









































Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 
 
 

*Corresponding author – makim@ucalgary.ca  

Critical Discourse Analysis in Transcultural Spaces 

Lynn Downes, Marcia Kim*   

Queensland University of Technology, University of Calgary 
 

This article provides a brief overview of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), an 
analytical framework for studying power and inequalities in discourse 
(Fairclough, 1992; 2010). This overview includes a discussion of the specific 
characteristics of CDA in relation to two separate doctoral studies by students 
who participated in the 2017 International Doctoral Seminar and Conference 
in Brisbane, Australia. The first study is an examination of language change, 
regarding taboo language and swearing in secondary schools, and the second 
study is an exploration of soft skills in workplace communication. The article 
also presents and examines the personal reflections of the authors on how their 
transcultural experiences have enhanced their individual journeys, their 
knowledge of CDA, and their prospective research. 

 
Downes, L. & Kim, M. (2018). Critical Discourse Analysis in transcultural 
spaces. Emerging Perspectives, 3(1), 42-53. 

 

The 2017 International Doctoral Seminar and Conference, hosted by Queensland 
University of Technology (QUT) in Brisbane, Australia, provided students from QUT, 
Beijing Normal University (BNU), and the University of Calgary (UC) a supportive 
environment to share their doctoral research, experiences, and life stories. Through formal 
and informal activities,  seminar participants discovered shared values and interests with 
each other across cultural boundaries, thereby, developing transcultural competence 
(Slimbach, 2005). Transculturalism combines complex interconnections that unite different 
cultures. The internal complexities of societies develop these connections and external 
networks construct and develop links to other societies (Welsch, 1999). One such 
connection occurred when two students, one from Brisbane and one from Calgary, 
discovered they share a mutual interest: the study of language and society. Although their 
individual research projects were as diverse as their global positioning, the students 
employed the same methodology, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), in their doctoral 
research projects.    

This article begins with the first author explaining how her doctoral study about 
language change of taboo language and swearing, being completed in Brisbane, Australia, 
has employed Norman Fairclough’s CDA as an analytical approach. She also shares how 
the transcultural connection has aided in refining aspects of her study. This is followed by 
a description of the second doctoral study, being completed in Calgary, Canada. This study 
has used CDA and the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) in an examination of soft 
skills in workplace communication. The second author also shares her reflection on 
transculturalism as it is related to identity. Finally, the article addresses what the doctoral 
studies have in common to illuminate how CDA can be used in different transcultural 
spaces. 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  43 
 
 

 

Taboo Language Change and the Boundaries of Acceptable Verbal Conduct 
Norman Fairclough’s CDA approach was chosen for this particular study because it 

is useful for the examination of unequal power relations in discursive events (Fairclough, 
2003), especially in this case, taboo language use in secondary schools. In addition, 
Fairclough’s (1992) approach has also shown the role of discourse in constructing the social 
world, social identities, and influences in social change. The study, which is about language 
and language change, has focused on how school leaders and teachers respond to changes 
in swearing and taboo language use in secondary schools in South East Queensland. Data 
collection occurred during November and December 2017, constituting one-on-one 
interviews with nineteen school leaders and teachers, from fourteen different schools. Data 
also included behavioural policies from the Queensland education department and all 
participant schools. The researcher included policy analysis in order to add depth and 
complexity to the study. The study has focused not only on language and language change, 
but it has incorporated the social nuances that surround the use and judgment of language, 
specifically swearing and taboo language. 

Swearing has its origins in the Middle Ages when religious and oath swearing were 
popular linguistic practices. The current understanding of the word swearing is linked more 
closely to uttering profane oaths with emotion or in anger, but it can also be used more 
positively in formal ceremony when taking an oath. According to the literature (Ljung, 
2011; McEnery, 2005; Mohr, 2013), definitions of the term swearing vary. However, what 
remains consistent is that swearing must contain taboo words to qualify as swearing. Taboo 
is a type of social custom that prohibits certain behaviour or norms in society (Allan & 
Burridge, 2006). In a reactive process, the word or language that surrounds a taboo becomes 
fused with the taboo, and the word itself then becomes taboo. Each community or society 
will have their own set of rules and taboos and these will change over time. Similarly, the 
words associated with those taboos will change as well (Bergen, 2016). 

Being a social rather than an individual process, language change is inevitable; for 
the simple reason that when language is introduced into social circulation it changes (De 
Saussure, 1959).  Fairclough (1992) advised that using his approach to CDA is particularly 
useful when investigating change in language as well as studies in areas of social and 
cultural change. Humans construct culture in order to create community, through modes of 
meaning-making. These modes of meaning-making, which are fluid, unstable, and always 
changing, are formed and applied to all meaning systems: language, symbols, texts, signs, 
and discourse (Lewis, 2002). Social change does not only involve change in language use 
but also in language practices (Fairclough, 1992). The abovementioned study incorporated 
all of these aspects, namely language change, social and cultural change, and changes in 
language practices, therefore, supporting the choice in using CDA as methodology. 

