Gender
Inequality.
Critical
Intersections: Language Ideologies & Media Discourse.
 |
| Dari kanan : Dr. H. Alfan Zuhairi, M. Pd (Ketua Program Studi Magister Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Unisma). Abdul Hamid, S. Pd. |
Advised by:
Dr.
Zainul Mujahid,
M. Hum
By:
Abdul Hamid Aly = 215.02.073.059
Charles Candra = 215.02.073.061
MASTER OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING PROGRAM
GRADUATE
ENGLISH PROGRAM
UNIVERSITY
OF ISLAM MALANG
2016
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (CDA) PART-2
Charles Candra, University of
Islam Malang
Abdul Hamid Aly, University of
Islam Malang
Abstract: This paper concentrates in discussing for
further understanding ofCritical Discourse Analysis of gender inequality and
gender intersection. Firstly, this paper is talking about Critical Discourse
Analysis of a prominent adult literacy textbook in Turkey, which has two main
Discourses: (a) a normative parenting Discourse; and (b)
a Discourse of the sexual division of labor that associates the outside, public
world with men, and the private, domestic world with women. Secondly, Critical Discourse Analysis of
Political TV Talk Shows of Pakistani Media by Hafiz Ahmad Bilalwith deep discussion of gender
intersection including two main views: Language ideologies and media discourse
as well.
Key
Words:
Critical Discourse Analysis, Gender Inequality, Gender Intersection, Language
Ideologies, Media Discourse.
I.
Theoretical Concept of CDA.
Critical
discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are
enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political
context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take
explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist
social inequality(Fairclough 1995: 132).The main concepts of Critical Discourse Analysis as were developed
by Norman Fairclough.
‘Discourse’ is a category used by both social theorists and analysts on the
one hand and linguists on the other. Fairclough uses the term as many
linguists, to refer primarily to spoken or written language use, though he
extends it to include semiotic practice such as printed information and
non-verbal communication. But referring to language as a discourse, he
considers language as a form of social
practice. This implies that language is a mode of action (socially reproductive) and also
socially shaping, or constitutive
(creative, socially transformative). CDA explores the tension between
these two sides of the language use, the socially shaped and the constitutive;
Language is always constitutive of 1) social identities; 2) social relations
and 3) systems of knowledge and belief. CDA is then developed as a theory of
language which stresses in the multifunctionality of language and which
sees every text as simultaneously having the “ideational”, “interpersonal” and
“textual” functions of language (Fairclough 1992: 41).
II.
Gender
Inequality of CDA Area Studies.
The
British sociologist Anthony Giddens defines ‘sex’ as ‘biological or anatomical
differences between men and women’, whereas ‘gender’ ‘concerns the
psychological, social and cultural differences between males and females’.
(1989:158). on the basis on these characterizations, it seems relatively easy
to distinguish between the two categories. However, the definition miss the
level of the perception and attribution, the way gender stereotype often
influence the interaction of self – and other assessment. Giddens does mentionsome
syndrome of ‘abnormal’ development such as the testicular feminization syndrome
and androgenital syndrome, that is whereinfants designated as ‘female’ at
birth, even if chromosomally male, tend to develop female gender identity, and
vice versa (see Cameron’s discussion Chapter 1 in volume; Wodak and Benke,
1996: 128ff)
In
Contrast to such biological ideologies, Cornell (1993: 170ff) proposes a
non-unitary model of gender. Both of femininity and masculinity vary and
understanding their context - dependent variety is regarded as central to the
psychology of gender. He argues also that, since masculinity femininity coexist
in the same person; they should be seen not as polar natural opposites but as
separate dimensions. ‘Femininity and masculinity are not essence: they are ways
of living certain relationships. It follows that static typologies of sexual
character have to be replaced by histories, analyses of joint production of set
of psychological forms’ (Connell, 1993: 179).
In
addition to such as perspective Lewontin stresses the relevance of the
socialization process: the development of a person’s gender identity ‘depends
on what label was attached to him or her as a child… thus biological
differences became a signal for, rather than cause of, differentiation in
social rules’(1982: 142). This definition connects the impact of societal norms
and evaluations, power structures and the role of socialization remarkably well
(see also Sheldon, chapter 9 in this volume; Wodak, 1986; Wodak and Sshulz,
1986; Wodak and Vetter, Forthcoming; and the ‘Social Psychological Theory of
Text Planning’, proposed in the letter studies, which will not be elaborated
upon here).
In
the text of this perspective, it is more coherent to talk of gender as the
understanding of how what it means to be a woman or to be a man changes from
one generation to the next and how this perception varies between different
racialized, ethics, and religious groups, as well as for members of different
social classes (see Gal, 1989: 178; Stolcke,1993: 20; Lorber and Ferrell,
1991a:1ff). Gender categories thus are seen as social constructs. They
institutionalize cultural and social statuses and they serve to make male
dominance over women appear natural: ‘gender inequality in class society
results from a historically specific tendency to ideologically “naturalize”
prevailing socio-economic inequalities’ (Stolcke, 1993: 19).
So from many of definitions of Gender
inequality, that is refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals
based on their gender.
It arises from differences in socially constructed gender roles as well as biologically through chromosomes, brain structure,
and hormonal differences. Gender systems are often dichotomous and hierarchical; gender binary systems may reflect the inequalities that manifest in
numerous dimensions of daily life. Gender inequality stems from distinctions,
whether empirically grounded or socially constructed.
Examples :
Reproducing Gender Inequality:
A Critical Discourse Analysis of a Turkish Adult Literacy Textbook
RamazanGungor,
The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Esther Prins,
The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Abstract: Based on Critical Discourse
Analysis of a prominent adult literacy textbook in Turkey, this paper discusses
the text’s two main Discourses: (a) a normative parenting Discourse that
assigns mothers responsibility for childrearing and caretaking, and fathers responsibility
for discipline; and (b) a Discourse of the sexual division of labor that
associates the outside, public world with men, and the private, domestic world
with women.
Adult education
curricula such as literacy textbooks present blueprints for living,including
ideals concerning gender identities and roles, thereby reinforcing or
underminingdominant ideologies. In this way, power inequalities between men and
women are ideologicallysustained and reproduced by textbooks (van Dijk, 1993).
