A Critical Discourse Analysis of Business Academia on the Role and Status of the National Language

Aliya Sikandar

Abstract


This qualitative case study is an exploration of the phenomenon of the ways in which Urdu as the national language is represented in discursive practices of senior business academia. The research design, built on Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model (2009) is of dialectical-relational approach. The participant in this single case study is a senior member of the academia from a business school. Methodologically, the analysis trailed four stages and followed CDA’s transdisciplinary traditional methods of social practices in three semiotic categories: genre, discourse and style. Findings of the study indicated that despite strong emotional links with the national language, the participant recognized the utilitarian value of English in academic and in professional domains; additionally, his perspective was that Urdu was largely marginalized due to its perceived lack of utilitarian value. The participant also expressed the viewpoint that this social injustice was needed by the social order because the business school requires English for academic and professional purposes. The study recommends a more inclusive addition of Urdu courses in business studies.


Keywords


critical discourse analysis, en-textualzation, intertextuality, orders of discourse

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abbas (1998). Sociopolitical dimensions in language: English in context in Pakistan. Applied Language Studies, 23-42.

Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 38-59.

Akhtar (1989). Pakistan /Year Book: 1988-1989. Karachi: East and West Publishing Company.

Bauman, R. & Briggs, C. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 59-88.

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.

Cameron, D. (2001) Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE publications Ltd.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crosling, G., & Ward, I. (2002). Oral communication: The workplace needs and uses of business graduate employees. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1), 41-57.

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: Edwad 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.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, economics and culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kroch (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. London: Academic Press.

Kroskrity, P. (ed.) (2000b). Regimes of Language. Santa Fee: SAR Press. Mansoor, S. (2005). Language planning in higher education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kontra, M., Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Váradi, T. (eds.) (1999). Language: A right and a resource. Approaching linguistic human rights. Budapest: Central European University Press.

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.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis: In search of meaning. New York: Sage

Tollefson, J. (1999). Language ideology and language education. Proceedings from the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development (pp. 43-53). Hanoi: Asian Institute of Technology.

Woolard, K. A. (1992). Language ideology: Issues and approaches. PRAGMATICS: International Pragmatics Association, 2(3), 235- 249.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principle of critical discourse analysis (CDA). Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v4i2.1162

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License