A Critical Metaphor Analysis of Disability Identity and Ideology in the Thai Undergraduates’ Home for Children with Disabilities Website Project

Melada Sudajit-apa

Abstract


This study examines how the Home for Children with Disabilities and disability identities were construed by Thai undergraduates in their website project through an analysis of metaphors. Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA) was the framework for analyzing the use of metaphors and the participants’ enactment of identity and social representation. The critical analysis revealed four dominant themes: ‘JOURNEY’, ‘FAMILY’, ‘OBJECT’ and ‘HOPE’ all utilized to reproduce the Home for Children with Disabilities identity as a ‘warm’, ‘effective’ and ‘altruistic’ organization  that provides their children with forms of care and compassion. The analysis, in addition, showed the participants’ representation of disability identity as a non-static and changeable entity. Children with disabilities were seen as ‘capable of becoming self-supporting’. Additionally, the semi-structured interviews conducted with the participants indicated that social oppression was believed to be the cause of disability-related issues and that true understanding was needed to terminate social discrimination. 


Keywords


critical metaphor analysis, critical discourse analysis, disability discourse, disability ideology, identity construction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction. Malden, Mass: Polity Press.

Carson, G. (2009). The Social model of disability. London: The Stationary Office.

Charteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230000612, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230000612.

Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230501706, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London and New York: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193-217. doi: 10.1177/0957926592003002004, https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman. doi: 10.4324/9780203809068.ch1, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068.ch1.

Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Foucault, M. (1970). The Order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books.

Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. (Doctor of Philosophy Thesis), University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

Grue, J. (2011). Discourse analysis and disability: Some topics and issues. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 532-546. doi:10.1177/0957926511405572, https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511405572.

Guo, S. (2013). Metaphor studies from the perspective of critical discourse analysis: A case study of business acquisition. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(3), 475-481. doi: 10.4304/tpls.3.3.475-481, https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.3.475-481.

Habib, M.A.R. (2012). Literacy criticism from Plato to the present: An introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hart, C. (2016). Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury.

Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230299009, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299009.

Jørgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.

Ko, W.-s. (2011). The Asian American voice: a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach to rap lyrics. (MA Thesis), the University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL quarterly, 33(3), 453-484. doi: 10.2307/3587674, https://doi.org/10.2307/3587674.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195-208. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.

Lang, R. (2001). Understanding disability from a South Indian perspective. Paper presented at the 14th annual conference of the Society of Disability Studies, Winnipeg, Canada.

Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A Multimodal Introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.

Narayanan, S. (1997). Knowledge-based action representations for metaphor and aspect (KARMA). (Doctor of Philosophy), University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking.

Reisigl, M. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0004, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0004.

Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. The disability studies reader, 2, 197-204.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511575273, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273.

Vorapanya, S. & Dunlap, D. (2014). Buddhist ideology towards children with disabilities in Thailand: Through the lens

of inclusive school principals. In Thich Nhat Tu, The importance of Buddhist education. Vietnam Buddhist University Education Publication.

Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.5p.79

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.