However, the underlying assumptionsabout gender in such texts have rarely been
examined, especially in international adult literacyprograms (an exception is
Ahearn, 2001). The persistence of gender inequity in Turkey andaround the globe
warrants closer scrutiny of gender ideologies in literacy texts. The purpose
ofthis study was to examine how a new adult literacy textbook in Turkey depicts
the identities ofmen and women. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was used to
analyze how gender roles andidentities were portrayed in visual images and
reading passages. Since People’s EducationCenters (PECs), the state-funded
adult education provider in Turkey, adopted this textbook asthe primary
curriculum in 2008, it will profoundly shape the gender identities that
thousands ofadult learners envision for themselves and for others.
Theoretical Framework
This study frames textbooks as sites of power
and struggle. The study’s theoretical framework is rooted in Critical Discourse
Analysis, or CDA (Gee, 2005; Meyer, 2001; Rogers, et al., 2005). What makes
discourse analysis critical is the focus on how language produces and
reproduces domination and abuse of power, engendering injustice and inequality
(Van Dijk, 2001, p. 96). In the same spirit, this study focuses on the
ideological effects of the textbook’s portrayal of gender. Specifically, we
draw upon Gee’s (2005) conceptualization of discourse/Discourse, literacy, and
identity. Discourse refers both to language and cultural models,
that is, “ways of combining and integrating language, actions, interactions,
ways of thinking, believing, valuing, and using various symbols, tools, and
objects to enact a particular socially recognizable identity” (p. 21), such as
“woman” or “father.” The linguistic elements (e.g., reading passages) associated
with such Discourses are known as discourse. Following Gee (2002) and New Literacy Studies
scholars such as Street (2003), we view literacy as a social practice that
mediates different socially and historically situated identities. Finally,
identity refers to different ways of participating in social groups, cultures,
and institutions (Gee, 2005), for example, ways of being a “good wife” or
“caring mother.” Accordingly, identity—including gender—is constructed and
continuously renegotiated through interaction with people and texts such as
those examined in this study.
Background and Methods
Few adult literacy textbooks have been
published since the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 (Gümü!o"lu,
2007). Historically, these textbooks have been prepared by volunteer academics
and authors (Noahl&Saylan, 2004). In 2008, however, the Ministry of
Education published a new textbook and student activity book, Yeti!kinler Okuma
YazmaÖ"retimiveTemelE"itimiKitab (Textbook for Teaching Literacy and
Basic Education) (Keskin et al., 2008). Sponsored by the Support to Basic
Education Program, a cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the
Turkish Ministry of National Education, the curriculum aimed to improve access
to education, especially for women, and to increase the quality of formal and
non-formal education (EU Support to Basic Education in Turkey, 2007). We
selected this textbook because of its stated purposes, its widespread use, and
its EU and Turkish government sponsorship. With its emphasis on phonemic
awareness (sound-symbol correspondence), the textbook illustrates the view that
literacy is a set of cognitive skills to be mastered. We focus here, however,
on the textbook’s transmission of gender ideologies.
The following
research questions guided the study: How does the text construct idealmale and
female identities? How does the text reinforce or challenge prevailing conceptions
ofgender in Turkey? Analysis began with a thematic inventory of the text’s 54
reading passagesand poems; each passage was assigned to one or more thematic
groups, such as family,workplace, and health, and the themes were continuously
revised. We selected for furtheranalysis segments of text that (a) included
more than one sentence and (b) were organizedaround the same theme(s). Gee’s
(2005, p. 15) analytical strategy of listing other ways a sentencecould have
been written was a useful way to envision alternatives and ask why a passage
waswritten in a particular way. The visual images included 339 photographs and popular
educationstyledrawings. They were first categorized into two groups: (a) those
depicting an interactionbetween two or more people; and (b) those that only
showed only one person or only artifacts.The focus was to observe how gender
roles were negotiated through interaction. We kept asking the CDA questions
proposed by Gee (2005), comparing the way women and men were depicted in the
text to traditional conceptions associating men with paid work and the public
sphere and women with caretaking work and the private sphere (O’Neill
&Guler, 2009).
Findings
The study shows
that there were two main gender Discourses in the textbook: (a) anormative
parenting Discourse that assigns mothers responsibility for childrearing
andcaretaking, and fathers responsibility for discipline; and (b) a Discourse
of the sexual division oflabor in which the outside, public world is associated
with men and the private, domestic worldwith women (Moser, 1993). Both
Discourses were evident in the text and accompanying images.As in virtually in
all Ministry of Education prepared or approved textbooks, the Discourse
ofKemalist ideology—veneration of the founder of the Turkish Republic—was also
apparent.However, this topic is beyond the scope of this paper.
Of the 339 visual
images in the text, 70 depicted interactions among people. In everyinstance
where a child, toddler, or baby appears, s/he is portrayed next to a woman,
possibly amother, older sister, or other relative or caretaker. Of the 16
images where children are depictedinteracting with others, all but two include
an adult female. When a family is pictured, both aman and woman (presumably the
father and mother) appear with the children. Not one image,however, depicts a
father spending time with a child or attending to his or her needs.
Theseresults suggest that embedded in the images is a parenting and gender
Discourse that assumes mothers are mainly responsible for raising children, a
view that reinforces contemporary genderideologies in Turkey (O’Neill
&Guler, 2009).
