SFL and CDA: Contributions of the Analysis of the Transitivity System in the Study of the Discursive Construction of National Identity

The Linguistics Journal (v.3-3)
by Ángela Alameda-Hernández

Abstract

This article analyses the contribution of systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) to discourse studies. It adheres to the scholarly paradigm known as critical discourse analysis (CDA) which is based on the view that language, as social practice, is a central element in social life and, hence, analyses discourse in relation to the wide social and historical context in which it occurs. This paper explores this SFL-CDA connection and focuses on the representation of the discursive construction of the Gibraltarian identity as drawn from the linguistic analysis of the transitivity system in a body of texts taken from the printed media. Gibraltar is a community in which political conflicts are common but has quite frequently been ignored in the academic world, despite its great interest and uniqueness. The analysis focuses on the period surrounding the holding of the last referendum in Gibraltar (November 2002), when the governments of Britain and Spain discussed the future of this British colony. Hence, the application of SFL categories in this critical discursive analysis has helped to discover that Gibraltar was mainly represented as a passive entity, affected by the actions and decisions of other. Its identity was generally built on this community’s inner-self because of the relevance given to Gibraltar in mental processes as a senser participant. Gibraltar’s agency was mainly limited to the expression of its wishes and opinions. Thus, the discursive representation of Gibraltar was that of a community with little power to exert and influence on its present situation or to manage its future.

From the "syntactic structures as Freudian slips" dept. I'm not sure that I understood the underlying thesis of this abstract, but I believe that I was led to understand that the overuse of valance modifying elements such as the passive voice when referring to Gibraltar should be taken as an indicator of the speakers' impression of Gibraltar as having little power.

I guess that may be true, but I object to the argumentation methodology. Critical discourse theory may seem like a crock because I don't really understand it, but am I the only one who feels this way? You'd hope that there was some way to quantify this result, otherwise, it sounds like some academic is stating an opinion, by definition, subjective. Isn't this why the plebs have such a negative opinion of so many academics?

But I do have to give props to this author for writing a pretty damned comprehensible abstract (relative to most other Critical Discourse Theory abstracts). This abstract defines its terms and makes their use clear in the analysis summary. This might be because the venue it was published in is more general, but why can't all Semiotica abstracts be just as clear?