Senin, 03 Oktober 2016
BRANCH OF DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
S A.Social Discourse
A social discourse is in
fact never made out of a set of statically dominant ideas, representations,
systems of belief, «ideologies.» It is thoroughly made out of regulated
antagonisms between conflicting images,concepts,cognitive discrepancies,and
incompatibilities that are still relatively stabilized without ever reaching a
state of equilibrium. Social discourse is made out of a set of ideologemes in
tension with each other, of «sociograms» (Claude Duchet) thematizing, on
divergent vectors,conflicting social representations. It is through and beyond
these tensions, conflicts,and compartmentalizations,beyond the cacophonic
rumour of social languages that something like a hegemony will be discovered
producing precedences and arbitrations between conflicting discourses,
concealing topical axioms and basic principles of social verisimilitude,
universal taboos and censorship that mark the boundaries of the «thinkable.»
One should not dissociate from this hegemony the normative imposition of the
legitimate language,a language always saturated with tropes and idioms,
phraseologies and bombastic structures of feeling.
B.Critical Discourse
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a branch of linguistics that seeks to understand how and why Certain texts affect readers and hearers.Through the analysis of grammar, it aims to uncover the 'hidden ideologies' that can influence a reader or hearer's view of the world. Analysts have looked at a wide variety of spoken and written texts – political manifestos,advertising,rules and regulations – in an attempt to demonstrate how text producers use language (wittingly or not) in a way that could be ideologically significant.
CDA is not a monolithic method or field of study but rather a loose agglomeration of approaches to the study of discourse, all of which are located broadly within the tradition of critical social research that has its roots in the work of the Frankfurt School (Wodak and Meyer 2001).Though having developed,at least initially,largely independently of each other,these approaches are united by a concern to understand how social power, its use and abuse, is related to spoken and written language.
