The Discourse-Historical approach is often associated with Critical Discourse Studies since most researchers find its concepts and principles quite relatable to those from the other theoretical and methodological frameworks (Wodak). It is a distinctive model at a methodical orientation and research interest level. In other words, it emphasizes unjustified discrimination identity construction, focusing on the historical nature of discourse formation. The approach considers discourse analysis typically as a multi-faceted system integrating, methodology, method, quantitative research practices and theories that produce solid social applications, not just as a language analysis method (Harding et al.). It involves six steps meant to guide researchers, as indicated in the study. This paper determines the various strengths and weaknesses of the methodological framework to understand better how to use it in similar research studies.
The Discourse-Historical Approach can prove effective in specific ways. This methodological model is quite efficient in highlighting the perspectives implemented when constructing arguments in anti and pro-English-Only discourse across different fields of action and genres. Another strength of this approach is that researchers acquire the ability to interdiscursive and intertextual connections between various data sets. At the same time, the model seems to offer a semantically meticulous assessment approach to language guidelines and policies that illuminate its discursive nature. Perhaps most significantly, the Discourse-Historical Approach portrays how these language policies may substantially impact speakers of particular dialects by incorporating different theoretical ideologies used to process the data (Wodak). Thus, the approach reinforces the perspective of language policies as social action.
Contrarily, an eclectic model, such as the one used in the research, does not exist without specific limitations. Primarily, the approach often deals with multiple, unique data sets. Therefore, researchers must be comfortable and conversant in working with a relatively higher amount of data. Additionally, various assessment tools must be applied to each set of data. Researchers might encounter challenges while implementing these tools due to difficulties applying the same level of linguistic precision across different texts. Researchers would probably get better results by developing an assessment model for the private texts, emphasizing the unique contexts in which they were produced and the specific genres to which they belong (Reisigl). Despite advocating for interdisciplinarity, this approach might at times portray eclecticism as a hindrance due to the numerous methodological and theoretical tools that the researcher must manipulate. Lastly, researchers often find it difficult to incorporate and address all the steps involved in the Discourse-Historical approach due to its high flexibility levels, allowing some steps to receive more or less emphasis than the rest based on the particular object being investigated.
Despite these limitations, the Discourse-Historical approach can assist in demonstrating to researchers how discourse analysis will offer valuable opportunities to the language policies field. They need to understand that substantial discourse analysis can surpass the separation between research inspired by social theories, such as language policy. On the other hand, it might not involve precise textual analysis. Additionally, discursive models like the Discourse-Historical framework can be easily modified to fit a specific context by developing a new framework since they are flexible and less prescriptive. Ultimately, determining the various strengths and weaknesses of the methodological framework to understand better how to use it in similar research studies.
