At the breast is best?’ A corpus-informed feminist critical discourse analysis of the marginalisation of expressing human milk in online infant feeding promotional discourse

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Discourse Context & Media Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.dcm.2023.100730
Laura Coffey-Glover , Victoria Howard
{"title":"At the breast is best?’ A corpus-informed feminist critical discourse analysis of the marginalisation of expressing human milk in online infant feeding promotional discourse","authors":"Laura Coffey-Glover ,&nbsp;Victoria Howard","doi":"10.1016/j.dcm.2023.100730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Existing feminist analyses of infant feeding practices have examined the promotion of long-term exclusive direct breastfeeding (DBF) as symbolic of “total motherhood” (<span>Wolf 2011</span>), where formula feeding is framed in contrast as “risky” (<span>Murphy, 1999</span>, <span>Murphy, 2000</span>, <span>Brookes et al., 2016</span>, <span>Woollard, 2018</span>). Discourses of expressing human milk (EHM), and their discriminatory potential, are currently under-researched. However, researchers note that rhetorical strategies that exclude EHM as a form of breastfeeding can reinforce the perceived normalcy of feeding at the breast and relegate breastmilk expression and formula feeding as “deviant” practices (<span>Murphy, 1999</span>, <span>Hunt and Thomson, 2017</span>; <span>Rasmussen et al., 2017</span>; <span>Coffey-Glover, 2020</span>; <span>Anders et al 2022</span>).</p><p>To that end, this study integrates Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (<span>Lazar, 2005</span>, <span>Lazar, 2007</span>, <span>Lazar, 2014</span>) and corpus linguistics (e.g. <span>Baker 2014</span>) to examine discourses of breastmilk expression (EHM) in a corpus of online infant feeding promotional literature taken from seven organisations, with a particular focus on the largest two organisations in the corpus: La Leche League Great Britain (LLLGB) and the UK National Health Service (NHS). The analysis reveals language choices that marginalise EHM in servitude of “breast is best” (<span>Murphy 1999</span>), and specifically reinforce the message that ‘<em>at</em> the breast is best’. We show how EHM is marginalised in the texts via representations of exclusive DBF as the ‘gold standard’ of infant feeding, recirculating discourses of “total motherhood” (<span>Wolf 2011</span>), “natural mothering” (<span>Bobel 2003</span>) and “intensive motherhood” (<span>Hays 1996</span>).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46649,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Context & Media","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Context & Media","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211695823000636","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Existing feminist analyses of infant feeding practices have examined the promotion of long-term exclusive direct breastfeeding (DBF) as symbolic of “total motherhood” (Wolf 2011), where formula feeding is framed in contrast as “risky” (Murphy, 1999, Murphy, 2000, Brookes et al., 2016, Woollard, 2018). Discourses of expressing human milk (EHM), and their discriminatory potential, are currently under-researched. However, researchers note that rhetorical strategies that exclude EHM as a form of breastfeeding can reinforce the perceived normalcy of feeding at the breast and relegate breastmilk expression and formula feeding as “deviant” practices (Murphy, 1999, Hunt and Thomson, 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2017; Coffey-Glover, 2020; Anders et al 2022).

To that end, this study integrates Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (Lazar, 2005, Lazar, 2007, Lazar, 2014) and corpus linguistics (e.g. Baker 2014) to examine discourses of breastmilk expression (EHM) in a corpus of online infant feeding promotional literature taken from seven organisations, with a particular focus on the largest two organisations in the corpus: La Leche League Great Britain (LLLGB) and the UK National Health Service (NHS). The analysis reveals language choices that marginalise EHM in servitude of “breast is best” (Murphy 1999), and specifically reinforce the message that ‘at the breast is best’. We show how EHM is marginalised in the texts via representations of exclusive DBF as the ‘gold standard’ of infant feeding, recirculating discourses of “total motherhood” (Wolf 2011), “natural mothering” (Bobel 2003) and “intensive motherhood” (Hays 1996).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胸部最好?”基于语料库的女权主义批评话语分析在线婴儿喂养宣传话语中表达母乳的边缘化
现有的对婴儿喂养实践的女权主义分析已经将长期纯母乳喂养(DBF)的推广视为“完全母性”的象征(Wolf 2011),相比之下,配方奶粉喂养被认为是“危险的”(Murphy,1999,Murphy 2000,Brookes等人,2016,Woolard,2018)。关于表达母乳(EHM)的言论及其歧视性潜力,目前正在研究中。然而,研究人员指出,将EHM排除在母乳喂养之外的修辞策略可以强化母乳喂养的正常性,并将母乳表达和配方奶粉喂养视为“异常”做法(Murphy,1999,Hunt和Thomson,2017;Rasmussen等人,2017;Coffey-Glover,2020;Anders等人2022),本研究整合了女权主义批判话语分析(Lazar,2005,Lazar(2007),Lazar,2014)和语料库语言学(例如Baker 2014),以检验来自七个组织的在线婴儿喂养宣传文献语料库中的母乳表达话语,特别关注语料库中最大的两个组织:英国莱切联盟(LLLGB)和英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)。该分析揭示了在“乳房是最好的”(Murphy 1999)的奴役中边缘化EHM的语言选择,并特别强化了“乳房是最佳的”的信息。我们展示了EHM是如何在文本中被边缘化的,通过将DBF作为婴儿喂养的“黄金标准”的表述,“完全母性”(Wolf 2011)、“自然母性”(Bobel 2003)和“强化母性”(Hays 1996)的循环话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse Context & Media
Discourse Context & Media COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
55 days
期刊最新文献
Scaling as method: A three-stage, mixed-methods approach to digital discourse analysis Sharing second stories in online comforting interactions Surveillance at the (inter)face: A nexus analysis Transmodal messenger interaction–Analysing the sequentiality of text and audio postings in WhatsApp chats Digital facilitation-as-a-process: The mismatch between promotional text and situated interaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1