Critical Discourse Analysis: Mass Media
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Critical Discourse Analysis: Mass Media Deti Anitasari Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Lancang Kuning [email protected] ABSTRACT: In this paper, the researcher aims are to review some key problems of approaches to research on mass media text from point of view discourse analytical and to present an argument, as well as a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) structures for analysis of mass media discourse. The researcher regards a number of areas of critical research interest in mass media discourse locally and elsewhere. An instance of actual CDA researches on mass media discourse is reviewed in terms of topics of obviously popular interest among society, before listing methodological, as well as the topical plan by a main support in the field for further work. This paper concludes that CDA’s multidisciplinary approach helps to understand and aware of the hidden socio-political issues and agenda in all kinds of areas of language as a social practice to empower the individual and social groups. Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse studies, Mass Media Discourse, Media text Analysis INTRODUCTION human talks to one another via verbal and non-verbal means, but which Discourse has been explained as concerns messages that are essentially structures and practices that reflect transmitted through a medium (channel) human thought and social realities to reach a large number of people through particular collections of words (Wimmer & Dominick, 2012, Devito, and that simultaneously construct 2011). From the beginning, for a clear meaning in the world (Fairclough, 2003). point of view on the problems relating to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) mass media effects, it is helpful to proposes a research methodology for clarify what constitutes mass media in deconstructing discourses and fixed current communication studies, i.e. “any power relationship. From communication channel used to epistemological standpoint, it simultaneously reach a large number of presupposes the multiple possibilities of people, including radio, TV, newspapers, knowing and interpreting the world magazines, billboards, films, recordings, (Yanow, 2000. Through mass media we books, and the Internet as well as the could know about the world as well, new category smart mass media, which mass communication is a tools include Smartphone, smart TVs, and communication between human, how tablets” (Wimmer & Dominick, 2012). In this journal, the researcher “could not be considered a dominant aims to review some key problems in paradigm in the research field” in approaches to research on mass media question. Possibly, as van Dijk (1996) texts from point of view discourse has noted, instead of focusing on the analytical and to present an argument, as effects of mass media from a well as a Critical Discourse Analysis communication studies point of view, (CDA) structure for analysis of mass discourse-oriented research could media discourse. The researcher regard a consider “properties of the social power number of areas of critical research of the media, not restricted to the interest in mass media discourse locally influence of the media on their and elsewhere. audiences, but which also involves the Regardless of mass role of the media within the broader communication progress and associated framework of the social, cultural, smart media technologies and related political, or economic power structures media product over the years, it seems of society”. that mass media research began to merge In another place in the literature, with discourse. Therefore, van Dijk has proponents of mass media analysis, also used a mixture of content analysis though with a clear focus on political and discourse analytical categories or theory such as Carpentier and de Cleen structures and also deal with social (2007), progress bringing discourse issues in mass media discourse and their theory into media studies. They concern correlated socio-cultural and cognitive Laclau and Mouffe’s theories of aspect. discourse, also hegemony and socialist Therefore, refocused their strategy (Laclau & Mouffe, 1987, 2001) interest on the “(social, cultural, and to fluent Discourse-Theoretical Analysis political) context and the ‘localization’ (DTA), at that time they compare to of meaning” (Wodak & Busch, 2004) CDA but only to give in that “a and also their well-known that more than significant number of valuable 40% of the papers published in the contributions of DTA to media studies leading journal Discourse & Society are can be found within CDA the standard based on media texts. framework for analyzing media texts” Furthermore, it had been argued (Carpentier & De Cleen, 2007). before that approaching mass media studies from a paradigm-based vantage RESULTS AND DISCUSSION was filled with speculations, more than Critical Media Analysis: An Overview 60% in the social science paradigm compared with about 34% in the Discourse is language as a interpretive paradigm and less than 6% subject and relates to expressing in the critical one) So, Potter et al. ourselves through words in ways of (1993) concluded that even if the social knowing the world. As theory and science paradigm can come out as the research in functional linguistics have majority paradigm in normal shown, linguistic forms can be communication research journals, it systematically associated with social and ideological functions (Halliday & knowing. As research and theory in Matthiessen, 1994). Perhaps, more general functional linguistics have importantly, discourses can also be used shown, linguistic forms can be to resist and critique such assertions of systematically associated with social and power. CDA is the multidisciplinary ideological functions (Halliday & field of inquiry traditional approaches Matthiessen, 1994). such as conversation analysis, Van Dijk (1997) choose the term ethnography of communication and CDS (Critical Discourse Studies), “a interactional sociolinguistics. new cross-discipline that comprises the The term “discourse” is a theory and analysis of text and talk in complex and like mammoth’s virtually all disciplines of the humanities interpretation. Many earlier studies and social science” CDA describes, mention the term discourse as very interprets, analyses, and critiques social ambiguous since its introduction to life (Luke, 1997) by studying “the modern discipline and many broad discursive practices of a community its interpretations of discourse, it refers to normal ways of using language”. the speech patterns and how language, Structure of discourse is distinguished by dialects, and acceptable statements are three levels of meaning namely Text, used in a particular community. Interaction and Context. Discourse as a subject of study looks at Text: The first aspect ‘discourse discourse among people who share the as text’ purposes to learning the textual same speech conventions. Moreover, features of discourses, that is ‘how is the discourse refers to the linguistics of text designed, why it is designed in this language use as a way of understanding way, and how else could it have been interactions in a social context, designed?’ (Fairclough,1995, p. 207). In specifically the analysis of occurring this level, the focus exploration more on connected speech or written discourse, the formal features of the text such as Dakowska (2001) in Hamuddin (2012). vocabulary, grammar syntax or specific Even though discourse also has lexis, phrase, sentence, figures, images, resources besides language that is chart or a combination all of these instantiated together as in mass media (multimedia). texts such as multimedia texts, streaming video, and related multimodal discursive Interaction: Richard practices on the Internet (Kress & van Buchanan shares Davis’s broad analysis Leeuwen, 2001), language is the most of interaction. Interaction is a mode of complex in the process of situated framing the relationship between people meaning-making (“semiosis”) in the and objects considered for them and thus social context of discourse production a way of framing the action of design. and interpretation (Fairclough, 1989, Which is concerns the process of text 1995; Halliday & Matthiessen, 1994). production and text interpretation. Basically, discourse is language in Context: H.G. Widdowson, context and relate to valuing, expressing while learning on language meaning, ourselves through words in ways of thought “context” as “those aspects of analyzing text to national identity or the circumstance of actual language use nationhood, discursive approach may be which are taken as relevant to meaning.” based on four key questions: He added pointed out, “in other words, context is a schematic construct...the 1) From what perspective or points achievement of pragmatic meaning is a of view are these naming, matter of matching up the linguistic attributions and arguments elements of the code with the schematic expressed? (perspective elements of the context.” (H.G. strategies) Widdowson, 2000, p.126). In discourse, 2) What qualities, characteristics this deals with the broader social and and features are attributed to cultural conditions of discourse them? (predicational strategies) production and interpretation. 3) How are persons named and referred to linguistically? Linguistic analysis of a text cover (referential strategies) up the traditional outline of linguistic 4) By means of what arguments do analysis such as semantics, vocabulary, specific persons or social groups grammar,