بنیان‌های چرخش زبانی و تأثیر آن در شکل‌گیری روش تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
1 - استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل دانشگاه شیراز، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی دانشگاه شیراز، ایران
کلید واژه: چرخش زبانی, گفتمان انتقادی, ویتگنشتاین, پساساختارگرایی, سوسور.,
چکیده مقاله :
زبان‌شناسی و کاربست آن در علوم اجتماعی در قرن نوزدهم، متکی بر نگاهی ساختارگرایانه و در نتیجه تاحدود زیادی تقدیرگرایانه و متصلب بود. در ابتدای قرن بیستم با وقوع چرخش زبانی، فرصتی مهیا شد تا این رویکرد متصلب، منعطف‌تر شود و همچنین فرصت‌های روشی و معرفتی مورد نیاز برای تأویل و تبیین گفتمان‌ها و بازی‌های زبانی متکثر را فراهم آورد. خود این تقابل در شخص «ویتگنشتاین» تجمیع شده است. او که در فاز متقدم اندیشه خویش در مقام یک فیلسوف تحلیلی بهشدت متکی بر منطق صوری، در عمل تنها برای یک گفتمان و بازی زبانی قائل به فرصتِ طرح بود، در فاز متأخر اندیشه خویش، بنیان‌های پذیرش تکثر در عرصه بازی‌های زبانی را فراهم آورد. میراث فکری او و تمام متفکرانی که در قرن بیستم در قالب رویکردهای پساساختارگرا دست به اندیشه در عرصۀ زبان و معرفت‌شناسی زدند، روش‌شناسی‌ای بود که در قالب «تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی» از یکسو فرصت تکثر و تنوع در عرصه گفتمان‌ها را به کارگزاران انسانی و اجتماعی می‌دهد و از سوی دیگر در تحلیل بازی‌های زبانی و گفتمانی این کارگزاران، هم به زمینه عینی و شخصی ایشان توجه دارد و هم متن و زبان ایشان را تأویل میکند. از رهگذر این مجاهدت نظری، روش‌شناسی‌ای خلق شده که به نظر برای تأویل و نیز تبیین هر عرصۀ تعامل اجتماعی که قائم به روابط قدرت باشد، می‌تواند واجد فایده و کاربرد باشد.
Linguistics and its application in the social sciences in the nineteenth century relied on a structuralist perspective and, as a result, was largely fatalistic and rigid. At the beginning of the twentieth century, with the occurrence of the linguistic turn, an opportunity was provided for this rigid approach to become more flexible and also to provide the methodological and epistemological opportunities needed to interpret and explain plural discourses and language games. This opposition itself is embodied in the person of Wittgenstein. In the early phase of his thought, as an analytical philosopher heavily relying on formal logic, he practically considered only one discourse and language game as the opportunity for design, but in the later phase of his thought, he provided the foundations for accepting pluralism in the field of language games. His intellectual legacy and that of all the thinkers who in the twentieth century, in the form of post-structuralist approaches, began to think in the field of language and epistemology, was a methodology that, in the form of "critical discourse analysis", on the one hand, gives the opportunity for plurality and diversity in the field of discourses to human and social agents, and on the other hand, in analyzing the linguistic and discursive games of these agents, it pays attention to both their objective and personal context and interprets their text and language. Through this theoretical struggle, a methodology has been created that seems to be useful and applicable for interpreting and explaining any field of social interaction that is based on power relations.
Key Words: Linguistic Turn, Critical Discourse, Wittgenstein, Post-Structuralism, Saussure.
Introduction
Linguistics and its application in the social sciences in the 19th century relied on a structuralist view and, as a result, was largely deterministic and rigid. At the beginning of the 20th century, with the occurrence of the linguistic turn, an opportunity arose for this rigid approach to become more flexible and also provide the methodological and epistemological opportunities needed for the interpretation and explanation of multiple discourses and language games. This very opposition is embodied in the person of "Wittgenstein." He, who in the early phase of his thought as an analytical philosopher was heavily reliant on formal logic, in practice only considered one discourse and language game worthy of being proposed, in the later phase of his thought, laid the foundations for accepting plurality in the realm of language games. The intellectual legacy of him and all the thinkers who in the 20th century, in the form of post-structuralist approaches, engaged in thought in the fields of language and epistemology, was a methodology that in the form of "critical discourse analysis" on the one hand gives the opportunity of plurality and diversity in the realm of discourses to human and social agents, and on the other hand, in the analysis of the linguistic and discursive games of these agents, pays attention to both their objective and personal context and interprets their text and language. Through this theoretical endeavor, a methodology has been created that seems to be useful and applicable for the interpretation and also the explanation of any field of social interaction that is based on power relations.