The way society uses swearing and taboo language is changing along with its 
associated language practices. Adolescents use more swearing and taboo language than any 
other age bracket (Jay, 1992), and they are exposed to more swearing than in the past 
(Chirico, 2014). Swearwords are becoming more acceptable (Enfield, 2016). In fact, Adams 
(2016) suggested that we currently find ourselves in “the Age of Profanity”. The change, 
however, is controversial because, often, language is used as a form of negative social 
judgment especially in regard to swearing and the use of taboo language (Simon & 
Greenberg, 1996).  Negative social judgment was evident in data obtained from Queensland 
education institutions. The data indicated measures taken against students who employ 
taboo linguistic practices in school settings (Department of Education and Training, 2015), 
reflecting the institutional negative judgment for taboo language use. Education institutions 
situate themselves as moral gatekeepers of young people, imbuing socially valued 
conventions and standards required of future citizens (Doherty, Berwick, & McGregor, 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  44 
 
 

 

2016). Inappropriate linguistic practices, therefore, become part of a behavioural 
management or classroom control issue rather than a language issue, and the language use 
aligns with negative social behaviour. As a result, the institution and the students are drawn 
into this social and linguistic ideological discourse. 
  Discourse has many conflicting and overlapping definitions, all communicated from 
different disciplinary and theoretical standpoints. Discourse is seen in linguistics as spoken 
or written language. On the other hand, it can also be used to describe different types of 
language used in different social situations, for example, advertising discourse or classroom 
discourse. In social theory, the term is used to refer to varying ways of structuring social 
practice or areas of knowledge such as medical or legal discourse. Discourses not only 
represent social entities and relations but also construct or constitute them in varying ways. 
They position people as subjects in different ways, for example, as teachers or doctors, and 
it is these social effects that become the focus in discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003). Most 
importantly, historical change impacts how discourses combine and change to produce new 
more complex discourse (Fairclough, 1992). According to Fairclough (2003), discourse is 
language in use as an element of social life, which is interconnected with other elements. 

Fairclough’s CDA, therefore, encompasses language analysis and social theory 
using this more social-theoretical sense of discourse as well as a text and interaction 
linguistically oriented approach (Fairclough, 1992). Fairclough (1989) introduced a three-
dimensional approach that entails three stages of analysis namely description, interpretation, 
and explanation. First, there is the description of the text. In this instance, the text is any 
product, written or spoken, incorporating any other symbolic form of visual images 
(Fairclough, 1992). The second stage is the interpretation, where the researcher interprets 
the relationship between the text and the interaction. Last, the explanation expands on the 
relationship between the social context and the interaction (Fairclough, 1989). 

The three-dimensional approach sees any discursive event as being “simultaneously 
a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice” 
(Fairclough, 1992, p. 4). Language analysis takes place in the text dimension. The researcher 
targets the nature and process of text production, distribution, and interpretation in the 
discursive practice dimension.  The third-dimension targets social conditions and practices 
which may include ideological effects and hegemonic processes of discourse at various 
levels. These three stages as well as the three dimensions are interconnected, and analysis 
is not a linear process. During analysis, there is a constant alternation between interpretation 
to description and back to interpretation, keeping the social influences in mind during the 
process (Fairclough, 1992). 

The study under discussion used different texts. First, transcribed interviews, 
conducted with teachers and school leaders, make up one set of texts, while policy 
documents from the Queensland Education Department, as well as from the schools 
corresponding to the participant teachers and leaders, make up the second set of texts. The 
opportunity to employ different texts in analysis allows for types of meaning to be 
distinguished (Fairclough, 2003). There is a dialectical relation between actions, 
representation, and identification, which Fairclough (2003) described as genre or a way of 
acting; discourse, or a way of representing; and, style, or a way of being. Employing these 
as a focus during analysis incorporates the social perspective and social practice, not only 
the concrete social event, but also the more abstract social practices (Fairclough, 2003). 

The critical aspect of CDA reflects connections between power, language, and 
ideology that may not be apparent (Fairclough, 1989).  Ideologies are embedded in features 
of discourse and become assumptions or common sense with time. These assumptions and 
common sense eventually control the actions of members of society as well as the 
interpretations made by society on others. These assumptions are hidden, rarely questioned 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  45 
 
 

 

or examined, and often taken for granted. For ideology to be effective, it needs to be merged 
with common sense discourse and other forms of social action, to be hidden in order to 
contribute to and sustain existing power relations (Fairclough, 1989, 2003). The questions 
I then need to ask myself as a researcher are: How do I know that I am analysing the data 
without my own assumptions impacting my analysis? How do I separate the common sense 
from the analysis? Will I find the hidden?  

