Archive for 2016
EXPERT BIOGRAPHY OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
- EXPERT BIOGRAPHY OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSISTeun Adrianus van Dijk was born on May 7, 1943 in Naaldwijk, Netherlands. He was a scholar in the field of text linguistics, discourse analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. Since the 1980s his work in Critical Discourse Analysis focuses primarily on the study of the discursive reproduction of racism with what he called 'elite symbolic' (politicians, journalists, scholars, writers), the study of the news in the press, and on the theory of ideology and context. Teun A. van Dijk is a professor of discourse studies at the University of Amsterdam from 1968 to 2004, and since 1999 he has taught at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona. He has a lot of lecturing internationally, especially in Latin America.Of the many criticisms of discourse analysis are introduced and developed by some models of van Dijk is the most widely used models. This is likely due to van Dijk connected discourse elements that can usefully be put and used practically. Model van Dijk is often referred to as "social cognition". According to Dijk study of discourse is not enough just based on text analysis only, since the text is merely the result of a manufacturing practices must also be observed. In this case to be seen how a text is produced, to obtain a knowledge of why text can like this.Process production and this approach is very typical van Dijk, which involves a process known as social cognition. This term was adopted from the approach in psychology social, mainly to explain the structure and process of formation of a text. The approach is known as a conjunction of social helping determine how the production of texts that involve complex processes can be studied and explained.To illustrate the model, van Dijk made a lot of media coverage analysis study. Van Dijk point of concern, especially in the study of racism. Lots of racism manifested and expressed through writing. An example can be seen in daily conversations, job interviews, teacher meetings, debates in parliament, political propaganda, advertising, scientific articles, editorials, news, photos, movies, etc. He also saw how the social structure, dominance, and power groups in society, and how cognition and consciousness formed and influenced the specified text.Discourse by van Dijk described has three dimensions namely text, social cognition, and social context. Dijk combines three dimensions of the discourse into a unity of analysis. In the text, which examined is how the structure of the text and discourse strategies used to emphasize a particular theme. Social cognition study the induction process involving text news from reporters individual cognition. While the third aspect that social criticism is studying building a growing discourse in society to be a problem.Critical discourse analysts are concerned with elucidating the dialectical relationship in which the discoursal aspect of social structures and social practices both constitutes and is constituted by those structures and practices (van Dijk 2001).Van Djik (2006) notes that political situations do not simply cause politicalactors to speak in certain ways, instead “there is a need for a cognitive collaborationbetween situations and talk or text, that is a context” (Van Djik, 2006, p.733).Suchcontexts define how participants experience, interpret and represent the for-themrelevant aspects of the political situation. Political discourse is not only defined with political discourse structures but also with political contexts. Thus, acting as an MP,Prime Minister, party leader, or demonstrator will typically be perceived by speakersor recipients as a relevant context category in political discourse.Thus for example a typical focus of CDA research is on the nature and usage of racist language and how this usage both reflects and reinforces racist institutional policies and individual racist attitudes. Given this kind of focus, it is not surprising that, in contrast to most mainstream discourse analysis, CDA practitioners do not see their work as value-neutral scholarship. Rather, they aim to transcend the academic/activist divide, seeing their work as not merely describing the inequitable discourse practices pertaining to problems of race, gender, class and so on, but also contributing to the contestation and even transformation of those practices. This aim, however, has been the target of criticism by several opponents of CDA.There are some handbooks by Van Djik such as :Introduction: Discourse analysis as a new cross-discipline
In: van Dijk, (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (C3), 1985. (C.3.), Vol. 1., pp. 1-10.
Introduction: Levels and dimensions of discourse analysis.
In: van Dijk, (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (C3) 1985. (C.3.), Vol. 2., pp. 1-11
Introduction: Dialogue as discourse and interaction.
In: van Dijk, (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (C3) 1985. (C.5.), Vol. 3., pp. 1-11
Introduction: The role of discourse analysis in society. 1983.
In: van Dijk, (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis (C3) 1985. (C.5.), Vol. 4., pp. 1-8
Introduction: The common roots of the studies of discourse and literature.
In: van Dijk, (Ed.) Discourse and Literature, pp. 1-9. 1985. (C.4.)
Introduction: Discourse analysis in (mass) communication research.
In: van Dijk, (Ed.) Discourse and Communication , 69-93, 1985. (C.5.)