The depiction
of women as housewives and caretakers is reinforced not only by theimages, but
also by the reading This normative Discourse is closely related to the second,
in which men are the breadwinners in the household. Men are depicted outside, while
women are mainly portrayed in closed spaces. For example, the text shows men
outside performing a variety of activities such as working at a construction
site, selling merchandise in the market place, working in a factory, or picking
trash in a forest. On the other hand, women are portrayed in the kitchen,
sitting around a table and eating, watching TV, attending the needs of a baby,
shopping in the market place, walking on the street, and kissing an elder’s
hand (a sign of respect in Turkish culture) at a family gathering. Such
depictions are congruent with traditional Turkish conceptions of men devoted to
work in the public sphere and women to caretaking in the private sphere.
passages,
several of which portray cooking and cleaning asfeminine activities. Three
passages describe women as cooking for their “mates.” In one passage,Çiçek
makes strawberry marmalade (reçel) to surprise her husband, who during
breakfast the daybefore murmured, “I wish there was reçel.” In the passage
about Pnar, who cooks leek for her“mate,” the husband’s contribution to dinner
is limited to setting the table with his wife. Men’s limited role in cooking is
exemplified well in a third reading passage in which Abdi (the man) asks Birsen
(the woman) to make a salad to have with their green beans. Birsen responds,
“Washthe tomatoes. You should make the salad.” In these passages, Turkish men
expect their spousesto cook for them. However, they have changed slightly as
they now help their wives set the tableand occasionally make the salad. With
their detailed descriptions of cooking, the texts on leekand strawberry
marmalade read more like recipes, suggesting that an underlying purpose may
beto provide recipes to participants. This is significant considering that most
of literacy participantsare women, and it is women who are doing the cooking in
the texts. Thus, the assumption maybe that the participants will use these
recipes at home. In another paragraph-long passage, readersare introduced to
Ülker, a woman who washes the dirty tulle curtains in a washing machine, dries
them on a clothesline, and then irons them. Doing laundry is a quintessentially
female householdtask, which is a labor intensive chore in a country where
driers are scarce and washing machineshave been widely available for only two
decades.
Four reading
passages depict men as the financial provider in the relationship. In
twopassages, the men buy jewelry for the women; in the third the man is the
newlywed husband, andthe last indicates nothing about the nature of the relationship.
Although buying jewelry does notnecessarily correspond to providing for the
family, this activity is significant because none of thereading passages
describe women giving objects of material value to men. In the third
story,Hayriye convinces her husband to buy a new carpet, stating that it would
be embarrassing forguests to see the old one. At first, the husband replies,
“We do not need a carpet,” but then isconvinced because of Hayriye’s
“explanations.” That the husband needed to be persuadedsuggests that he
exercised more authority over household spending.
Even when the
women in these passages do provide for themselves financially, they arestill
expected to continue performing unpaid housework. Thus, the text both reflects
andreinforces the second shift (Hochschild, 2003), an inequitable division of
labor that remains“deeply entrenched” in Turkey (O’Neill &Guler, 2009, p.
171). In a passage about Ferhat, ayoung woman who works in a textile shop, we
learn that when women have a job and contributeeconomically to the household,
they also do the housework. Because the text describes thissituation in a
matter-of-fact manner, it does not appear to be making a value statement.
However,the failure to mention the unequal sexual division of labor—we have no
idea what men do oncethey are home, for instance—implicitly validates this as a
natural, fair arrangement.
Similarly, the
textbook transmits conventional ideas about what kind of paid work
isappropriate for men and women. In “Phone Call,” two women talk about a hand
madetablecloth.One of the women, an artisan who creates home decorations,
writes down the size of thetablecloth being ordered. The association of crafts
with women is also evident in a five-sentencepassage about Eda and her
grandmother who weave a kilim (a rug traditionally hand-woven bywomen). Note
that Eda was not described as, say, a shop owner who sells kilims to tourists
inIstanbul, in which case she would enjoy significantly higher earnings. The
women’s informaleconomic activities contrast sharply with the story of Zeki, a
man who, upon completing aliteracy course, enrolls in a computer course and, to
the surprise of his friends, goes on to “work
on computers.” We learn at the end of the story
that “Zeki now wants to work in a privatecompany.” By choosing to portray women
as craftspeople, a poorly paid informal economicactivity, and men as
professionals working in relatively well-paid fields such as technology,these
passages tacitly condone gender stratification in economic activity.
In addition to
providing financial stability and pursuing professional careers, men
areportrayed in the textbook as authority figures, both in and outside of the
family. For instance, in ashort reading passage about two friends who share
their troubles, the female character onlylistens when the man is talking. After
sharing her worries, the female character receives“wisdom” (ondanakilaldi) from
him. Although there are passages in which men and womeninteract, none depicts a
female character providing advice to a man. In “Rights andResponsibilities,” a
passage about a family that is relocating due to the husband’s job, the
fatheris described as the disciplinarian. The children do not listen to their
mother and assist withpacking. Instead, they ignore and talk back to her,
saying, “What’s your problem this early in themorning?” Only when the father
threatens to cut their allowance and “playing privileges,” dothey start packing
for the move. The text states that the children “did not have the courage to
ask[their father] the reason”; they simply obeyed. Here, the father is depicted
as the authority figurein the family, paralleling traditional Turkish notions
of masculinity.
Finally, by
presenting communication as the solution to overcoming troubles in
romanticrelationships, the literacy primer ignores the systemic gender
inequities that contribute to suchproblems. For instance, the last sentence of
the passage in which the woman convinces the manto buy a carpet states, “They
were both content as they could solve this problem throughtalking.” The
emphasis on communication is more significant in the passage, “Communication
inthe family.” After establishing that “the most important communication in the
family is betweenspouses,” the text advises readers to be honest in expressing
their feelings; to make use of tactilecommunication; to refrain from making
generalizations, lecturing their spouse, and blamingthem in expressing
frustrations; to maintain eye contact; and to try to understand each other’sviewpoints.
Both of these passages imply that communication skills are the underlying cause
of,and solution to, relational problems. Although communication is vital to
healthy relationships,this focus obscures the structural causes of relational
strife. In a country where physical violenceagainst women is common, where
women have less decision-making power in the household,where women have primary
responsibility for childrearing and domestic work, and wherewomen’s sexuality
and physical mobility are controlled by men, it is unrealistic and misleadingto
claim that adopting a particular style of communication would resolve such
problems.
Discussion and Conclusion
In a textbook
with chapters by different authors, a variety of discourses may coexist orclash
with each other. Despite the text’s diffuse authorship, we found two primary
Discoursesthat reinforce predominant conceptions of gender in Turkey (O’Neill
&Guler, 2009; Parla, 2001;SahinogluPelin, 1999). The normative parenting
Discourse designates mothers as caretakers ofthe children, and fathers as
discipliners, whereas the Discourse of the sexual division of laborconnects the
men to the outside, public world, and women to the private, domestic world.
