in Schaffer, C. and Wenden, A.L. (eds.) Language and Peace, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 17-33.
Widers, G. (2008) Interview on CBN [television], YouTube, 14 Oct 2008 (See Appendix).
Appendix
Transcription Conventions (Limerick Corpus of Irish English © Fiona Farr)
<$1> Our eh country in the Netherlands am as many other European countries is based on Christianity is based on Judaism is even based on humanism but not eh eh on Islam and this is what I wanted to show people not by using actors but by using real images and real verses from the Qur’an that the Qur’an is not just an old book from am fifteen hundred years ago it’s a book am that is still very alive today and people get a lot of wrong incentives from it today so I wanted to wrong eh the people and and I was quiet successful whatever you may think.
<$2> I’m sure that people <$X> who’ve who have watched you provoke Muslims over the years wonder if you have a death wish are you secretly daring Muslims to try to kill you?
<$1> No and I’m not even provoking eh eh them am as you said I try to eh warn the people in the Netherlands and maybe even abroad and western societies about the actual danger that am Islam brings am to our society and to our freedom.
<$2> Do you believe that a moderate or democratic Islam can exist?
<$1> No I don’t believe in it Islam as I see it is a fascist ideology full of hatred submission am and anything else that we eh we should fight against however I make a distinction between the ideology I believe Islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorist who are am the majority of the Muslims in my country are law abiding people are not terrorist at all.
<$2> I have heard you call Islamic culture “retarded”.
<$1> It it is a culture of backwardness of retardedness of barbarism.
<$2> In your speech to the parliament a few days ago you referred to Muslim colonists what did you mean?
<$1> Well people eh am that are coming to the Netherlands to stir up problems or who are in the Netherlands and sometimes they are even born in the Netherlands the younger generation and the parents or their grandparents were born here eh they are not here to integrate but to dominate and they they they they don’t give a damn excuse my words for am am all the criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today that’s why I call them colourless there are people living here from Morocco for thirty years who don’t speak one word of Dutch.
<$1> Most of the em em political elite or political parties believe really do believe that all cultures are equal whereas I believe they are not equal I believe that the Christian and the Judaic culture is is is far better and I am not ashamed to say it I’m not a racist eh to say that the Christian culture is a better one than the Islamic culture there is an enormous gap between the the political elite and the vox populi and they see that our country is changing they see in their street and in their neighbourhoods and in the cities and the villages they see that its its often not the Netherlands anymore they feel that they live live in Morocco or live or eh Turkey we have an Islam Islamic intifada today I’m not exaggerating in many many cities and villages of the Netherlands this is the problem and the Government am looks eh in the other direction and ignores it it puts it under the carpet all the problems.
<$2> Are you tired of living with a death threat over your head?
<$1> My mission is very strong and I really believe in it and I know that if we really don’t get a sense of urgency and act and defend our culture defend our freedom that am am it’s too late.
[5:38] available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHLM0-NbMi4
No comments:
Post a Comment