Análisis Positivo del Discurso: contextualización de una perspectiva progresista en los estudios del discurso
Authors
-
Rodrigo A. Sagredo-Aravena
Universidad de Concepción
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7244-036X
-
Claudio A. Pinuer-Rodríguez
Universidad de Concepción
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1487-5428
Download
Abstract
This essay presents a theoretical and methodological review of Positive Discourse Analysis (PDA), a progressive approach to discourse studies. The PDA perspective promotes the analysis of inspirational discourses that account for how minority communities subvert hegemonic power, use available semiotic resources to construct positive meanings that translate into constructive social action design or promote characters, events or processes that promote empowerment, justice and change in various aspects of social life. A brief review and contextualization of the origin of PDA and its theoretical foundations, epistemological and methodological tenets are presented in order to explain its descriptive and transdisciplinary potential in discourse studies.
Keywords:
Positive discourse analysis , Discourse studies , Design , Systemic functional linguisticsReferences
Bartlett, T. 2012. Hybrid Voices and Collaborative Change: Contextualising Positive Discourse Analysis. Routledge.
Calle-Díaz, L. 2014. Godofredo Cínico Caspa: Un análisis positivo del discurso. Zona Próxima (20): 35-46. https://doi.org/10.14482/zp.20.3463
______ 2019. Possibilities of building peace through classroom discourse: A positive discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education 54: 100762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.100762
Cohon, R. 2008. Hume’s morality: Feeling and fabrication. Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R., B. Hodge, G. Kress y T. Trew. 1979. Language and control. Routledge.
Halliday, M. 1978. Language as social semiotic. The Discourse Studies Reader. Edward Arnold.
Hughes, J. 2018. Progressing positive discourse analysis and/in critical discourse studies: Reconstructing resistance through progressive discourse analysis. Review of Communication 18(3): 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2018. 1479880
Kress, G. 2000. Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. En B. Cope y M. Kalantzis (Eds.) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, pp. 153-161. Routledge.
Lavarch, M. (Ed.). 1997. Bringing them home: National inquiry into the separation of aboriginal and Torres Strait islander children from their families. https://healingfoundation.org.au/app/uploads/2017/05/Bringing-Them-Home-20-years-on-FINAL-SCREEN-1.pdf
Luke, A. 2002. Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053
Macgilchrist, F. 2007. Positive discourse analysis: Contesting dominant discourses by reframing the issues. Critical approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines, CADAAD Journal 1(1): 74-94.
Mahboob, A., A. Mallet. y L. Cheng. 2022. Subaltern Practice: A practical guide. University of Sydney. https://www.academia.edu/84741217/Subaltern_ Practice_A_practical_guide
Martin, J. R. 1999. Grace: the logogenesis of freedom. Discourse Studies 1(1): 29-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456990010010
______ 2002. Blessed are the peacemakers: reconciliation and evaluation en C. Candlin (Ed.) Research and practice in professional discourse, pp. 187-227. City University of Hong Kong.
______ 2004a. Positive Discourse Analysis: Power, Solidarity and Change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Inglese 49: 179-200. https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/ 915/29390
______ 2004b. Negotiating difference: ideology and reconciliation. En M. Putz, J. N. van Aertselaer y T. van Dijk (Eds.) Communicating ideologies: language, discouse and social practice, pp. 85-177. Peter Lang.
______ 2006. Vernacular deconstruction: Undermining spin. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 22: 177-203. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502006000100007
Martin, J. R, M.Stellin. 2007. Materializing reconciliation: Negotiating difference in a transcolonial exhibition. En T. Royce y W. L. Bowcher (Eds.) New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse, pp. 215-238. Erlbaum.
Ostrowski, M. 2022. Ideology. Polity Press.
Oteíza, T. y C. Pinuer. 2019. El sistema de VALORACIÓN como herramienta teóricometodológica para el estudio social e ideológico del discurso. Logos 29(2): 207-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.15443/rl2918.
Parra-González, I. 2021. The Making of the Ribbit-Ribbit Pond: Nurturing Children’s Intercultural Communicative Competence through a CREDIBLE Project [Tesis de magister no publicada]. University of Sydney
Ruiz-Padilla, E. 2023. Análisis de la transitividad en la revista colombiana Brujas: las mujeres escriben (1982-1987). Un análisis positivo del discurso. [Tesis de magister]. Universidad de Cartagena. https://repositorio.unicartagena.edu.co/ entities/publication/8bfb5e2a-5b40-412e-84d4-a53cd20afa7a.
Sagredo-Aravena, R. 2025. Acuerdo por la Paz Social y la Nueva Constitución: un estudio desde la perspectiva del análisis positivo del discurso de un evento de acuerdo político en la historia reciente de Chile [Tesis de doctorado en desarrollo]. Universidad de Concepción.
Stibbe, A. 2015. Ecolinguistics: Language, ecology and the stories we live by. Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. 1999. El análisis crítico del discurso. Anthropos 186: 23-36.
______ 2008. Discourse and Power. Macmillan Educaction. Weber, M. 1967. El político y el científico. Alianza Editorial
Twitter