discourse analysis

On a personal level, discourse analysis seems to be a very controversial method of research, mainly because there are many factors to consider when making sense of meaning, when meaning is related to language and culture ( where culture could be situational, geographical, political, personal, and so on) ; that is, according to Gee (1999, p. 85-86), we use language to build meaning related to : 1. semiotic/communicative building, 2. world building (what and where as reality), 3. activity building (specific actions), 4. socioculturally (identities and relationships, ways of being), 5. political building (social “goods”), 6. connection building (connections between present past and future).

To me it looks like a researcher would have to be very connected to the discourse(and people producing it) he/she analyses- either through extensive study (historical study, study of various documents, etc.) or through personal cultural and sociolinguistic participatory understanding (where participation can be subjective, or quasi-subjective through personal involvement to an extent of different degrees). For example, how can a researcher perform discourse analysis on Mexican immigrant students, without knowing (at least peripherally) the language (Mexican Spanish), the culture(Mexican-with geographical varieties), and the experience of being in an ‘immigrant ‘status (either through prolonged exposure to immigrant students, or through personal experience of the immigrant status as a student).

As a ‘green’ researcher with a strong linguistic background, I would be interested in such studies, but I would not venture on any ‘fields’ outside of what I feel I know culturally, linguistically, socially, politically, and so on.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.