Thereading passages and images in this text depict not only how the world is,
but also how it ought to be. In so doing, they transmit ideologies that justify
gender hierarchies as natural. Yeti!kinlerOkuma
YazmaÖ"retimiveTemelE"itimiKitab is now the dominant textbook in
Turkish adultliteracy programs. Moreover, the majority of Turkish literacy
participants are women. As such,
this text’s gendered discourses have the
potential to shape how both male and female literacyparticipants view
masculinity and femininity, childrearing, and gender roles and responsibilitiesin
the family, society, workplace, and other institutions, how they enact their
identities as menand women, and the kinds of identities they envision for
themselves in the future.
The Discourse
of the sexual division of labor in the textbook does not challenge
genderstratification in the Turkish labor market, such as women’s low rate of participation
in the paidlabor force and their longer duration of unemployment compared to
male counterparts (Gürsel,Darbaz&Güner, 2009). At 26.1%, Turkish women’s labor
force participation is the lowestamong European countries, nearly 25% lower
than Italian women (Gürsel, Uysal-Kola!in&Dinçer, 2009). Even though the
assumption of these labor market participation studies is thatincreasing the
number of women who are actively employed in Turkey would reduce poverty and
increase national economic output, the textbook we studied depicts a world
where womenare mainly restricted to the privacy of home. Gürsel, Darbazand
Güner (2009) posit that femaleearnings are considered additional income since
men are the primary breadwinners. Whenevaluating a possible job opportunity,
women take into account the value of their domestic workas an alternative,
which might be socially preferred to working. Lack of affordable childcaremakes
the situation for urban working women especially difficult. This adult literacy
textbook,then, does little to help women imagine new occupational
possibilities. Similarly, the Discoursethat associates childrearing and
caretaking with mothers and discipline with fathers is alsocongruent with
existing gender roles and identities in Turkey. Despite recent changes in
attitudesamong some Turkish women, the dominant view is that women are largely
responsible forchildcare and housework even when they work outside the home
(O’Neill &Guler, 2009).Furthermore, at least one of the passages suggests
that children look up to their fathers ratherthan their mothers as a legitimate
source of authority.
Together, the
Discourses in the literacy textbook reinforce prevailing gender ideologies
inTurkey, which hold that “Men are responsible for family decisions and
finances and remain incontrol while women take care of the house and children
regardless of whether or not they arealso in the paid work force. (O’Neill
&Guler, 2009, p. 171). This study indicates that thetextbook does not
expose or challenge existing gender hierarchies. This does not necessarilymean
that literacy participants passively accept such messages or that the material
is useless, as itcould hypothetically be used in classrooms with a critical
perspective. Should adult educatorswish to question the assumptions about
gender in the literacy curriculum and society, this study offers insights that
can aid such a critical reading.
III.
Language Ideologies & Media Discourse
3.1.Theory of ideology
The
theory of ideology that informs the discourse analytic approach of this paper
is multidisciplinary. It is articulated within a conceptual triangle that
connects society, discourse and social cognition in the framework of a critical
discourse analysis (van Dijk, 1993b). In this approach, ideologies are the basic
frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social
groups, organizations or institutions. In this respect, ideologies are both
cognitive and social. They essentially function as the interface between the
cognitive representations and processes underlying discourse and action, on the
one hand, and the societal position and interests of social groups, on the
other hand. This conception of ideology also allows us to establish the crucial
link between macro level analyses of groups, social formations and social
structure, and micro level studies of situated, individual interaction and
discourse.
Social
cognition is, here, defined as the system of mental representations and
processes of group members (for details, see, e.g., Fiske and Taylor, 1991;
Resnick, Levine and Teasley, 1991). Part of the system is the socio cultural
knowledge shared by the members of a specific group, society or culture. Thus,
feminists may share attitudes about abortion, affirmative action or corporate
glass ceilings blocking promotion, or other forms of discrimination by men.
Ideologies, then, are the overall, abstract mental systems that organize such
socially shared attitudes. The feminist attitudes just mentioned, for instance,
may be internally structured and mutually related by general principles or
propositions that together define a feminist ideology. Similar examples may be
given for racist, anti-racist, corporate or ecological attitudes and their
underlying ideological systems.
Through
complex and usually long-term processes of socialization and other forms of
social information processing, ideologies are gradually acquired by members of
a group or culture. As systems of principles that organize social cognitions,
ideologies are assumed to control, through the minds of the members, the social
reproduction of the group. Ideologies mentally represent the basic social
characteristics of a group, such as their identity, tasks, goals, norms,
values, position and resources. Since ideologies are usually self-serving, it
would seem that they are organized by these group-schemata. White racists, for
example, represent society basically in terms of a conflict between whites and
non-whites, in which the identity, goals, values, positions and resources of
whites are seen to be threatened by the others. They do so by representing the
relations between themselves and the others essentially in terms of us versus
them, in which we are associated with positive properties and they are
associated with bad properties.
Such
ideologies of groups and group relations are constructed by a group-based
selection of relevant social values. Feminists, on the one hand, select and
attach special importance to such values as independence, autonomy and
equality. Racists, on the other hand, focus on self-identity, superiority of
the own group, and hence on inequality, while at the same time advocating the
primacy of their own group and the privilege of preferential access to valued
social resources.
The
contents and schematic organization of group ideologies in the social mind
shared by its members are a function of the properties of the group within the
societal structure. The identity category of a group ideology organizes the
information as well as the social and institutional actions that define
membership: who belongs to the group, and who does not; who is admitted and who
is not. For groups who share a racist ideology, this may mean, among other
things, resentment, actions and policies against immigration and integration in
our culture, country, city, neighborhood, family or company. Similarly, the
goal category of groups who share a racist ideology organizes the information
and actions that define the overall aims of the group, e.g., To keep our
country white. The position category defines the relations of the group with
reference groups, such as, foreigners,immigrants, refugees or blacks. In sum,
the social functions of ideologies are, among others, to allow members of a
group to organize (admission to) their group, coordinate their social actions
and goals, to protect their (privileged) resources, or, conversely, to gain
access to such resources in the case of dissident or oppositional groups.
