SEEING WHAT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IS? Widya Department of English Education Universitas Lancang Kuning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SEEING WHAT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IS? Widya Department of English Education Universitas Lancang Kuning Abstract The goal of this research is to look what is dicourse analyis. The study its origins, to the academic for student, how it encloses phenomena with unlike theoritical backgrounds and methodological approaches. Key words : critical discourse analysis; Foucault; Habermas; Systemic Functional Grammar; Linguistic Criticism; cognition; corpus linguistics 1. Introduction In this research describes about heterogeneity of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), its control to entice and irritate, and its most thrilling characters and weaknesses, which have produced discussion and disagreement. More than two periods have approved from the study of extracts to the education of big corpora, from supposedly absorbed assortment to chance group of data. Its community insinuations fortified its development. Leave-taking meager instinct sideways and exploring the suggestion of thought in writings other than literary ones donated to its scientificity and aided widen its scope. CDA as problem-oriented community research, founded in community history, semiotics and linguistics; to learned methods that are also careful critical; to the oppositions raised in contradiction of CDA; and to new tendencies trying to challenge its limitations. The question of what should be assumed by critical is also addressed, with the goal of deciding fallacies related with this label. It is similarly significant to elucidate usually used terms, including writing, discourse and context as well as others that have a central character in CDA itself, in particular, ideology, power, dominance, prejudice and representation. Further, because CDA has its roots in written and linguistic analysis, address the question of why one particular theory of language, Halliday’s (1985) “Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG), has been widely adopted by CDA researchers.” Systemic Functional grammar is not only linguistic theory used and i remake on the linguistics methods that have been applied. But even the most important influence on the development CDA. Like give care to others from sociology, and social theory. “ This area of applied linguistics, which has variously been taken to be a paradigm, a method and an analytical technique, was originally known as Critical Language Studies”, (Billig 2003). It goes by various similar names. For instance, van Dijk (2009) selects the term Critical Discourse Studies, signifying that this may help see it as a combination of theory, application and analysis. The interest of this cross-discipline (van Dijk 1997) “dishonesties in attending to all types of semiotic artefacts, linguistic and non-linguistic.” A central goal in all the many methods is that critical analysis increases consciousness about the plans used in establishing, upholding and replicating (a)symmetrical relations of power as enacted by means of discourse. CD forecasters attention on those features causal to the cloth of discourse in which leading ideologies are accepted or challenged, and in which rival and contradictory beliefs coexist. 2. What discourse is? According to Bloor and Bloor (2007: 6-7), it is about phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences, how to use of language, usually written to be spoken, for example speech, human interaction for verbal and non-verbal, mentions to the communication predictable in one condition context, alongside one arena and register, such as the discourse of law or medicine, and is verbal communication only. Here, “it refers to the speech patterns and how language, dialects, and acceptable statements are used in a particular community. Discourse as a subject of study looks at discourse among people who share the same speech conventions. Moreover, discourse refers to the linguistics of language use a way of understanding interaction in a social context, specifically the analysis of occuring connected speech or written discourse, , Dakowsks (2001) in Hamuddin (2012)” Wodak and Meyer (2009) “ associate this diversity with three different trends: The German and Central European tradition, in which the term discourse draws on text linguistics; the Anglo-American tradition, in which discourse refers to written and oral texts; and the Foucauldian tradition, in which discourse is an abstract form of knowledge, understood as cognition and emotions” (Jager and Maier 2009). van Dijk (1997) “ proposes linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural definitions. First he says that discourse is described at the syntactic, semantic, stylistic and rhetorical levels. Secondly it needs to be understood in terms of the interlocutors’ processes of production, reception and understanding. And the last to the social dimension of discourse.” First he claims that is discourse is describe at the syntactic, semantic, stylistic and rhetorical levels. Then he adds it needs be understood in terms of the interlocutors’ processes of manufacture, welcome and understanding. And, thirdly, he points to the social dimension of discourse, which he knows as a sequence of contextualised, controlled and purposeful acts accomplished in society From Widdowson’s view (2004), ”text can be written or spoken, and must be described in linguistic and other meaning in term.” CD analysts Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 276) “refer to "the following senses: Language use in speech and writing, meaning-making in the social process, and a form of social action that is “socially constitutive” and “socially shaped”.” Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 261) add that discourses “are partly realized in ways of using language, but partly in other ways”, for example visual semiosis. Texts are the indicate for the existence of discourses, one kind of reality of abstract forms of knowledge; at the same time.” 3. What makes DA critical? CDA is logically entrenched within Critical Theory, a model developed in the last three periods whose critical motivation creates in the Frankfurt School, especially Habermas. Wodak and Meyer (2009: 6) recall, in 1937 Horkheimer urged social theory to critique and change society, which to improve its understanding, how social phenomena are interconnected, to get the knowledge, and describe or explain by making structures of power and ideologies behind discourse, , that is, by creation noticeable reasons that are hidden. The choice of CDA is not only language-based. Its critical viewpoint appeals academics from many disciplines, as well as activists. Their concern lies with opening decorated mechanisms of the reproduction of power asymmetries. Anthropology, linguistics, philosophy and communication studies, among others, may share this inclination. From its inception, CDA was a discipline designed to question the status quo, by detecting, analysing, and also battling and countering enactments of power misuse as conveyed in secluded and public discourses. For some, to be critical might suggest to be judgemental. However, this is not the event here, because, as Jager and Maier (2009: 36) state, this kind of critique “does not make claims to absolute truth”. CDA is unspoken to be critical in a number of different ways: its explict and unapologetic attitude as far as values and criteria are concerned (van Leeuwen 2006) ; its commitment to the analysis of social wrongs such as prejudice, or unequal access to power, privileges, and material and symbolic resources (Fairclough 2009); its interest in discerning which prevailing hegemonic social practices have caused such social wrongs, and in developing methods that can be applied to their study (Bloor and Bloor 2007). All this brands CDA an sample of study pointing for social intervention. Fairclough and Wodak (1997) add that a critical reading goes beyond hermeneutics. In their view, CDA purposes at clarifying writings formed ideologically by relatives of power; it attentions on the impervious association between discourse and societal structure; and it does so through open clarification and explanation, by trusting on systematic technical procedures, that is, by attaining distance from the statistics and location them in context. Self-reflection about the study process is a must. In sum, CDA pursues to depiction the scheming countryside of broad practices, and improve communication and well-being by eliminating the fences of expected principles legitimised. 4. The origins of CDA The philosophical and linguistic foundations on which CDA is beached are sure branches of social theory and previous discourse analysis, text linguistics and interactional sociolinguistics. Certain advocates of CDA are prejudiced by Marx’s critique of the entrepreneurial misuse of the employed class, his historical dialectical method, his meaning of ideology as the building of civilisation (Marx and Engels 1845/2001), and his notion of language as “product, producer, and reproducer of social consciousness” (Fairclough and Graham 2002: 201). Certain also attraction on Althusser’s (1969/1971) conception of interpellation, which defines the way an individual can be conscious of themselves as a built subject inside discourse on their flattering part of someone’s utterances. Likewise, Gramscian hegemony (1971) effects a amount of CDA scholars. It expresses the idea that control can be trained and power attained not only finished oppressive coercion, oppression and exploitation, but also through the convincing possible of discourse, which clues to agreement and complicity. Harbemas (1981) is frequently citied by CDA writers. His main influence in the theory of