Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD candidate in Cultural Sociology, Social Science department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Social Science Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

3 Social Science Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran,

4 Social Science department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran,

5 English Language and Literature Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.

10.30465/os.2024.47598.1947

Abstract

Discourse is verbal or written communication that has unity, meaning, and purpose. In linguistics, discourse refers to a unit of language that is longer than a sentence. When you analyze discourse, you examine how the language is used to construct connected and meaningful texts. One crucial thing that can’t be neglected when it comes to discourse is the context. In linguistics, there are different ways to classify contexts. Here is one such classification:

Linguistic context: The relationship between the words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. For instance, the participants must know where they are in time and space. It affects the expressions they use and the way they are interpreted.
Situational context: The relationship between the participants, the environment, time, and place in which the discourse occurs. Situational context is usually approached through the concept of register, which focuses on the interrelationship of language and context.
Cultural context: The culture and customs of epoch in language communities in which the speakers participate. Language is closely connected to the social structure and value system of society. Therefore, it’s influenced by such factors as social role and status, sex, age, etc.

Method Definition
Feminist poststructuralist discourse analysis is a new and emerging theoretical perspective and methodological approach to discourse analysis studies. This approach is an approach for analyzing intertextual discourses in spoken interaction and other types of text that uses the poststructuralist principles of complexity, plurality, ambiguity, connection, recognition, diversity, textual mischief, function and transformation. The feminist point of view in the post-structuralist analysis of the discourse considers the gender distinction as the dominant discourse among competing discourses during the analysis of text types. Feminist poststructuralist analysis considers gender distinction as one of the most pervasive discourses among many cultures in terms of its organized power in distinguishing between people based on gender and sexual orientation (Baxter, 2003). This definition of FPDA is derived from the ideas of Bakhtin (1981) and poststructuralists such as Derrida (1987) and Foucault (1980). Also, this definition is inspired by the works of Walkerdin (1998) and Weeden (1997).
The principles of the method
Self-reflectivity is one of the basic principles of the feminist post-structuralist approach to discourse analysis, which of course shares this principle with CA and CDA, which means that all three approaches are self-reflective regarding their expansion as "knowledge". Users of the FPDA approach should clarify their theoretical positions and specify the epistemological assumptions that are used in any discourse analysis.
Second, this approach requires self-reflectivity on the acquisition of technical vocabulary or "fundamental rhetoric". This means being aware that technical terms are not capable of describing objective realities in a non-problematic manner. Researchers constantly need to question the assumptions and knowledge that are placed in the form of "analytical terms".
Third, feminist poststructuralist analysis of the discourse requires self-awareness of the textuality of the research process and the phenomenon that every research includes a set of choices and authoring mechanisms. According to the post-structuralist perspective, all activities and searches for knowledge lead to the creation of a world and therefore, research itself is a discursive and fundamental construction.
The second basic principle is the constructive approach. The focus of feminist and poststructuralist analysis is the motivation to question things, to deconstruct the constructions and structures around us, although not in the nihilistic or relativistic sense that is sometimes stereotypically associated with deconstructionism, but in order to reveal the possibility of juxtaposition and interaction between established and new ideas.
The third basic principle in this approach is to find the focus of feminist activity. Third-wave feminism, or post-structuralist feminism, has tried to reduce and resolve the tensions and contradictions that lie in the liberating agenda of modernist feminism.
 
 
Approach to data
FPDA has developed an approach to data that is significantly different from conventional approaches in discourse analysis. A powerful source of data for FPDA users, apart from transcripts of conversations and written texts, is data from a range of different voices, for example, the voices of the research subjects themselves, other members of the research team, theorists in the same The author's own domain or voice. Polyphony and heteroglossia or competing voices and narratives are structures that can be useful in this context.
Text analysis
In this approach, various dimensions and cases have been considered for the analysis of the text, which include the Synchronic - Diachronic, Connotation and Denotation, and intertextuality.
Discussion
Overall, the FPDA framework has made significant contributions to the field of sociolinguistics and communication studies. This framework provides a comprehensive insight through which to examine the complex interactions of subjects in discourse and to clarify how individuals engage in communicative strategies to maintain social harmony and navigate sensitive situations. Baxter's work has deepened our understanding of how subjects negotiate positions of power in a wide range of social contexts.
Most importantly, Baxter's research provides valuable insights into the social value of understanding the interaction of feminism and poststructuralism in discourse. In a highly diverse and interconnected world, effective communication is critical to maintaining productive and positive relationships across cultural, social, and professional boundaries. By clarifying the complexities of social relations between genders, Baxter's framework equips people with the necessary knowledge and skills to navigate different social situations with tact and respect. This understanding has the potential to contribute to more harmonious interactions, increase cooperation and reduce conflicts in various social contexts.