As
basic forms of social cognitions, however, ideologies also have cognitive
functions. We have already suggested that they organize, monitor and control
specific group attitudes. Possibly, ideologies also control the development,
structure and application of socio-cultural knowledge. To wit, feminists have
special interest in acquiring and using knowledge about the dominance of women
by men. Generally though, we shall assume that ideologies more specifically
control evaluative beliefs, that is, social opinions shared by the members of a
group.
At
this mental interface of the social and the individual, however, ideologies and
the attitudes and knowledge they control, also - indirectly - influence the
personal cognitions of group members, e.g., the planning and understanding of
their discourses and other forms of (inter)action. These personal mental
representations of people s experiences of such social practices are called
models (Johnson-Laird, 1983; van Dijk, 1987b; van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983).
Models are mental representations of events, actions, or situations people are
engaged in, or which they read about. The set of these models represents the
beliefs (knowledge and opinions) people have about their everyday lives and
defines what we usually call peoples experiences. These models are unique and
personal and controlled by the biographical experiences of social actors. On
the other hand, they are also socially controlled, that is, influenced by the
general social cognitions members share with other members of their group. This
combined presence of personal and (instantiated, particularized, applied )
social information in mental models allows us not only to explain the
well-known missing link between the individual and the social, between the
micro and the macro analysis of society, but also to make explicit the
relations between general group ideologies and actual text and talk. That is,
models control how people act, speak or write, or how they understand the
social practices of others. We, thus, have the following, highly simplified
elements in the relations between ideologies and discourse at various levels of
analysis (outlined in Table):
Ideologies and discourse: Levels of analysis
1.
Social Analysis
·
Overall
societal structures, e.g., parliamentary democracy, capitalism
·
Institutional/Organizational
structures, e.g., racist political parties
·
Group
relations, e.g., discrimination, racism, sexism
·
Group
structures: identity, tasks, goals, norms, position, resources
2.
Cognitive Analysis
2.1. Social cognition
·
Socio-cultural
values, e.g., intelligence, honesty,
solidarity, equality
·
Ideologies,
e.g., racist, sexist, anti-racist, feminist, ecological ...
·
Systems of
attitudes, e.g., about affirmative action, multiculturalism ...
·
Socio-cultural
knowledge, e.g., about society, groups, language, ...
2.2. Personal cognition
2.2.1 General (context free)
·
Personal
values: personal selections from social values
·
Personal
ideologies: personal interpretations of group ideologies
·
Personal
attitudes: systems of personal opinions
·
Personal
knowledge: biographical information, past experiences
2.2.2 Particular (context-bound)
·
Models: ad hoc
representations of specific current actions, events
·
Context models:
ad hoc representations of the speech context
·
Mental plans
and representation of (speech) acts, discourse
·
Mental
construction of text meaning from models: the text base
·
Mental
(strategic) selection of discourse structures (style, etc.)
3. Discourse Analysis
·
The various structures of text and talk.
In other
words, ideologies are localized between societal structures and the structures
of the minds of social members. They allow social actors to translate their
social properties (identity, goal, position, etc.) into the knowledge and
beliefs that make up the concrete models of their everyday life experiences,
that is, the mental representations of their actions and discourse. Indirectly
(viz., through attitudes and knowledge), therefore, ideologies control how
people plan and understand their social practices, and hence also the
structures of text and talk.
Ideologies
define and explain the similarities of the social practices of social members,
but our theoretical framework at the same time accounts for individual
variation. Each social actor is a member of many social groups, each with their
own, sometimes conflicting ideologies. At the same time, each social actor has
her/his own, sometimes unique, biographical experiences ( old models ),
attitudes, ideologies and values, and these will also interfere in the
construction of models, which, in turn, will influence the production (and the
comprehension) of discourse. Hence, the schema given above may be read top
down, or bottom up. The relations involved are dynamic and dialectic :
ideologies partly control what people do and say (via attitudes and models),
but concrete social practices or discourses are themselves needed to acquire
social knowledge, attitudes and ideologies in the first place, viz., via the
models people construct of other s social practices (including others
discourses) (van Dijk, 1990).
At many
points, the theoretical approach to ideology is at variance with classical and
other contemporary approaches to ideology (see Eagleton, 1991; Larrain, 1979;
Thompson, 1984, 1990). Ideologies in this perspective are not merely systems of
ideas, let alone properties of the individual minds of persons. Neither are
they vaguely defined as forms of consciousness, let alone as false consciousness.
Rather, they are very specific basic frameworks of social cognition, with
specific internal structures, and specific cognitive and social functions. As
such, they (also) need to be analyzed in terms of explicit social psychological
theories (see also Rosenberg, 1988), which obviously has nothing to do with mentalist
reductionism. At the same time they are social, for they are essentially shared
by groups and acquired, used, and changed by people as group members in social
situations and institutions, often in situations of conflicting interests
between social formations (Eagleton, 1991). However, ideologies are not
restricted to dominant groups. Oppositional or dominated groups also share
ideologies. The main problem of most critical approaches to ideology is that
they are exclusively inspired by social sciences and rather confused
philosophical approaches. They ignore detailed and explicit cognitive analysis,
and so they are unable to explicitly link social structures with social
practices and discourses of individuals as social members. Ideologies or other
social cognitions in our approach are not reduced to or uniquely defined in
terms of the social practices they control (Coulter, 1989), nor to the
discourses that express, convey or help reproduce them (Billig et al., 1988;
Billig, 1991), or to the institutions in which they are reproduced. (For
different but related approaches, see, e.g., Fairclough, 1989, 1992a; Kress and
Hodge, 1993.)
3.2 Media Discourse
According
to Cotter’s 2001 study, academic research in media discourse analysis generally
falls into four broadly defined approaches 1. Critical; 2. Narrative/pragmatic;
3.Comparative/intercultural; and 4.Media/communication studies; While each
of these approaches involves slightly different methodological techniques,
there is, more often than that not, overlap between and among them when
researchers carry out their analysis (ibid, p.417). These techniques warrant a
more detailed explanation as to what they entail and the results they provide a
researcher in the broad sense, but specifically which of these approaches were
incorporated in this analyzed and how.
