An Application of Fairclough’s Three Dimensional CDA Approach to Fraser Anning's Speech in Australian Senate

https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2019.1.1.5

Authors

  • Wasim Hassan Lecturer in English, National Textile University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
  • Abaid ur Rehman M.Phil. Scholar, Riphah International University, Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan
  • Asad Zafar M.Phil. Scholar, Riphah International University, Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan
  • Farwa Akbar Department of Applied Linguistics, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
  • Samyya Masood Department of Applied Linguistics, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan

Keywords:

critical discourse analysis, ethnicity, William Fraser Anning, immigration, race, three-dimensional approach

Abstract

The aim of this study was to highlight impression markers, identify key concerns, and describe cultural as well as social implications of a speech delivered by William Fraser Anning (an Australian Senator) in the Australian Senate on August 14, 2018. In this regard, Fairclough’s three-dimensional model was employed to interpret the data. The speaker was observed employing different impression markers (e.g. discourse and punctuation markers, cultural and historical references, personal pronouns, self and other markers, and expressive and rational values) to create coherence in the speech, emphasize the stance, and thereby grab the attention of the audience. Social problems, common man’s worries like joblessness, poor living standard, race, ethnicity and immigration were the concerns of the speech. Muslim immigrants were not treated as humans equal to Australians or other Europeans. They were labeled as ‘welfare-blunders’, ‘terrorists’, ‘gang-terrorists’, ‘criminals’, and ‘illegal occupants’. The speech was followed by an extremist attack on a Mosque in New Zealand. It might cause serious threat to peaceful coexistence, immigration process, and basic human rights.

References

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, W. K. (2004). Critical strategies for social research. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Chilton, P. A. (1996). Security metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.

Corson, D. (1995). Discourse and Power in Educational Organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133–168. doi: 10.1177/0957926593004002002.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Shah, S. K., & Mubarak, A. (2018). Media discourse as Representative of Sociocultural Milieu of Law and Order in Pakistan: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Newspapers’ Headlines about Model Town Tragedy, Lahore. Pakistan Journal of Language Studies, 2(2), 1-13.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1989). A handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic Press Limited.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage Publications.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.

Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003) Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about–A Summary of its History, Important Concepts and its Developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Published

2019-09-30

How to Cite

Hassan, W., ur Rehman, A. . ., Zafar, A. . ., Akbar , F. ., & Masood , S. . (2019). An Application of Fairclough’s Three Dimensional CDA Approach to Fraser Anning’s Speech in Australian Senate . Linguistic Forum - A Journal of Linguistics, 1(1), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.53057/linfo/2019.1.1.5