As mentioned earlier, transculturalism combines complex interconnections that 
unite different cultures, including external networks (Welsch, 1999). During the 
International Doctoral Seminar and Conference, I was able to explore the external networks 
available to develop and construct links to other societies and cultures. Those external 
networks were students and professors from BNU and UC. One fellow UC colleague who 
is also using CDA, was a perfect match to explore the intricacies of CDA and the differences 
in cultures. One of the discussions we had related to what Fairclough calls Members’ 
Resources (MR) (Fairclough, 1989). 

MR is the link between what is said, what is meant, and how interpretation is 
required in order to find out what the meaning is behind what was said. Humans will 
interpret by calling on an active process of matching representations stored in their long-
term memory. The representations are a diverse collection of grammatical forms of 
sentences, shapes of letters and words, properties of types of people and objects, typical 
structures of narratives, expectations for sequences of events for particular situations and so 
forth, and some may be linguistic. Included in MR is a person’s knowledge of language, 
representations of the natural and social worlds the person inhabits, beliefs, assumptions, 
and values. These are MR, and people draw upon them when they interpret or produce texts 
(Fairclough, 1989). 

MR are ideologically shaped and socially determined but are disguised as common-
sense understandings. MR have social origins but are cognitive in nature because they are 
in people’s heads. The social origins of a member’s resource are dependent on the social 
struggles and relations that generated them. They are then socially transmitted and often 
unequally distributed. People internalise social effects and use these internally stored MR 
to engage in social practice, including discourse. Therefore, social conditions and situations 
impact and shape MR, which then impact the way texts are produced and interpreted 
(Fairclough, 1989). 

During interpretation, I will employ a combination of what is in the text and what is 
in myself as the researcher, my own MR.  Along with this, my epistemological stance, my 
knowledge of the field as well as the theoretical lens I am using play an important role in 
influencing interpretations. This is where the transcultural experience of intellectual 
discussion with my Canadian colleague transformed my thinking on the topic of MR, 
analysis, and interpretation, and Fairclough’s CDA. Transculturalism is characterised by its 
emphasis on relationships and meaning-making in illuminating aspects of social connection 
(Lewis, 2002). My Canadian colleague shared her supervisor’s thoughts which aided my 
reflection on MR. She suggested I look at critiques of Fairclough’s stance on CDA to learn 
how others view the approach and find ways to prevent these criticisms from impacting my 
study. The following explanation distils a few of those critiques in relation to my study. 
 
Critiques of Critical Discourse Analysis 

The first critique is that discourse analysts, in order to make and substantiate claims, 
either over or under analyse data by taking sides or making mistakes in identifying features 
instead of analysing them correctly (Antaki, Billig, Edwards, & Potter, 2003). Fortunately, 
I have two very experienced supervisors on my team, one who is adept at Fairclough’s CDA, 
who will serve as boundary to my analysis. Additionally, ensuring I have a clear and 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  46 
 
 

 

thorough knowledge of Fairclough’s CDA will assist in a thorough and rigorous analysis 
that is not biased, over, or under analysed. A close engagement with my data and a constant 
reminder that analysis is what is required rather than summary, will assist in keeping the 
analysis true and reliable (Antaki et al., 2003).  

The second critique is that CDA fails to target interactional texts; texts that facilitate 
interaction between parties—such as conversation.  This critique tends to focus on written 
texts such as policy documents, lists, and newspaper articles that describe unequal power 
balances or encounters (Rampton, 2001; Teo, 2000). However, Rogers, Malancharuvil-
Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Joseph (2005) in their review of CDA literature found that 
education researchers are over-turning this critique by using CDA with interactional data. 
My study contributes to this development in CDA by using policy documents as well as 
interview transcription texts, allowing for a more robust analysis. 
  Another criticism directed at CDA is the lack of linguistic theory supporting some 
CDA studies (Rogers et al., 2005; Sawyer, 2002; Schegloff, 1993). CDA is a discursively 
based framework that is intent on analysing discursive events and discourse or language, 
therefore, supporting a CDA study with a linguistic theory contributes to strengthening the 
study. The theory underpinning my study has elements of Foucault’s (1972) theory of 
discourse as well as linguistic theories of De Saussure, which aim to allay this criticism and 
add rigor to the study.  
  A fourth critique of CDA is its weak use of context. Discussion occurs regarding 
isolated bits of texts that are plucked out of the context from their production, consumption, 
distribution, and reproduction, and subsequently analysed (Rogers et al., 2005). However, 
Rogers et al. (2005) found context has been addressed in many studies of CDA in 
educational settings but that the term context in its many forms has not yet been theorised 
adequately. The linguistic details of the interaction as well as the larger historical, social, 
and cultural contexts need to be addressed in addition to the contexts in which the 
interactions occur (Rogers et al., 2005). Fairclough (1989) mentioned context in 
interpretation, not only situational context but also intertextual and sequential, which are 
determined by discourse type. For me to analyse well, context of all forms needs to be 
considered and clearly outlined for my reader. For example, contextualising the participants, 
contextualising the linguistic interactions between speakers, and contextualising the larger 
social and/or cultural contexts is essential.  
  Interpretations are not universal (Dunne, Pryor, & Yates, 2005). They are subjective 
and dependent on the analyst’s MR, social and cultural influences, epistemological and 
ontological perspectives as well as on the specific theoretical lens the analyst is using to 
interpret and analyse the data. CDA “does not itself advocate a particular understanding of 
a text, though it may advocate a particular explanation” (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, 
p. 67).  In order to allay this concern, the interpretation and explanation of the analytical 
process needs to be clearly outlined in my study by keeping the above checklist in mind. 
Finally, reflexivity should be well documented (Rogers et al., 2005). I need to be aware of 
where I am in relation to the data; I am not outside of the text but present as data collector. 
I am adding to the process of constructing meaning by being part of the text. Therefore, 
when transcribing and analysing the data, I will be using my questioning as part of the text 
to be analysed. As a part of the linguistic analysis, I will be clear about how analysis has 
taken shape and why certain aspects of the text have been chosen. 

