EXPERT
BIOGRAPHY OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Teun
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 political
actors
to speak in certain ways, instead “there is a need for a cognitive
collaboration
between
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.
REFERENCE
https://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