The critical approach within media
discourse analysis reveals societal inequalities in power relations while invoking a call to action. It
does this by offering interpretations of meaning rather than quantifying
textual features; situation discourse in the context in which it occurs, rather
than summarizing tendentious patterns in texts; and adopting the view that
meaning is co-constructed through the author-text-reader interactive
relationship, rather than promoting the view that all readers interprets texts
in the same manner (Richardson, 2007, p.5). This analysis calls for a movement
to bring about change in translated media discourse through enhanced language
training, heightened cultural sensitivity, and more rigorous international news
agencies’ hiring practices. As well, the argument presented here parallels
Fairclough’s analysis of economic discourse: media discourse – like its
economic counterpart – is partial and holds a particular position in society
offering little variation in its framing (the discourse is usually foreignized,
not domesticized) relaying a specific perspective wherein lies a particular set
of interests (2001, p.151).
The narrative/pragmatic/stylistic approach
is largely associated with analyzing the structure of the news discourse
because it evaluates linguistic elements at the discourse level highlighting
presentation, perspective, writing style, register, and audience reactions to
texts (Cotter, 2001, p.418).
The comparative/cross-cultural approach
reveals the roles of culture and politics in new media production highlighting
news practices not readily apparent their western counterparts (Cotter, 2001,
p.419).
The media/communication studies approach
employs either “traditional positivistic research protocols and content
analyses or work from the insights of cultural studies, semiotics, social
theory, and social history, aspects of language or discourse may not be
addressed as such” (Cotter, 2001, p.419) While the majority of the research
carried out in this current study is based on comparative linguistic analyses,
some ‘non-linguistic’ social issues are touch upon per Richardson’s proposed
means of analyzing newspaper discourse: 1. Material realities of society in
general (i.e., the economic journalism); 2. Journalism practices; and 3.The
function and character of journalistic language (2007, p.2). The economics of
journalism and journalism practices were previously explored in this study
paving the way for a thorough examination of journalistic language its effect
on translated articles and by extension its readership.
Examples:
Critical Discourse Analysis of Political TV Talk Shows of Pakistani
Media
Hafiz
Ahmad Bilal
Department
of English, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
HafizaSaima
Akbar (Corresponding author)
Department
of English, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
Abstract
This
research paper aims at analyzing media discourse, particularly political TV
talk shows through the application of Critical Discourse Analysis. Here, we
have particularly tried to analyze the media discourse of political TV talk
shows of a private TV channel of Pakistan. The purpose of CDA is to unravel the
manipulation of consideration and to learn how certain elements have helped in
analyzing their positions as a powerful body and this is of course made
possible through the analysis. We have adopted certain techniques in order to
do the analysis. The show is not taken as a whole but certain headlines have
been taken into consideration for the analysis. Through the available material
provided by certain CDA analysts, such as van Dijk, the research was made from
an entirely different dimension aiming at new horizons critically analyzing the
media and political discourse.
Keywords:
Critical discourse analysis, Media, Political talk shows, van Dijk
1.
Introduction
1.1
What is Discourse?
Since
its introduction to modern science the term 'discourse' has taken various,
sometimes very broad, meanings. In order to specify which of the numerous
senses is analyzed in the paper under discussion, it has to be defined
properly. Originally the word 'discourse' comes from Latin 'discursus'
which denoted 'conversation, speech' .Thus understood, however, discourse
refers to too wide an area of human life, therefore only discourse from the
vantage point of linguistics, and especially applied linguistics, is explained
here. Discourse analysis is a qualitative method that has been adopted and
developed by social constructionists . Although discourse analysis can and is
used by a handful of cognitive psychologists, it is based on a view that is largely
anti-scientific, though not anti-research. Social constructionism is not easy
to define, but it is possible.
There is no
agreement among linguists as to the use of the term discourse in that some use
it in reference to texts, while others claim it denotes speech which is for
instance illustrated by the following definition:
"Discourse (is) a continuous stretch of (especially spoken)
language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a
sermon, argument, joke, or narrative" (Crystal 1992:25).
On
the other hand Dakowska , being aware of differences between kinds of
discourses indicates the unity of communicative intentions as a vital element
of each of them. Consequently she suggests using terms 'text' and 'discourse'
almost interchangeably betokening the former refers to the linguistic product,
while the latter implies the entire dynamics of the processes. According to
Cook, novels, as well as short conversations or groans might be equally
rightfully named discourses.
Seven
criteria which have to be fulfilled to qualify either a written or a spoken
text as a discourse have been suggested by Beaugrande (1981). These include:
Cohesion:
grammatical and logical relationship between parts of a sentence essential for
its interpretation
Coherence:
the order of statements relates one another by sense.
Intentionality:
the message has to be conveyed deliberately and consciously.
Acceptability:
indicates that the communicative product needs to be satisfactory and the
audience approves it.
Informativeness:
some new information has to be included in the discourse;
Situationality:
circumstances in which the remark is made are important;
Intertextuality:
reference to the world outside the text or the interpreters' schemata;
Nowadays,
however, not all of the above mentioned criteria are perceived as equally
important in discourse studies, therefore some of them are valid only in
certain methods of research.
1.2
Features of Discourse
Since
it is not easy to unambiguously clarify what a discourse is, it seems
reasonable to describe features which are mutual to all its kinds. To do it
thoroughly Saussure’s concepts of langue and parole are of use. Ferdinand
de Saussure divided the broad meaning of language into langue, which is
understood as a system that enables people to speak as they do, and parole -
a particular set of produced statements. Following this division discourse
relates more to parole, for it always occurs in time and is internally
characterized by successively developing expressions in which the meaning of
the latter is influenced by the former, while langue is abstract. To list some
additional traits, discourse is always produced by somebody whose identity, as
well as the identity of the interpreter, is significant for the proper
understanding of the message. On the other hand langue is impersonal that is to
say more universal.
1.3
What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?
Critical
discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are
enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political
context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take
explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist
social inequality. Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the
critical theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War.
CDA
is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to many others
"approaches" in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a
different "mode" or "perspective" of theorizing, analysis,
and application throughout the whole field. We may find a more or less critical
perspective in such diverse areas as pragmatics, conversation analysis,
narrative analysis, rhetoric, stylistics, sociolinguistics, ethnography, or
media analysis, among others.
