Title Corpus Linguistics : A Closer Look on Meaning in Discourse
By Anfinda Mutiara Kasih
Abstract: This article, analyze and found that corpus linguistic is an interesting area in the learning of meaning in discourse study. Poststucturalism and structuralism is the basic thinking of theories and methodolgy in this paper, which have unlocked new path of the interpretation and analysis of meanings in linguistics and in a series of related disciplines. Using qualitative analysis of DA seen as an existing socio-historical formation of language in particular ways. This study also share a contributions in corpus linguistics study based on Foucault’s historically-oriented “genealogical” analysis. The applications of theory of the concept of social sciences and linguistics focusing on discourse, this study suggest to use record of data and principled collection in order to underlying both the diachronic and synchronic aspect of discourse analysis.
Key words: corpus linguistics, discourse, Foucault, meaning.
1. Introduction
Corpus linguistic is a concept that can be useful in many aspects of linguistic analysis. It is not only investigate the language teaching and lexicography, which is strongly related to empirical data. There are several techniques to see how meaning is created in the use of language depends on its approach. This article discusses the methodologies and theories that can unlocked new path to qualitative analysis.
The learning of meaning of the corpus linguistic in discourse requires an interpretation of meaning in linguistics and social sciences and theoretical foundation for the analysis. Therefore, this article analyze the concept of discourse and discourse analysis within the theoretical structure of corpus linguistic to show how corpus linguistic can play a role not only to discourse analysis on lexical quantitative and syntactic study levels but also to discourse analysis pointed at interpreting lexical items in certain contexts (i.e. studies in which discourse theorizes as complex relationships between society, ideology and language).
2. The Problem of Definition
2.1 Discourse in Linguistics
There are two sub-disciplines of discourse in linguistics, there are written text analysis and speech analysis.
According to Hamuddin (2012), “Discourse refers to the speech patterns and how language, dialects, and acceptable statements are used in a particular community.”
Schgloff and Sacks states, conversation analysis learns things about social organization or commonly known as talk in interaction by checking transcripts that comes from recordings. Widdowson states, written discourse analysis has a different way in language that proves to be very valueble in language teaching. Hoey, Winter and Coulthard agrees that the study looked at text in terms of vocabulary, grammar and how it relates to the cohesion and realization of microstructures and macro texts.
Discourse analysis in approach linguistics generally investigates the lexico-grammatical form taking meaning in certain contexts and matching agreeing to its form and function regardless of the ideological suggestions of language usage. In contrast, to the Marxist approach (critical discourse analysis analyzed later in this paper) Althusser is an approach that works with a politicized discourse and with a larger understanding of context view, in which the subject is "interrelated" by discourse or ideology.
2.2 Discourse in Social Sciences
Discourse is used to tell the conditions of language usage in the social relationships that make up it. In the late 1960s a significant shift happened in the conceptualization of how meaning is structured through the usage of language socially. 2.1.1 Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy.
Foucault's applied in the many social sciences. Foucault states statement is the smallest discourse unit. "Archeology of Knowledge" is the key points in Foucault's analyze of the discourse. There is not strict limits root for discourse analysis.
According to Foucault, the statement always calls another statement in one path or another: the statement is not only connected to the previous statement but also contains some upcoming feature. A statement must be analyzes as it shows in the discourse, and cannot be reduces to express something externally. Foucault's archeology is largely a synchronous analysis of statements in discourse that seek to uncover the complication of the text and how each discourse limits its own limits.
Since Foucault's observation of discourse does not include the concept of ideology, there is still difficulty in clarifying the paths in which oppositional political ideologies are shaped and functioning. Michel Pêcheux effectively incorporated the concept of opposition ideology into theories of language and discourse. His work is discussed in the next section.
2.1.2 Discourse in the works of Michel Pêcheux.
Michel Pêcheux works in space between "language subject" and "subject of ideology" as in his book "Language, Semantics and Ideology". Pêcheux is building relationships between linguistic concept and discourse theory and providing awareness into the political conditions of opposition from the production of meaning.
In the traditional interpretation of the lexicon, lexeme is realized as the smallest carrying meaning, and words have their own meaning. As he writes, "a word, an expression or a proposition has no meaning, a meaning inherent in its literality." (Pêcheux, 1982, p. 188). Therefore, the new meaning of lexical substances arises from interdisciplinary relationships and is the effect of the struggle for power.
2.3 Discourse in the Works of CDA The term "discourse" in Critical and Linguistics Theory, "not only describing discursive practice, but also viewing how discourse is formed by power and ideological relations, and the discourse of constructive effects has of social identity, both of which are not clear to discourse participants "(Fairclough, 1992, p.12).
3. Discourse and DA in Corpus Linguistic
In his critique of sociolinguistics, Hasan (2004) I introduce the discourse view in corpus linguistic, because of the strong data-based approach, can not only complement each other to conduct discourse analysis in Approach Linguistics and CDA but can also be a theoretical structure for a historical, genealogical analysis.