Discourse analysis, as a relatively new field in the social sciences, is the result of philosophical endeavors that have become known as the linguistic turn. Before the beginning of the linguistic turn phase in the social sciences, these sciences were mostly under the control of essentialism. The linguistic turn caused "language" itself to become involved as a factor and a determining element in the developments of social science scholars.
Research Methodology
The research method of this article is qualitative and based on grounded theory. This method, in avoiding deductive prejudices, tries to first, apart from various theories in its field of study, examine the raw data, then comment on what that phenomenon is, and even create a new theory. Therefore, in this research as well, instead of relying on existing theories, more emphasis is placed on the methodology related to linguistic and discursive action and procedure. In the next section, we will see how the method of discourse analysis has emerged from the criticism of essentialism.
Theoretical Framework
Essentialism is a doctrine according to which each specific thing is assumed to have inherent, a priori, and eternal characteristics. Essence or substance is a characteristic that a thing always possesses and it is impossible for it to be removed from it. In contrast, accident is a characteristic that an epistinc thing may or may not possess. The removal and %limination of akcident from an existing thing does not deótroy its existEnce, but the removal od essence or substance from an exi3ting thing is!imposqible and meáns its non-e8istencg.
Essentiil)sm is bi no means¤pro"lematic when it comes to natural phenomena such as materials that have constant pro`erties. Thå xrobLem begin{ wheî Ue intòoducethis concept knto thg human anl social spheres. Social objects primari|y ha~e a multiplicitY anl`diversity of chqracteristIcó and elements That canbd considered essentéan or accidental; secondly, many or perhaps all!of these elements are subject to change in uhe long term.
a|tributing0essentiality to sociAl affairs {s a very daneerous task; because, fOr exampla,$many f the characterisTics tjat individuals possess are$due to thc proceós Of socIaliúation, situationam and0temporary moods,and srecific individual abilities, and uherefore it is not an inher%nt e!tter but a matter conuingenô n tie indivhdual's speciæic experimnces.$The same is true of the cha2actmristics that are attrébuted to societies and human groups.
Eó3entkalities exist in all spheres. Buv the issue is that, contrary to the apparent meafing of the`Word essence, Esrmntial characteristics, especially in the civil"and human realm, are not necessarily eterþan. Essentiaìities in tle nat1ral wordd are almost stable and eternal. It cao be accepted that thå properties on Material{ cnd alsk the laws of physics are eternal and everlasting. But even in the fiåld of biology, different species have evolVed and clanged whape over ti-e.
Thu issue is a bit more complicated in$phe reilm of social scienCeS. The essence of qocial institwtions in the ontologicál dimension is fl}id and"changing. T`e other issue, however, has an epistemological nature and goes bqck to how"Anä nrom what"perspective we observe the essence. For example, gender!is"certainly cons)dered an esóential matter for individuals.°Buu the0questiof is fbom wjat perspective and in what realm. For example, gender in childbirth and reproduction is an essential matter; but in the realm of competence and professional ability of individuals, it is not only not essential, but even considered an irrelevant matter.
Let's examine a familiar example of confusing an essence with an unrelated consequence in the field of international relations. Anarchy, at least in the current conditions, is considered an essential characteristic of the international system. By definition, the absence of a central authority is the essential definition of anarchy, and this definition is currently valid. The realists claim that the consequence and result of this anarchic essence of the international system is the pessimism of states towards each other and, as a result, their constant recourse to self-help.
But Alexander Wendt questions this relationship and emphasizes that self-help is not caused by anarchy, but by the egoismof states. Precisely because the premise of anarchy does not have an essential relationship with the consequence claimed by the realists, namely self-help, other forms of interactionism between states can be imagined; a form in which states seek absolute and unrestrained conflict with each other; a content and culture that Wendt calls Hobbesian anarchy. A form in which states seek restrained self-help and competition, not absolute conflict with each other, which is called Lockean anarchy, and also a content in which states have abandoned the principle of self-help and relied on collective security, which is called Kantian anarchy (Wendt, 1386: 27 and 359-450). Therefore, it is conceivable and probable that the essence, even assuming its stability, can bring about different results depending on other side conditions.
Research Findings
As we said earlier, essentialism is sometimes the issue of relating two unrelated matters; such as relating a physiological essence like gender to the competence and professional ability of individuals. But in addition to this, essentialism is sometimes the issue of reducing one matter to another matter that may not be fully expressive and informative of that issue.
The common characteristic in all essentialist approaches is the emphasis on a characteristic in the phenomenon under study and, as a result, neglecting other characteristics of that phenomenon. Social science theories generally resort to essentialist formulas in an attempt to achieve a central element in explaining phenomena, and ultimately, by resorting to abstraction, they reach a single and universal theory. These theories, of course, are very useful in understanding social phenomena, but they are generally not able to describe all the processes of creating a phenomenon.