Semantic discourse analysis.
In: Teun A. van Dijk, (Ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 2. (pp. 103-136). London: Academic Press, 1985.
REFERENCEhttps://mufatismaqdum.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/sekilas-tentang-teun-a-van-dijk-dengan-analisis-wacana-kritis/http://www.discourses.org/download/articles/https://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/proj/genbunronshu/29-2/haig.pdf
- Posted by desimemberti.blogspot.com
- 45 Comments
- Readmore . . .
- Add Comment
BRANCH OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
POLITICAL DISCOURSEWhat exactly is 'political discourse'? The easiest, andnot altogether misguided, answer is that political discourse is identified by itsactors or authors, viz., politicians. Indeed, the vast bulk of studies of politicaldiscourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or politicalinstitutions, such as presidenta and prime ministers and other members ofgovernment, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national andinternational levels. Some of the studies of politicians take a discourse analyticalapproach (Carbó 1984; Dillon et al. 1990; Harris 1991; Holly 1990; MaynardThis way of defining political discourse ishardly different from the identification of medical, legal or educational discoursewith the respective participants in the domains of medicine, law or education.This is the relatively easy part (if we can agree on what `politics' means).From the interactional point of view ofdiscourse analysis, we therefore should also include the various recipients inpolitical communicative events, such as the public, the people, citizens, the`masses', and other groups or categories. That is, once we locate politics and itsdiscourses in the public sphere, many more participants in political communicationappear on the stage.Obviously, the same is true for the definition of the field of media discourse,which also needs to focus on its audiences. And also in medical, legal oreducational discourse, we not only think of participants such as doctors, lawyersor teachers, but also of patients, defendants and students. Hence, the delimitationof political discourse by its principal authors' is insufficient and needs to beextended to a more complex picture of all its relevant participants, whether or notthese are actively involved in political discourse, or merely as recipients inone-way modes of communication.CRITICAL DISCOURSECritical 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 agglomerationof approaches to the study of discourse, all of which are located broadly within thetradition of critical social research that has its roots in the work of the FrankfurtSchool (Wodak and Meyer 2001). Though having developed, at least initially, largelyindependently of each other, these approaches are united by a concern to understandhow social power, its use and abuse, is related to spoken and written language.REFERENCEhttps://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/proj/genbunronshu/29-2/haig.pdf- Posted by desimemberti.blogspot.com
- 0 Comments
- Readmore . . .
- Add Comment
BRANCH OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
POLITICAL DISCOURSEWhat exactly is 'political discourse'? The easiest, andnot altogether misguided, answer is that political discourse is identified by itsactors or authors, viz., politicians. Indeed, the vast bulk of studies of politicaldiscourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or politicalinstitutions, such as presidenta and prime ministers and other members ofgovernment, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national andinternational levels. Some of the studies of politicians take a discourse analyticalapproach (Carbó 1984; Dillon et al. 1990; Harris 1991; Holly 1990; MaynardThis way of defining political discourse ishardly different from the identification of medical, legal or educational discoursewith the respective participants in the domains of medicine, law or education.This is the relatively easy part (if we can agree on what `politics' means).
From the interactional point of view ofdiscourse analysis, we therefore should also include the various recipients inpolitical communicative events, such as the public, the people, citizens, the`masses', and other groups or categories. That is, once we locate politics and itsdiscourses in the public sphere, many more participants in political communicationappear on the stage.
Obviously, the same is true for the definition of the field of media discourse,which also needs to focus on its audiences. And also in medical, legal oreducational discourse, we not only think of participants such as doctors, lawyersor teachers, but also of patients, defendants and students. Hence, the delimitationof political discourse by its principal authors' is insufficient and needs to beextended to a more complex picture of all its relevant participants, whether or notthese are actively involved in political discourse, or merely as recipients inone-way modes of communication.
CRITICAL DISCOURSECritical 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 agglomerationof approaches to the study of discourse, all of which are located broadly within theof critical social research that has its roots in the work of the FrankfurtSchool (Wodak and Meyer 2001). Though having developed, at least initially, largelyindependently of each other, these approaches are united by a concern to understandhow social power, its use and abuse, is related to spoken and written language.
REFERENCE
https://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/proj/genbunronshu/29-2/haig.pdf
- Posted by desimemberti.blogspot.com
- 0 Comments
- Readmore . . .
- Add Comment