By using the transcultural connections and discussions with my Canadian colleague, 
I have been able to use critiques of Fairclough’s CDA as a tool to strengthen my own study. 
This reflection in itself could only have taken place as a result of the transcultural 
connections made during the 2017 International Doctoral Seminar. Those conversations, 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  47 
 
 

 

intellectual challenges, and experiences have impacted my study in a positive and 
progressive way and I am extremely grateful for the experiences. 
  The above discussion highlighted how transcultural connections aided in outlining 
steps to strengthen the use of CDA for the first author’s doctoral study.  In what follows, 
the second author discusses her doctoral study and how transculturalism influenced her 
research.  

 
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Nursing Communication 

The literature on International Educated Nurses (IENs) has reported IENs as having 
difficulty accessing the labor market in Canada (Higginbottom, 2014). In this study, IENs 
are registered nurses who received their nursing education and training overseas and who 
speak English as an additional language. The length and complexity of the immigration and 
qualification recognition processes, as well as attendant complications, impede entry to the 
labor market (Higginbottom, 2014). Compounding these difficulties are the disadvantages 
nurses encounter in the face of the current emphasis on soft skills (Windsor & Harvey, 
2012). Soft skills are socially constructed characteristics, which allow for people to get 
along with others in the workplace. The skills debate in recent years has raised questions 
about the nature of soft skills (Guo, 2015). In nursing, for example, soft skills and 
personality traits converge and are often given priority over nursing skills and technical 
knowledge, thereby devaluing nursing as a profession (Windsor & Harvey, 2012). Despite 
the high level of English proficiency of many IENs, soft skills and communication skills 
can be barriers to workplace integration (see Lum, Dowedoff, Bradley, Kerekes, & Valeo, 
2015; Staples, 2015).  

This study explores the perspectives of IENs about soft skills in workplace 
communication and how IENs conform to or resist soft skills in their nursing practice. Seven 
IENs participated in life story interviews between January and September 2018. Of the 
seven IENs, four participated in three life story interviews each and three in two life story 
interviews. The first interview focussed on the participant’s nursing education, training, and 
work experience prior to immigrating to Canada, and the second interview focussed on the 
participant’s nursing experiences and training in Canada, including perspectives on soft 
skills in workplace communication. The third interview followed up on themes of the IENs’ 
stories. I transcribed all eighteen life story interviews and have begun analysis.  

I am using the life story interview method, a type of narrative inquiry. The life story 
is an interdisciplinary approach and is used in psychology, anthropology, sociology, and 
education. It is used to understand a person’s life and how the person interacts with other 
people. For my study, I am following the conceptual framework John Atkinson (2007) has 
articulated. Atkinson described three parts to carrying out a life story interview.  First, in 
planning the interview, the researcher should understand the benefits of the life story. The 
researcher does not enter the interview with a pre-conceived set of interview questions; 
however, the interviewer should be prepared with open-ended questions to guide the story 
teller in developing their story. Second, in doing the interview, the researcher guides the 
story teller in the telling of his or her story. In this part, the researcher records the interview. 
Third, in transcribing and interpreting the interview, the researcher transcribes the life story, 
leaving out the interview questions. What the researcher ends up with is the person’s life 
story told in the person’s own words. At this stage, the researcher could send the transcript 
to the story teller who reviews it for accuracy. Finally, the researcher approaches the life 
story as text and reads and interprets it guided by a theoretical framework. 

