Abstract
Literacy practice and discursive practice are two distinct concepts, belonging to different research traditions (new literacy studies, NLS, and critical discourse analysis, CDA). This article is an effort
to enlighten the discussion of these concepts by comparing the history and scope of the concepts, the research interest and the different research methods used. Exemplifying with an analysis of 18th
century political debate and an analysis of a graphic profile manual from the right-wing party in Sweden from 2010, the analytical consequences of focusing on the literacy practice or the discursive
practice are demonstrated.
Sometimes the assumption is made that CDA has a static concept of context and is less interested in the dynamics of practices involving texts. But the analysis of discursive practices involves analysis of the dynamic processes of meaning construction and mediation of discourse, of production, consumption and interpretation of texts as well as effects of discursive strategies. The analysis of literacy practice on the other hand is interested in dynamic processes affecting the literacy event, processes of text handling, attitudes towards and conversations about texts. There is a difference in
methods as well as in research focus and the point is made that the analysis of discursive practices in CDA must necessarily involve linguistic analysis, while in NLS, linguistic analysis is complementary, not part of the analysis of literacy practices.
to enlighten the discussion of these concepts by comparing the history and scope of the concepts, the research interest and the different research methods used. Exemplifying with an analysis of 18th
century political debate and an analysis of a graphic profile manual from the right-wing party in Sweden from 2010, the analytical consequences of focusing on the literacy practice or the discursive
practice are demonstrated.
Sometimes the assumption is made that CDA has a static concept of context and is less interested in the dynamics of practices involving texts. But the analysis of discursive practices involves analysis of the dynamic processes of meaning construction and mediation of discourse, of production, consumption and interpretation of texts as well as effects of discursive strategies. The analysis of literacy practice on the other hand is interested in dynamic processes affecting the literacy event, processes of text handling, attitudes towards and conversations about texts. There is a difference in
methods as well as in research focus and the point is made that the analysis of discursive practices in CDA must necessarily involve linguistic analysis, while in NLS, linguistic analysis is complementary, not part of the analysis of literacy practices.
| Original language | Swedish |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 85-106 |
| Journal | Språk och stil |
| Volume | 2013 |
| Issue number | 23 |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
Bibliographical note
The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015.The record was previously connected to the following departments: Swedish (015011001)
Subject classification (UKÄ)
- Languages and Literature
Free keywords
- literacy practice
- discursive practice
- context
- discourse
- political texts
- Swedish.