Keywords

Aranda, K. (2006). Postmodern feminist perspectives and nursing research: A passionately interested form of inquiry. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2): 135-143.
Aston, M. (2016). Teaching feminist poststructuralism: Founding scholars still relevant today, Creative Education, 7(15): 2251-2267.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, TX: University of Texas.
Barthes, R. (1973). Mythologies, London: Granada.
Barthes, R. (1977). Image-Music-Text. New York: Hill & Yang.
Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A Post-structuralist Discourse Analysis of girls' and boys' speech in public contexts”, Discourse & Society, 13(6), pp. 827-842, DOI:10.1177/0957926502013006760.
Baxter, J. (2003). Positioning Gender in Discourse, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Baxter, J. (2008). Feminist Post-structuralist discourse analysis: a new theoretical and methodological approach?, Gender and Language Research Methodologies, pp. 243-255, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Billig, M. (1999). Critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis: an exchange between Michael Billig and Emmanuel A. Schegloff, Discourse & Society, 10(4), pp. 543–82.
Bing, J.M. and Bergvall, V.L. (1998). The question of questions: beyond binary thinking, In V.L. Bergvall, J.M. Bing and A.F. Freed (eds), pp. 1–30.
Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble, feminist theory, and pyschoanalytic discourse, In L.J. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism, London: Routledge.
Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse, London: Sage.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, post-modernism and organisational analysis 3: The contribution of Jacques Derrida, Organisation Studies, 10(4), pp. 479–502.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Derrida, J. (1987). A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Elliott, A. (1996). Subject to Ourselves, Oxford: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fardon, J. & Schoeman, S. (2009). A feminist post-structuralist analysis of an exemplar South African school History text, South African Journal of Education, 30(2), pp. 307-323, DOI:10.15700/saje.v30n2a333.
Fishman, P. (1980). Conversational insecurity. In G. Howard, W.P. Robinson and P.M. Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 127–32.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), pp. 777-795.
Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader, London: Penguin.
Fox-Keller (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Glapka, E (2018). If you look at me like at a piece of meat, then that’s a problem – women in the center of the male gaze. Feminist Poststructuralist Discourse Analysis as a tool of critique, Critical Discourse Studies, 15(1), pp. 87-103, DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2017.1390480.
Harris, Z.S. (1952). Discourse Analysis: A Sample Text, Language, 28(4), pp. 474-494, Linguistic Society of America.
Jones, A. (1993). Becoming a ‘girl’: post-structuralist suggestions for educational research, Gender & Education, 5(2), pp. 157–66.
Jones, K. (2020). A feminist poststructuralist analysis of discourses invoked in the construction of women’s leadership identities in higher education,
Educational Administration and Leadership Identity Formation, 1st Edition, Routledge, 15.
Kristeva, J. (1984). Woman can never be defined. In E. Marks and I. de Coutivron (eds), New French Feminisms, New York: Schocken.
Kuchek, J. P. (2021). The possibilities of feminist poststructural discourse analysis as an approach to gender research in the mathematics classroom, Mathematics Education Research Journal 33(1), pp. 689–711, DOI:10.1007/s13394-020-00364-5.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. London: Routledge.
Linstead, S. (1993). From post-modern anthropology to deconstructive ethnography, Human Relations, 45(1), pp. 97–120.
Lyotard J.F. (1984). The Post-modern Condition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
McLaren, H. (2009). Using Foucault's toolbox: the challenge with feminist poststructuralist discourse analysis. Paper presented at Foucault: 25 years on.
Mills, S. (2002). Third Wave Feminism Linguistics and the Analysis of Sexism and Naming Practices, Plenary lecture at IGALA 2, University of Lancaster, UK.
Norris, C. (1990). What’s Wrong with Post-modernism: Critical Theory and theEnds of Philosophy, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Olsen, T. (1978). Silences, New York: Delacourt Press.
Qiu, S. & Tian, X. (2010). Conversation analysis as discourse approaches to teaching EFL speaking. Cross Cultural Communication, 6(4), pp. 90-103.
Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom. The Spoken Language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Scott, D. and Usher, R. (eds) (1996). Understanding Educational Research, London: Routledge.
Skidmore, D. (1999). Discourses of learning difficulty and the conditions of school development, Educational Review, 15(1), pp. 17–28.
Spender, D. (1980). Man-made Language, London: Pandora Press.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Usher, P. (1996). Feminist Approaches to Research. In D. Scott and R. Usher (eds), pp. 120–42.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse & Society, 4(2), pp. 249 - 283.
Walkerdine, V. (1998). Counting Girls Out: Girls and Mathematics, London: Falmer Press.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist Practice and Post-structuralist Theory. 2nd ed, Oxford: Blackwell.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue, Discourse & Society, 9(3), pp. 387-412.
Zimmerman, D. and West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation, In D. Thorne and N. Henley (eds) Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 105–29.