Crucial
for critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in
society. Continuing a tradition that rejects the possibility of a
"value-free" science, they argue that science, and especially
scholarly discourse, are inherently part of and influenced by social structure,
and produced in social interaction. Instead of denying or ignoring such a
relation between scholarship and society, they plead that such relations be
studied and accounted for in their own right, and those scholarly practices Critical
Discourse Analysis is based on such insights. Theory formation,
description, and explanation, also in discourse analysis, are socio-politically
"situated," whether we like it or not. Reflection on the role of
scholars in society and the polity thus becomes an inherent part of the discourse
analytical enterprise. This may mean, among other things that discourse
analysts conduct research in solidarity and cooperation with dominated groups.
Critical
research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to
effectively realize its aims:
• As
is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be
"better" than other research in order to be accepted.
• It
focuses primarily on, social problem and political issues, rather than
on current paradigms and fashions.
•
Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary.
•
Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain
them in terms of properties of social interaction and especially social
structure.
•
More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in
society.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize
the main tenets of CDA as follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems.
2. Power relations are discursive.
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture.
4. Discourse does ideological work.
5. Discourse is historical.
6.
The link between text and society is mediated.
7.
Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8.
Discourse is a form of social action.
Whereas
some of these tenets have also been discussed above, others need a more
systematic theoretical analysis, of which we shall present some fragments here
as a more or less general basis for the main principles of CDA.
1.3.1
Research Implications of CDA
As
for as this research paper is concerned, it aims to analyze the hidden
objectives of politicians and anchors by analyzing certain talk shows which are
telecasted on television.
2.
SAMPLE
how: Aaj
Kamran Khan k Saath(1)
(1)Telecast on
12 December 2011 on Geo News Channel
2.1 Back Ground
of this programme
This show is
most viewed show of private television on GEO News and this programme aims to
shed a light upon the background of headlines. Here the anchor used different
types of remarks for politicians and for Government. Here the aim of CDA is to
show the power domination and also to explore certain parties by unrevealing
hidden agendas and motives.
2.2 Headline No
1
The programme
we have chosen is “AJ KAMRAN KHAN K SATH” on “GEO NEWS” and the programme is
divided into three halves and hot debated issue is about “THE HEALTH ISSUE OF
PRESIDENT ASIF ALI ZARDARI”. The show starts with the subject headlines which
is
“SadarZardarikisehat
– Qoam se khailkhelajarahahai.Aj b such naibtayagya”
Basically there
was only one guest which was named as “Muhammad Maalik” the senior editor of
“THE NEWS”. In this program me there were some other issues which were also
discussed but the hottest debating issue was about the health of President
Zardari. This issue dominated all the other issues in this program me.
There were
contradictions in the speech of Kamran Khan, Muhammad Maalik as well as PM
Gillani. In this programme only the recorded interview of PM Gillani was
on-aired.
The
expressions, the words, the complete dominance over the subject matter and all
the hidden agenda’s will be unravelled.
2.2.1 Analysis
The anchor
started with telling us that now is 9th day that President is still in Dubai
due to illness. What is the game? Why the politicians are playing with the
emotions of public? He firstly said that president has gone for routine
check-up in Dubai and he was suffering from heart problem but the point of
contradiction in his own statements is showed when he on-aired the interview of
PM Gillani , which he gave the “DAWN NEWS” and which was published in which he
said that;
“Zardari calls
Gillani; says he is all right”
On the other
hand, the anchor is trying to arouse the sense of curiosity in the nation by
saying that why he has left, no one knows the actual thing the actual motives
of his going to Dubai and likewise he is also saying that he has went for his
routine check up. And then suddenly he on-aired the news of DAWN in which
Gillani said something else. One more thing which has to be kept in mind is
that the president’s doctor Colonel Suleman said:
“he is all
right and just went for routine check up.”
Anchor said that
now the Col Suleman is also now vanished, no one is telling the truth that very
the president is there even now for 9 days?
All of this
conflict is his own talk shows that the anchor is basically trying to persuade
the nation about some secret happening, and at the same time was also
ridiculing PPP in the aspect of their doing and their talking.
And when Kamran
Khan, the anchor person, invites guest on video call, Muhammad Maalik , he said
that according to him,
“He is
suffering from manic depressive sacrossive disorder, also known as bipolar
disorder which is basically a swing of mood whether of over anxiety or over
excitement and that’s why he has went their for his check up”
One more thing
which he showed that in the DAWN NEWS paper, President Zardari said that
“The President
also said that
He left for
Dubai as he did not trust hospitals in Pakistan and that he would be back soon”
What is the
hidden agenda, hidden motives of the anchor behind all this saying? What he
wants to show by saying all the things which go against the PPP and President
Zardari.
When we try to
find out the background of the Kamran Khan then we will come to know that
Kamran Khan is basically on the side of PML (N). He always favours them and
basically try to show that how the PPP is discoursing and doing certain things
which are unknown. The health issue of Zardari is still unknown, no one knows
the reality and that’s why he chose it and try to enraged the nation and also
to invoke sense of curiosity in them. All the things, all the writings of news
which he showed eventually went against the president Zardari. He was basically
trying to cover up all the matter but it was not the actual matter. The actual
thing is that he actually raised more contradictions and more questions in the
mind of nation.
Secondly, if we
make a glance then it’s not a big thing that President went for his routine
check up to Dubai. Nawaz Shareef, when he was also ill, went to London for the
heart surgery and ShahbazShareef also to London for his check up.
But he had not
pointed out this thing fact. But by manipulating his power, he only criticizes
him in this way. He eventually manipulates his power. Otherwise it’s not a big
deal that president said that’s
“he left for
Dubai as he did not trust hospitals in Pakistan”
It is a fact
that a big Political leader always go foreign for their check-up because if
opposition come to know about their weak points , they manipulate them and of
course , he is not only big political figure but also the President of Pakistan.
He has to adopt certain parameters for his safety. And the other thing is that
politicians very nearly gave information about their illness because of the
certain security measures. Only the closed and near one’s know about it and no
other one is know about it.
