Textual Structures

The analysis of textual structures is focused on the question, ‘What are the roles of interactional conventions and larger-scale structures of these texts and transcripts’? Texts can be seen as either monologues or dialogues. The two policy texts under analysis here are a web site and a brochure and as such are monologues with the text constructed solely by the producer and communication flowing from text producer to text interpreters;

There are two interactional conventions evident in the policy producer interview

transcripts: taking turns talking and control of contribution (Fairclough, 2015). Turn-taking occurs throughout the interviews with a basic pattern of the analyst asking a question, the producer responding, the analyst asking a clarification or follow up question and again the producer responding. This pattern is quite normal in a semi-structured interview and demonstrates an understanding by all parties of the conventions of the interview format and indicates the acceptance of the social convention that cedes power to the interviewer in a standard interview situation. However, there are also several examples where the policy producer exerted their power in the interview. Fairclough (2015) outlines four devices which are used to control the contribution of others:

1. Interruption – one speaker cuts another off to take back or reinforce power. 2. Enforcing explicitness – one speaker forcing the other to clarify or make

unambiguous a previous statement.

3. Controlling topic – normally the more powerful speaker will control the topic if they choose to.

4. Formulation – one speaker rewording the other’s statement and feeding it back to them to control the wording of the original statement.

Each of these devices was employed at various times in the interviews: Analyst: ‘But it sounds like it’s pretty key the way government is set up’? Producer: ‘It would, I…’

Analyst: ‘It would be helpful’.

Producer: ‘I would think it would be extremely helpful, yes’.

The example above shows the analyst using all four devices to exert power over the policy producer by interrupting to formulate a half formed statement, thereby making it more explicit, around a topic that the analyst chose in the first place.

A second example shows a producer exerting their power by resisting an attempt by the analyst to do the same thing to them:

Analyst: ‘So, in terms of what there is for provincial policy and the objectives, goals, whatever it is, how do you communicate with school districts’?

Producer: ‘I don’t. That’s up to the Director’. Analyst: ‘Okay. So…’

Producer: ‘We have our lane, we have our little project that is going, but I don’t have any mandate… to communicate out to the province…’

These two examples demonstrate how the textual structures in dialogues can be dynamic and how power exists in all relationships and can be used both to control and to resist control as theorized by Foucault (1977). The second example, also provides the analyst some insight into the local social conditions of the policy texts’ production as it is apparent from the one statement that, at least at the time the interviews took place, the Director of the Aboriginal Branch controlled the communication between policy producers and policy interpreters.

The larger scale structures of the two policy texts are quite different as one is a web site designed for reading online and the other a tri-fold brochure, designed for physical distribution. However, both texts make use of their structures to provide “evidence” to support their messages. The Ministry website provides a structural clue as to the historical discourse that was prominent when the EA policy was formed by government. The lower half of the website (see Appendix 1) is a recounting, through historical evidence, of why EAs were brought into policy and recounts the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which ‘led to a framework for the creation of Enhancement Agreements’ (BC Ministry of Education, 2017a). The MOU, which is actually inserted into the website to lend authority, reads:

We the undersigned, acknowledge that Aboriginal learners are not experiencing school success in British Columbia. We state our intention to work together within the

mandates of our respective organizations to improve school success for Aboriginal learners in British Columbia (BC Ministry of Education, 2017a).

The MOU is used as historical evidence to support the rest of the section including the statement, ‘Historically, British Columbia schools have not been successful in ensuring that Aboriginal students receive a quality education…’ (BC Ministry of Education, 2017a). The structure of the website reinforces the assumption, expressed as an authoritative

discourse and supported by historical evidence (the MOU), that it is a school’s responsibility to ensure Aboriginal learners receive a quality education.

The EA brochure (Appendix 2) uses three contemporary quotes, including one from BC’s premier of the day, Gordon Campbell, as evidence to support the messaging of the

brochure. In addition, the brochure makes use of pictures and graphics to create a positive environment for its message. The three pictures show positive images of Aboriginal students in school settings and a large graphic on the back of the brochure highlights a piece of First Nation artwork. Two smaller graphics from the provincial government and the Ministry of Education both contain the phrase ‘British Columbia the Best Place on Earth’. Finally, the brochure, despite being a monologue, simulates a dialogue by framing the information it provides as responses to questions which may be posed by those affected by the EA policy. By simulating a dialogue, the messaging becomes less authoritative and more participatory creating the impression that the EA policy was constructed with the questions in mind. Taken together, the textual structures of the brochure indicate attention to relational issues and the desire of the producer to maintain positive relations with the interpreters of the brochure.

6.2. Conclusion

The description stage of CDA surfaces a number of normalizing vocabulary, grammar, and textual structures which appear to be designed to reproduce at least three discourses: policy making as a positive and supportive activity; schools not supporting Aboriginal students; and government having given schools and Aboriginal communities the policy tools to be successful (see table 6-3). These structures and discourses begin to answer the first research question, what are the discursive and social factors affecting and being affected through the production of BC’s EA policy? Specifically, the vocabulary, grammar and textual structures of both the texts and transcripts give the analyst hints that the texts are designed to reproduce the three discourses. Description of the policy producer interview transcripts uncovers further clues as to the social factors influencing the production of policy both at the local level and in the broader social setting. In the next chapter, I continue the CDA of the policy texts at the interpretation and description stages.