Because both try to investigate and disclose covert meanings permeating in the whole texts and struggle to find out the speakers or orators outlooks in the texts.
Apparently both approaches might look pretty similar but they are different at heart. To me, appraisal framework (AF) is more structural focused whereas critical discourse analysis (CDA) is more social and radical in its stances. AF looks at how interpersonal meaning has been established in the language use; CDA analyses how particular language use influences and affects its audience i.e. the former is concerned with the product whereas the latter is not only concerned with the process and the possible consequences but also how to improve circumstances in a given situation. CDA goes beyond the meaning of language by locating hidden ideologies, which are much stronger than judgments detected through AF. Judgments are results of ideologies that form the basis of particular language use. Unlike AF, CDA is philosophically analytical in broader perspectives with greater implications. CDA might well have a change agenda to reform and relieve the audience affected by the misuse of language power which AF is unlikely to target. Contrary to CDA, AF has limited scope of analyzing language under three main categories of attitude, engagement and graduation. On the other hand, CDA has much broader perspectives and stances to decode the language and its meaning at micro and macro level.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science