It’s strange
and again and again, the anchor person is saying that now its 9th day and he
hasn’t come back, why? It’s an understood fact, it talks some times when there
is a routine check-up even. He is basically trying to show the dominance of
PML(N) .
Another thing,
which he mentioned is that PM Gillani has given an interview to “BBC NEWS” in
which he said;
“He is
improving and he is now out of I.C.U. He has been shifted to his room and I
think he will take rest for more two weeks”
What is going
on, no one knows then the guest which he invites. Muhammad Maalik said;
“its not a big
deal that he went to Dubai for check-up. But it not actually hearts problem but
some disorder.”
On the one hand
they are saying that he is fine and in the same way they are also saying that
he will recover soon. What is all this? They are actually contradicting their
own statements. Some things will become clear and he also said that;
“aglekuchdino m
kuchneyazrur ho ga or………………….”(URDU)
But he hasn’t
mentioned these things. Why he stops? Is there any hidden force which compels
to stop him by unrevealing things? Yes, there are certain forces which
basically stop him by unrevealing the things in clearway, and Anchor said that
the things will be soon cleared. The nation will be soon come to know about the
facts and reality?
And yes, one
more thing which Kamran has mentioned is about the hot debate between the
President and American EmbessidorMonter in the evening and also mentions that
the hospital in which he is under observation is also an American hospital,
what is the hidden agenda of anchor person behind this? Why he said so? What
was the reason? Why he mentioned the name of America specifically?
Basically, if
we examine, then we win come to know that from all the aspects he is just
trying to ridicule the PPP and also is not any part of this programme, favoured
for the Presidents health but in each and every moment , he just try to show
that this is the Drama propagated by PPP. He is not ill he has just gone for
mental relaxation, and to escape from this environment.
In talking with
guest on video call, both of them were focusing that something very important
is going to happen in Islamabad after the return of President Zardari. They
were from all aspects trying to say that PPP is not going to work more. All of
their talking shows that they are prejudiced against PPP and their motive is
basically to show that PPP is going to be finished. All the things are clear
cut.
2.3 Headline
No: 2
“Nawaz Shareef
ne sadarzardarikidukhti rag pe hath rakhdea- Larkanameinbarajalsa kea”
Show: Aj Kamran
Khan k sath
Anchor: Kamran
Khan
Guest: Mumtaz
Ali Bhutto(Chairman Sindh National Front)
What is shown
basically in this headline? It is very evident from this that he is
favouringPML(N).The issue of President’s health and then after it he said so.
This clearly shown he is in the favour of PML(N) and trying to guard them. When
things are put into cross then they become clear and if these two headlines are
put into cross than we will come to know very clearly that on which side he is?
To which he is in favour and to which he is not.
In this second
headline, he has very clearly described about the good doings of PML(N). Nawaz
Shareef said in the crowd that now the Government is over. All these things
basically show that he is favouringPML(N) and advocating them in a better way.
All the anchor persons basically, favour one party and all of them have their
own personal motives and here the motive of Kamran Khan is the advocacy of
PML(N) as compared to PPP.
Kamran Khan
asked the question to his guest that whether the people of Larkana will give
vote to the other party or not? He replied that;
“Definitely log
zarur vote den ge.Pahle b diahy or ainda b den gekyon k ablogun k leayjosorat e
halZardarikehukmaraninepaidakehywo is se nejatchahtyhain, bunyadisahulatnnihn,
byrozgarihy,mahngaehy,atay k leaybachaybechny party hain,wasaelnihoty to
khudkushikrtyhain,lognejaatketalashmnhen,kisiaurshakhsketalashmeinheinjoinkonijatdilaen”(urdu)
These words
clearly show that the guests whom he invites in his programme are basically
against PPP. Mumtaz Ali Bhutto in clear words said that now the Government is
over and this is the basic motive behind this programme is that they want to
advocate PML(N) and want to acknowledge that the reign of PPP is now no more.
There should be
change in government, in rules, in the country. Change is essential requirement
of today and this is the basic motive of Kamran Khan.
Kamran Khan’s
basic agenda, according to us is that he wants to disgrace PPP in the eyes of
the nation. It shows that there are certain forces which are working behind all
this. There is something which continuously pushes them to say against PPP and
certain other parties.
2.4 Source of
Research
There are lots
of models which have been constructed on CDA till today and will continue to do
so in the future. In this research, Van Djk’s model for political and modern
discourse is used. This model deals with each and every aspect of talks and
that’s why this paper determines the much hidden traits of individuals who are
here analyzed.
2.5 Conclusion
Now, it is
acknowledged that each show and every anchor has their own agendas and they
serve only the epitome of single of single public dominated society. To gain a
social power and the dominance, certain tactics are always used. These tactics
are always used and due to this certain political dominance is mentioned. CDA
in this respect has played a major role because it compels is to use critical
bent of mind and to analyze critical bent of time. Due to this we come to know
that how the anchor only favour one party and for this purpose. They used each
and every way in order to criticize other party and to negate it
Disclaimer
The programme
was purely analyzed for this research paper and that’s why no other meaning
should be extracted from this paper on the personal as well as political level.
REFERENCES
Fairclough,
N.1992. Critical Discourse Analysis:
the critical study of language, Longman;
London
and New York.
Fairclough, N.1991. Discourse and
Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N.1991. Language and
Power. London: Longman.
Tannen,
Deborah., Hamilton, Heidi E.. 2003.The
handbook of Discourse Analysis Edited by Deborah Schiffrin,; Blackwell
Publishers.
Taylor, C. 1986. Foucault on Discourse and Truth’. In
D.C. Hoy (ed.) Foucault: A Critical
Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, T. 1984. Studies in The
Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Thompson, T. 1984.Ideology and Modern
Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Discourse_analysis_as_ideology_analysis.pdf. Accessed on 5 December 2015.
Van Djik, T. 1990. Discourse and Society.A New Journey for
A New Research Focus’, Discourse and Society 1 (1):5-6.
Wodak, R. 1997. Gender and Discourse. Sage Publications,
London.
Wodak, R. 1991. Turning The
Tables: Antisemitic Discourse in Post-war Austria’. Discourse and Society 2 (1):65-83.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar