1 of 6 people found the following review helpful
If I could give it 0 stars, I would.,
This review is from: Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research (Paperback)
This book was assigned to us to read for one of our university courses. All I can say is that it is the worst thing a student can ask for -- it is not concrete, it is all over the place, he vaguely mentions other theorists but barely goes into it, and thing goes on to compare it with his own theories in the most confusing manner, and the way he uses the first person in a text book drives me insane.
Each and every page is a struggle. I'm still not even sure what it is I am reading about.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Apr 2013 19:05:28 BDT
D. J. McDowell-naylor says:
I actually thought the structure was very clear, as far as Fairclough and Discourse Analysis as a whole goes. It's quite clearly struck into four sections which deal with texts, action, representation and identity in turn. So it is not 'all over the place'. Compared to Foucault, to whom he eludes and to whom Discourse is mostly founded on, this is comparatively clear.
The reason he doesn't go into the other theorists is because there are entire libraries on the other theorists you could consult if you could be bothered, and since he is developing a theory of his own, why would he waste his time explaining others when he rightly assumes you can consult another reference. His book is not an entire history of all the theories ever. As for the first person, that's not unusual to any non-scientific theory, especially in the humanities.
Your review is completely unhelpful.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›