One of the most attractive features of the life story interview method is that the text 
is in the story teller’s own words and own voice because of the minimal involvement of the 
researcher in providing questions during the interview. In my study, the voices of the IENs 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  48 
 
 

 

are so important to understanding the phenomenon of soft skills in nursing communication. 
In the literature on IENs, the voices of IENs are often not central to the study. The voices 
of power represented by institutions dominate the research (Baumann, Blythe, Rheaume & 
McIntosh, 2009; Zhou, 2014). The process of participating in a life story interview can help 
IENs connect their histories to their present and future experiences in ways that they may 
not have had access to before. I have used Fairclough’s CDA and Ruth Wodak’s DHA, a 
type of CDA, as frameworks to analyse the phenomenon of soft skills. 

Both CDA and the DHA focus primarily on how language affects power relations 
and inequalities among different groups of people in a globalizing world. They question 
ideology and hegemony to expose inequalities in discourse and focus on the role of 
discourse in the reproduction of power and dominance (Fairclough, 2010; Wodak, 2015). 
One of the criticisms of CDA is that it does not critically analyse the historical dimensions 
of the topic under study deep enough, whereas the DHA does include an analysis of the 
historical contexts of the topic to understand how the discourse was formed. Used together, 
life story, CDA, and the DHA form a strong methodology to critically analyse the soft skills 
discourse and the historical contexts in which this discourse began and continues to 
perpetuate.  

In particular, the DHA is interested in how language perpetuates ideology in 
different social institutions (Wodak, 2015). Gal (2006) defined language ideologies as 
“cultural ideas, presumptions, and presuppositions with which different social groups name, 
frame, and evaluate linguistic practices” (p. 13). An example of Gal’s conception of 
language ideology can be seen in the English-only policies at some hospitals. These policies 
require staff to speak only English while working, except in designated areas (Hendricks, 
2013). These policies are applied differentially to hospital staff. Staff whose only language 
is English will never be in violation of the policy because they can only communicate in 
English. At the same time, staff whose first language is not English are monitored to see if 
they are in violation of the policy. Membership in the first group frees one from having to 
worry about whether or not they are breaking the rule every time they communicate. This 
privilege occurs at the expense of the members of the second group, who must always 
monitor how they speak. English-only policies become language ideology when they 
become common-sense for all of the people affected by the policy. 

Wodak (2015) has described three approaches to text analysis in the DHA. The first 
is text or discourse-immanent critique. The purpose is to discover contradictions and 
paradoxes within discourses. The second is socio-diagnostic critique. This critique aims to 
clarify the characteristics of discourses by using theoretical models from different 
disciplines to understand the discourse.  The third is future-related prospective critique. This 
third critique aims to improve oppressive language behaviors in institutions and society in 
general. The us and them discourse is the foundation of discriminatory discourses and begins 
with labelling people, making generalizations, and giving reasons to include or exclude 
others (Wodak, 2004, p. 206). Asking certain questions is a strategy to analyse the 
development of prejudiced discourses. Wodak (2015) suggested the five questions below:  

 
1. How are people named and referred to linguistically?   
2. What characteristics, qualities, and features are attributed to them?  
3. What are the arguments that specific people or social groups use to justify excluding   

or including others?  
4. What perspective or point of view are these labels, attributions, and arguments given?  
5. How are the arguments and labelling articulated?  (p. 12) 

 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  49 
 
 

 

These questions are all concerned with presenting a “positive self and negative other” in 
discriminatory discourses (Wodak, 2001, p. 73). 
 Extending the discussion of critiques of CDA, Widdowson (1995) argued that 
critical discourse analysts provide only one interpretation of a text and project their 
interpretation onto the reader. Blommaert (1997) criticized the treatment of context or 
background such as facts, information, and context in CDA. He argued that in some CDA 
work, historical representations are accepted uncritically as facts. Blommaert (1997) raised 
questions in his critique: “when we give background to our data, whose background are we 
giving and who, when, and why were these facts produced?” (p. 71). Life story narrative 
and Wodak’s approach to text analysis are strategies to ensure the background given to the 
data in my study is accurate and balanced.  

Another critique of CDA is that it is theoretically and methodologically weak 
(Breeze, 2011). Critical discourse analysts tend to neglect a description of a language theory 
or details of the interaction between participants (Breeze, 2011). Other critics have argued 
that analysts do not approach the stages of CDA with enough criticality (Breeze, 2011). 
Despite these claims, Fairclough (2010) stressed that CDA requires a transdisciplinary 
approach because it regards “the theories, disciplines, and frameworks which are used in 
the analysis as sources of theoretical development” (Fairclough, 2010, p. 4). That is to say, 
CDA is not a specific methodology; it requires other theories, frameworks, and techniques. 
So, applying CDA, the DHA, and other frameworks to an examination of soft skills in 
workplace communication will provide a more productive framework than the current 
deficit model. 