Conclusion
This article began with references to the opposition between essentialism and the linguistic turn. We explained how people like Saussure and Wittgenstein made claims against the objective truth and the essential and original attribution of signifiers to signify. Saussure's discussion is important to us because it deals with the internal relations of the language system. Although the theories of discourse analysis and also the methods derived from these theories are more based on post-structuralism in linguistics than Saussurean structuralism, his emphasis on the internal relationship of signifiers within the language system has a practical aspect for us.
Also, according to the two main teachings of Wittgenstein's linguistic developments, the issue of language games and the emphasis on the logic specific to each language game in explaining and clarifying the discursive discontinuity observed between each political discourse can be utilized.
The emphasis on the discussions of Saussure's linguistic structuralism was done in order for the reader to understand a stage in the history of contemporary linguistics during which the self-reliance and endogenous nature of the linguistic structure and system were emphasized, and as a result, the essential or inherent connection of language and linguistic signifiers to signified became irrelevant, and finally, the conventional element of these signifiers was emphasized. However, as observed in the discussion of Wittgenstein's transition from the early to the later phase of his reflections, the linguistic turn ultimately went beyond structural stability and also the emphasis that logical positivists or positivists had on the "truth condition" and the correspondence theory of the linguistic signifier with the external objective signified, and thus the opportunity for the emergence of post-structuralists was provided.
Although the post-structuralist tradition is not limited to Foucault and includes great figures such as Derrida, Barthes, Deleuze, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Laclau, Mouffe and many others, in this article, in order to maintain brevity, an attempt was made to briefly introduce Michel Foucault as one of the most influential figures in the formation of the methodology of critical discourse analysis. It was mentioned that Foucault, especially in his genealogical project, tries to examine the role and impact of power on the formation of discourses and regimes of truth and representations that are presented of the social world.
Finally, in the next section, we referred to the main figure of the critical discourse analysis approach, namely Norman Fairclough. Although it was not possible to address the details of Fairclough's predominantly linguistic methodology in discourse analysis, we explained that Fairclough divides each discursive procedure, according to its function in representation, into three functions: ideation or representation of the world in which discursive interaction takes place; representation of the subject positions that inevitably and based on the represented dictionary of this field of interaction establish a power relationship with each other; and finally, representation of a specific type of interaction logic between these subject positions.
References
Akmaljonovna, Z. A., & Usmonalievna, A. R. (2022). Analysis of views on the formation of the linguistic landscape of the world. Anglisticum. Journal of the Association-Institute for English Language and American Studies, 11(1), 11-18.
Āqāgolzāda, F. (2011). Taḥlīl-i guftimān-i intiqādī [Critical discourse analysis]. ‘Ilmī va Farhangī. (in Persian)
Biletzki, A., & Matar, A. (2011). Ludwig Wittgenstein. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/wittgenstein/
Bozorgī, V. (2003). Didgāhhā-yi jadīd dar ravābiṭ-i bayn al-milal [New perspectives in international relations]. Nī. (in Persian)
De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Philosophical Library.
Dabāgh, S. (2008). Sukūt va ma’nā: Justārhā’ī dar falsafah-yi Vitginstāyn [Silence and meaning: Essays on Wittgenstein's philosophy]. Sirāt. (in Persian)
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Fāẓilī, M. (2004). Guftimān va taḥlīl-i guftimān-i intiqādī [Discourse and critical discourse analysis]. Pazhūhishnāmah-yi ‘Ulūm-i Insānī va Ijtimā‘ī, 14, 81–107. (in Persian)
Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Foucault, M. (2009). History of madness (J. Khalfa, Trans.). Routledge.
Freeman‐Core, C. (2021). Wittgenstein and meaning. Philosophical Investigations, 44(4), 403-425.
Gane, M. (2013). Towards a critique of Foucault: Foucault, Lacan and the question of ethics. Routledge.
Gutting, G. (2012). Michel Foucault. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/foucault
Harris, R. (1988). Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to play games with words. Psychology Press.
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. SAGE.
Magī, B. (1998). Falāsifah-yi buzurg: Āshnā’ī bā falāsifah-yi Gharb [Great philosophers: An introduction to Western philosophers] (I. Fūlādvand, Trans.). Khwārazmī. (in Persian)
Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. Routledge.
Mohammadī, M., & Vaezie, A. (2022). A critical study of two conceptions of Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance.” Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 16(41), 222-241.
Neumann, I. B. (2009). Discourse analysis. In A. Klotz & D. Prakash (Eds.), Qualitative methods in international relations: A pluralist guide (pp. 61–77). Palgrave Macmillan.
- Wolf, M. (2009). Philosophy of language. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi
Radford, G. P., & Radford, M. L. (2005). Structuralism, post‐structuralism, and the library: De Saussure and Foucault. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 60-78.
Reynolds, J. (2023). Jacques Derrida. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida
Sarā’ī, Ḥ., et al. (2008). Ravesh-i kayfī dar mutāla‘āt-i ijtimā‘ī bā ta’kīd bar ravesh-i taḥlīl-i guftimān va taḥlīl-i guftimān-i intiqādī [Qualitative method in social studies with emphasis on discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis]. Pazhūhishnāmah-yi ‘Ulūm-i Ijtimā‘ī, 2(3), 83–106. (in Persian)
Sayer, A. (1999). Realism and social science. SAGE.
Swoyer, C. (2010). The linguistic relativity hypothesis. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2
Tājīk, M. R. (2011). Pasā-siyāsat; naẓarīyah va ravesh [Post-politics: Theory and method]. Nī. (in Persian)
Vent, A. (2007). Naẓarīyah-yi ijtimā‘ī-yi siyāsat-i bayn al-milal [Social theory of international politics] (H. Mushīrzādah, Trans.). Daftar-i Mutāla‘āt-i Siyāsī va Bayn al-Milalī. (in Persian)
آقاگل‌زاده، فردوس (1390) تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی، تهران، علمی و فرهنگی.
بزرگی، وحید (1382) دیدگاه‌های جدید در روابط بین‌الملل، تهران، نشرنی.
تاجیک، محمدرضا (1390) پساسیاست؛ نظریه و روش، تهران، نشرنی.
دباغ، سروش (1387) سکوت و معنا؛ جستارهایی در فلسفه ویتگنشتاین، تهران، صراط.
سرايي، حسن و دیگران (1387) «روش کیفی در مطالعات اجتماعی با تأکید بر روش تحلیل گفتمان و تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی»، پژوهشنامه علوم اجتماعی، سال دوم، شماره سوم، صص 83-106.
فاضلی، محمد (1383) «گفتمان و تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی»، پژوهشنامه علوم انسانی و اجتماعی، شماره 14، صص 81-107.
مگی، برایان (1377) فلاسفه بزرگ: آشنایی با فلاسفه غرب، ترجمه عزت‌الله فولادوند، تهران، خوارزمی.
ونت، الکساندر (1386) نظریه اجتماعی سیاست بین‌الملل، ترجمه حمیرا مشیرزاده، تهران، دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی.
Akmaljonovna, Zukhro Akbarova, and Abdullazizova Rokhatoy Usmonalievna (2022) Analysis of Views on The Formation of The Linguistic Landscape of The World. Anglisticum. Journal of The Association-Institute for English Language And American Studies, 11(1), 11-18.
Biletzki, A. & Matar, A. (2011) Ludwig Wittgenstein. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/wittgenstein/.
De Saussure, Ferdinand. (1959) Course in general linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin. Fairclough, Norman. (1992) Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual. Analysis within Discourse Analysis. In Discourse & Society (Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 193–217).
------------------------ (1993) Discourse and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press Foucault, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
--------------- (2009) History of Madness. Trans. J. Khalfa. New York: Routledge.
Freeman‐Core, Charles (2021) Wittgenstein and Meaning. Philosophical Investigations, 44(4), 403-425.
Gane, M. (2013) Towards a Critique of Foucault: Foucault, Lacan and the Question of Ethics. Routledge.
Gutting, Gary (2012) Michel Foucault in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/foucault in 4/25/ 2013.
Harris, Roy (1988) Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to play games with words. Psychology Press.
Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. SAGE.
Mills, Sara (2004) discourse, London: Routledge.
Mohammadi, Mahdi, and Asghar Vaezie (2022) A Critical Study of Two Conceptions of Wittgenstein’s “Family Resemblance”. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 16(41), 222-241.
Neumann, Iver B (2009) ‘Discourse Analysis’ in Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash: qualitative methods in international relations: a pluralist guide, pp 61- 77, London: Palgrave Mcmillan.
P. Wolf, Michael (2009) Philosophy of Language in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from: http://http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi in 2/2/2023.
Radford, Gary P., and Marie L. Radford (2005). Structuralism, post‐structuralism, and the library: de Saussure and Foucault. Journal of documentation, 61(1), 60-78.
Reynolds, Jack (2023) Jacques Derrida in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida in 3/18/2023.
Sayer, Andrew (1999) Realism and social science. Realism and social science, 1-224.
Swoyer, C. (2010) The linguistic relativity hypothesis. E. N. Zalta, ed. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2010 ed. http://plato .stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.