3.1 The term "discourse" in Corpus Linguistics
The Corpus study began as a methodological applied based on the documentation and collection of actual language data. The advocate language analysis built on a large collection of original texts - corpora. Corpora is used to acquire empirical knowledge of language, which can complement information from reference introspection and sources. For corpus linguistic, discourse is the whole text formed by a language user community that identifies themselves as supporters of a social group based on their shared world views (Teubert, 2005).
The linguistic approach of the corpus is well-matched with the analysis of Foucauldian discourse although the latter is not linguistic in the traditional sense. For traditional linguistics, discourse is communicative exchange, the language used, not a complex unit that spreads into the realm of language, ideology, strategy and practice, and is formed by the relationship between knowledge and power, as it happens. In conclution, corporations to discourse will not focus on how meaning is built between sentences, which characterize the approach of discourse analysis in Approach Linguistics, but how the meaning is articulated at certain situations in history.
3.2 Corpus Linguistics and Quantitative Discourse Analysis Methods At that time, corpus research was broadly used to increase the methodology in linguistic variation studies. The new and rapid quantitative methods became popular in the numerous branches of language analysis. Linguistics Corpus can, and has indeed been used to pair discourse analysis in Approach Linguistics - (non-critical "discourse analysis" used in language teaching) and Critical Discourse Analysis which aims to reveal ideological biases based on synchronous studies Lexical Forms (Orpin, 2005 on between the latest).
Thus, the dominant syncetic-based applied based on the English text analysis tradition shows the close relationship between text and shared context. It is expected that the choice of words in the text reflects the social choice, and in this path the selection at the textual level is perceived as imitating the contextual level relating to social and cultural aspects. The connection between context and co-text is significant for studying a certain discourse language, and also allows for comparison of discourse, since the similar words and phrases in the similar language can have dissimilar semantic values for people from dissimilar discourse communities. By comparing the way discourse societies use language based on corporations that are specifically tailored for that resolution, especially with respect to the lexical choices they make, the corpus linguists have a good idea of what makes their language ideological.
Computer software consents systematic analysis of discursive forms regardless of their intentions and the user. Therefore, the discourse segment in the form of a corpus is analyzed as a collection of collective statements and not as a collection of opinions of each author. Details about the author's social background are deemed irrelevant for the resolution of the investigation. Concordance or collocation software only selects repetitive patterns, thus generating empirical evidence of how discourse objects are formed. Not using the idea of authority and authorship, we automatically dismiss an interest in what is hidden; analysis is only related to what is on the "surface" of the text. So, theoretical declarations, as well as comments or recommendations complete, arise directly from, and reflect, evidence provided by the corpus.
4. Conclusions The discussion of the theoretical facts assumed in this article is intended to show how linguistic corpus can be a valuable structure for the learning of meaning in discourse. Although the linguistics of the corpus has much to offer for the investigation of synchronic meaning in relations of frequency information for phrases, words, or constructs used in discourse, the key focus of this paper is to discuss how it can be an important framework for studying the nature of meaning that is not stable and debatable. The theoretical structure for interpreting and reading text and text sections in interdisciplinary conditions of their emergence founded on the work of Foucault and Pecheux allows analysts to study the meaning of lexical substances through their paraphrases in different discourses. In order to analyze the discourse in Foucauldian's sense from a linguistic point of view we must to get another way for the text produced in the speaker community, which is limited by our research objectives. In this article is analyze how corporations are structured according to a usual of predetermined criteria (such as, for example, content-based relationships between text and chronological order of text) offer the means to study the appearance of the meaning of lexical items in the public discourse concerned. Detailed text documentation within the corpus linguistics enables obtaining practical evidence for assertions finished in the context of the CDA and completes its qualitative analysis by strengthening the interpretive base.
References Hamuddin, Budianto. A comparative study of politeness strategies in economic journals. Diss. University of Malaya. 2012. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London : Longman. Foucault, M. (1972/1989). Archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp.76-100). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hasan, R. (2004). Analysing discursive variation. In Young, L. and C. Harrison (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change (pp. 15-52). London and New York: Continuum.
Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.
Orpin, D. (2005). Corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis. Examining the ideology of sleaze. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 37-61.
Pêcheux, M. (1982). Les Vérités de la Palice. (Language, semantics and ideology: Stating the obvious.) London: Macmillan. Pennycook, A. (1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 115-138.
Schegloff, E.A. (1998). Text and context paper. Discourse and Society, 3, 4-37.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1997). Whorf’s children: Critical comments on critical discourse analysis (CDA). In A. Ryan and A. Wray (Eds.), Evolving models of language (pp.110-116). Clevedon: BAAL in association with Multilingual Matters.
Teubert, W. (2005). My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1), 1-13.
Thomas, J. and Short, M. (eds.). (1996). Using corpora for language research. London and New York: Longman.
Tognini Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weiss, G., and Wodak, R. (eds). (2003). Critical discourse analysis. Theory and interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave.
Widdowson, H. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.