The goals of my doctoral study align with the goals of CDA and the DHA: to expose 
ideological features of discourse (Fairclough, 2010) in relation to the phenomenon of soft 
skills in nursing and to analyse how soft skills are affected by power in healthcare. Power 
can be exercised in many ways, even when people are unaware of it. For example, educators 
and employers identified communication as the greatest barrier to workplace integration for 
IENs (Baumann, Blythe, Rheaume & McIntosh, 2009). A nurse manager reported that IENs 
“don’t get jokes, they don’t get sarcasm [and] they don’t get anger” (Baumann et al. 2009, 
p. 207). In this example, the nurse manager assumed authority to judge the IENs and 
assumed knowledge of the language needs of the IENs. On the one hand, the nurse 
manager’s identity was being challenged. On the other hand, the nurse manager’s comment 
excluded IENs. IENs are identified as the others because they are perceived as unable to 
understand humour, sarcasm, or anger. Otherness provides one with a reason for dislike or 
not understanding (Zhou, 2014) and being the other means not being accepted by peers as 
a valued and contributing member of the group. 

The literature encapsulates how IENs are singled out in the workplace because they 
are regarded as different and implies that IENs have to prove themselves to their co-workers 
and employers. This is difficult for IENs to do as the standard for satisfaction is set by 
gatekeepers for healthcare. However, literature has reported that IENs are able to transfer 
nursing competencies and apply prior work experience to new healthcare environments in 
Canada, thereby, successfully integrating into the Canadian workforce (St. Pierre et al., 
2015). IENs have stories to tell. This study is a step towards hearing their stories. 
 The past is always present, but identity is constructed for different people in different 
ways and in different contexts. When I was in Australia, I saw how different people related 
to their histories. I also became more aware of how my understanding of other people’s 
identities and the relationship to their history was part of my relationship to my history. 
Simple labels like student, Professor, visitor, and host, cannot fully express all that is 
relevant to who people are, and what the relationship to other people is. People can carry 
many layers of identity, but not everyone would describe themselves in terms of layered 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  50 
 
 

 

identity. One aspect of transculturalism is how people come to construct these multiple-
layered identities (Dean, 2007) with others who are doing the same thing, though they may 
not be fully aware that this is what they are doing together.  
 Reflecting on my experiences in Brisbane, the life stories my colleagues told were 
tied to their present identities as doctoral students and researchers. Identity is fluid and 
dynamic. Many of our conversations began with, “What are you researching?” We were not 
brought together to get to know each other on a personal level, but even talking about our 
academic experiences revealed so much about our histories.  A person’s life story connects 
their lived experiences and their history (Atkinson, 2007). One of the things that drew me 
to use life story in my research is the realization of how people’s identities and histories are 
tied up to their actions. Life story is a method for collecting data and studying people’s lives 
(Atkinson, 2007). Life story also reveals the layered aspects of the story teller’s identities 
and how they affect the stories they tell.  
 During the seminar, we shared common experiences. I got a deeper understanding of 
how history and identity are related to having experiences. I realized that even in a shared 
experience, there are individual points of view. I realized that when I think about how 
identity is layered that each layer might correspond to a point of view. To understand shared 
experience, I need to understand history. CDA is a promising way of analysing history. In 
my interactions with my fellow QUT colleague, our discussions about CDA have deepened 
my understanding of its potential as a research methodology. My academic aspirations 
connected me to members in the community and through those connections, I discovered 
“ways that others make sense of their world” (Slimbach, 2005, p. 209) which gave me a 
first-hand perspective of being transcultural in the 21st century. 
 

Discussion 
Researchers can use CDA and the DHA when they are interested in uncovering 

power in texts, language, discourse, and social practices (Lee & Otsuji, 2008; Wodak, 
2015). The different approaches relate power to asymmetric relationships between people 
who hold different positions in society (Wodak, 2015). In the first study, for example, an 
asymmetrical relationship exists between secondary school students who swear and use 
taboo language, their teachers, and the institution in general. In the second study, an 
asymmetrical relationship exists between IENs, hospital administrators, and policy makers. 

Through a critical analysis, the hidden connections in features of discourse can be 
identified and used to decode ideologies that eventually become assumptions. These 
assumptions inevitably control the actions, understandings, and behaviour and most 
importantly for this discussion, the discourse of society. Just like taboos in the first study, 
or deficit thinking in the second study, the assumptions are rarely questioned or examined 
and become accepted behaviour (Arthur, 2012; Fairclough, 2003).  

CDA and the DHA describe ideology as consisting of unbalanced opinions, 
attitudes, and evaluations (Wodak, 2015). Members of specific social groups share similar 
ideologies that help to maintain unequal power relations through discourse by “gate-
keeping” (p. 3). In the context of taboo language transgressions in Queensland secondary 
schools, the behavioural policy enactment of teachers and school leaders act as gate-keepers 
to suspension. In the context of IENs, the International English Language Testing System 
(IELTS) exam is an example of a gate-keeper for IENs applying to become a registered 
nurse in Canada.  

