events, although sometimes the focus is more on one ‘dimension’ than the
other. The model of discourse processing, discussed in Chapter 8 in relation to
media texts, also draws as much on institutional context (and technological
means) as on the formal constituents of the texts themselves.
The links Fairclough draws between language use, textual interpreta-
tion and sociocultural explanation have an obvious value in cultural
analysis. In his analyses, Fairclough draws upon various key concepts,
including
genre, orders of discourse
and
hegemony
. He defines ‘genre’, in sys-
temic-functional terms, as texts designed to fulfil socially ratified purposes,
such as interviews or editorials. The concept of an ‘order of discourse’ is
adapted from social theorists such as Foucault (1981) and refers to the
language associated with a particular social domain, such as academia,
religion, marketing, and so on. It is broadly similar to the concept of ‘field’
in register analysis, and encompasses different genres. As such, the ‘order
of discourse’ is extremely pertinent to the teaching of English for Specific
Purposes. Where a CDA perspective differs from a traditional ‘register’ or
‘genre’ approach to discourse, is in its recognition of the differences in
power enjoyed by different members of discourse communities. In Chapter
4, ‘academic’ and ‘scientific’ English are considered across a spectrum of
perspectives: from the ‘authority’ who can enlighten students or general
readers from a secure institutional base, to the writer of research articles
who has to impress gatekeepers and fellow members of the ‘peer’
community. The equations of power and the modes of persuasion depend
absolutely on the context in which writing occurs.
The concept of ‘hegemony’ is often discussed in CDA. It is taken from
the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci (Gramsci, 1971). Gramsci followed
Marx in arguing that the governments of capitalist societies function to
sustain the domination of the working class by a small, elite class. Govern-
ments, of whatever political colour, preserve the interests of the elite class
before the interests of the workers. Gramsci’s contribution to the debate
was to argue that in developed capitalist societies, this domination of the
mass by the elite is not by coercion but by consent. In other words, in a
hegemonic society, the elite dominates the masses not by force or
coercion, but by ongoing persuasion. Clearly, even reasonably stable
societies exhibit stresses and strains, as the various factions within them
contest the distribution of status, power and resources. In Gramsci’s
model, language – through which persuasion is articulated and consent
negotiated – becomes a key social issue. Language is the weapon of
hegemonic cultures in which an unequal distribution of power is main-
tained by negotiation and consent.
The teaching of English language itself comes into any discussion of
hegemonic practices that threaten non-anglophone cultures and non-
14
Intercultural Approaches to ELT
C:\Documents and Settings\Stephen Cracknell\My Documents\corbett\corbett.vp
13 August 2003 16:38:59
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
English modes of expression, as recent voices in ELT have reminded us
(Pennycook, 1994, 1998; Phillipson, 1992; Skuttnab-Kangas, 2000). Propo-
nents of English as a ‘global lingua franca’ face reasonable accusations that
the near monopoly English enjoys in the world’s information-driven
economy disenfranchises at least as many as it empowers. The arguments
are complex and it is not the function of this volume to explore them in
detail. However, one of the hopes of the present volume is that by
embedding language teaching in an explicitly intercultural curriculum,
rather than vice versa, the home language and the home culture of the
learners (and of the many non-native teachers) will be valued in the
classroom alongside the often
glamorised target language, English.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