Both doctoral studies examine cultural structures in different transcultural spaces; 
responses to student language transgressions, and the language boundaries structured for 
healthcare professionals. Transculturalism is interested in social community, organisation, 
and social union, and is characterised by its emphasis on power formations, relationships, 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  51 
 
 

 

and meaning-making in contemporary culture (Lewis, 2002). Transculturalism emphasises 
the transient nature of culture. It seeks to highlight the various ways a culture creates and 
distributes meaning in social groups (Lewis, 2002). By connecting with colleagues in 
transcultural spaces during the 2017 International Doctoral Seminar and Conference, 
possibilities arose to illuminate these power formations and meaning-making systems.  

 
Conclusion 

Collaboration amongst doctoral students is a valuable part of the doctoral learning 
journey. A shared space for reflection as well as options for pedagogical transformation and 
peer communication is important for enhancing the doctoral journey (Aghaee & Hansson, 
2013; Moore, 2005). The 2017 International Doctoral Seminar and Conference held in 
Brisbane, Australia provided a forum to share experiences, reflect on research, expand 
knowledge, and communicate pedagogical learning. Not only that, but the social and 
academic connections made have further broadened and transformed how we see the world 
(Slimbach, 2005). Although transculturalism is often associated with power imbalances, 
“transculturalism defies race, religion, sexuality, class, and every sort of classification 
known to sociologists and marketers” (Berg, 2010, p. 10). Two doctoral students from vast 
geographical distances met in Brisbane and collaborated in an attempt to further improve 
their individual and combined academic and cultural knowledge. They continue to create 
knowledge of each other’s cultures and distribute this knowledge along with their respective 
cultures (Lewis, 2002) to fellow doctoral colleagues in transcultural spaces. 

References 
Adams, M. (2016). In praise of profanity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
Aghaee, N., & Hansson, H. (2013). Peer portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using 

self-managed peer review on a mass scale. International Review of Research in 
Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 186-203.  

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: taboo and the censoring of language. 
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2003). Discourse analysis means doing 
analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings.   

Arthur, R. (2012). You will die: The burden of modern taboos. Washington, USA: Feral 
House. 

Atkinson, R. (2007). The life story interview as a bridge in narrative inquiry. In D. J.  
Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 224-
245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.  

Baumann, A., Blythe, J., Rheaume, A., & McIntosh, K. (2009). Internationally educated    
nurses in Ontario: Maximizing the brain gain. Health Human Resources, 3(2), 1–43.  

Berg, W. (2010). Editors’ introduction: Exploring transculturalism. In W. Berg & A.   
Éigeartaigh (Eds.), Exploring transculturalism: A biographical approach (1st ed.). 
(pp. 7-18). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 

Bergen, B., K. (2016). What the F: What swearing reveals about our language, our brains, 
and ourselves. New York, NY: Basic Books. 

Blommaert, J. (1997). Whose background? Comments on a discourse-analytic  
reconstruction of the Warsaw Uprising. Pragmatics, 7(1), 69-81. 

Breeze, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics, 21(4), 493-525.  
Chirico, R. (2014). Damn!: A cultural history of swearing in modern America. Chicago: 

Pitchstone Publishing. 
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: 

Edinburgh University Press. 



Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  52 
 
 

 

Hendricks, J. (2013, March 4). Memo instructs hospital employees to only speak English 
while on the job. CTV News Winnipeg Retrieved from 
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/memo-instructs-hospital-employees-to-only-speak-
english-while-on-the-job-1.1181210 

De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). New York: 
Philosophical Library. 

Dean, D. (Producer). (2018, May 6). The fate of the common good [Audio podcast].  
Retrieved from goo.gl/a9ppFf 

Department of Education and Training. (2015). School disciplinary absences.   Retrieved 
from http://education.qld.gov.au/schools/statistics/absences.html 

Doherty, C., Berwick, A., & McGregor, R. (2016). Swearing in class: Sociolinguistic 
morality in dispute. Paper presented at the AARE, Melbourne, Australia.  

Dunne, M., Pryor, J., & Yates, J. (2005). Becoming a researcher: A research companion 
for the social sciences. Maidenhead: Open University Press. 

Enfield, N. (2016). Swearing demographics. The Project, Channel 10, Melbourne, 
Australia. 

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. 
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: 

Routledge. 
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). 

New York, NY: Routledge. 
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. 

Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. 
Gal, S. (2006). Migration, minorities and multilingualism: Language ideologies in Europe.  

In C. Mar-Molinero & P. Stevenson (Eds.), Language ideologies, policies and 
practices (pp.13 – 27). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Guo, S. (2015). The colour of skill: contesting a racialized regime of skill from the  
experience of recent immigrants in Canada. Studies in Continuing Education, 37(3), 
236-250. doi: 10.1080/0158037X.2015.1067766  

Higginbottom, G. (2014). The transitioning of internationally educated nurses (IENs) into  
the Canadian healthcare system [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://pie-

 ien.ca/Resources/Documents/Day1_Keynote_Higginbottom.pdf  
Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty language in the courts, 

in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the streets. Philadelphia, USA: John 
Benjamins Publishing Co. 

Lee, A. & Otsuji, E. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and the problem of methodology. In 
T. Le & M. Short (Eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: An interdisciplinary 
perspective (pp. 1–14). Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 

Lewis, J. (2002). From culturalism to transculturalism. Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 
1(14-32).  

Ljung, M. (2011). Swearing: A cross-cultural linguistic study. Great Britain: Palgrave 
Macmillan Ltd. 

Lum, L, Dowedoff, P., Bradley, P., Kerekes, J., & Valeo, A. (2015). Challenges in oral 
communication for internationally educated nurses. Journal of Transcultural 
Nursing, 26(1), 83-91.  

McEnery, T. (2005). Swearing in English. Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to 
the present. Abingdon: Routledge. 

Mohr, M. (2013). Holy Shit. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

http://pie-/
http://pie-/


Downes & Kim/ Emerging Perspectives (2019) 42-53  53 
 
 

 

Moore, J. (2005). Seven recommendations for creating sustainability education at the 
university level: A guide for change agents. International Journal of Sustainability 
in Higher Education, 6(4), 326-339.  

Rampton, B. (2001). Critique in interaction. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1), 83-107.  
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. (2005). Critical 

discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational 
Research, 75(3), 365-416.  

Sawyer, K. (2002). A discourse on discourse: An archaeological history of an intellectual 
concept. Cultural Studies, 16(3), 433-456.  

Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research 
on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99-128.  

Simon, L., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Further progress in understanding the effects of 
derogatory ethnic labels: The role of pre-existing attitudes towards the targeted 
group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1195-1204.  

Slimbach, R. (2005). The transcultural journey. The Interdisciplinary Journal of  
Study Abroad, 11, 205-230. Retrieved from goo.gl/B3uCZc 

Staples, S. (2015). Examining the linguistic needs of internationally educated nurses:  
A corpus-based study of lexico-grammatical features in nurse-patient interactions. 
English for Specific Purposes, 37, 122-136. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2014.09.002  

St. Pierre, I., Covell, C. L., Primeau, M., Kilpatrick, K., Ndengeyingoma, A., & Tchouaket,  
E. (2015). Factors that support the successful integration and retention of 
internationally educated nurses into the Canadian healthcare system. Retrieved from 
https://www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/ien 
webinar_e_oct2015.pdf?la=en 

Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A Critical Discourse Analysis of news reporting in two 
Australian newspapers. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 7-49.  

Welsch, W. (1999). Transculturality - The puzzling form of cultures today. In M.  
           Featherstone & S. Lash (Eds.), Spaces of Culture: City, nation, (pp. 194-213).  
           London: Sage. 
Windsor, C., Douglas, C., & Harvey, T. (2011). Nursing and competencies - a natural  

fit: the politics of skill/competency formation in nursing. Nursing Inquiry, 19(3), 
213-222. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00549.x  

Widdowson, H.G. (1995). Discourse analysis: a critical view. Language and Literature,  
4(3), 157 - 172. 

Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In. R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.),  
Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63-94). London, UK: Sage. 

Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium &  
D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 197-213). Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage.  

Wodak, R. (2015). Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In K.  
Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and 
social interaction (pp. 1-14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Xu, Y., Gutierrez, A., & Kim, S. H. (2008). Adaptation and transformation through  
(un)learning lived experiences of immigrant Chinese nurses in U.S. healthcare 
environment. Advances in Nursing Science, 31, E33-E47. doi: 
10.1097/01.ANS.0000319570.99254.e5 

Zhou, Y. (2014). The experience of China-educated nurses working in Australia: A  
symbolic interactionist perspective. PLoS ONE, 9(9), 1-10. doi:10. 
1371/journal.pone.0108143 
 


	Berg, W. (2010). Editors’ introduction: Exploring transculturalism. In W. Berg & A.
	Retrieved from goo.gl/a9ppFf
	Lewis, J. (2002). From culturalism to transculturalism. Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies,
	Study Abroad, 11, 205-230. Retrieved from goo.gl/B3uCZc
	Welsch, W. (1999). Transculturality - The puzzling form of cultures today. In M.
	Windsor, C., Douglas, C., & Harvey, T. (2011). Nursing and competencies - a natural
	Widdowson, H.G. (1995). Discourse analysis: a critical view. Language and Literature,
	4(3), 157 - 172.

