Assalamu’alaykum guys...
Yey.. I am back,,
Well, last week I had
explained about the definition of discourse analysis and,
for this time I will explain to you about the
branch of discourse analysis.
So, please read it..
v(^_^)v
Discourse analysis is a branch of applied linguistics it’s
relates with evaluation of discourse with purpose for review found patterns of
Communication and lay things subscription. Discourse analysis is a diciplines
examines the real use a language communication. Another notions is that
discourse analysis is a review the researching and analyzing the language whivh
was used operated Natural, either verbal or written. Since discourse
is first of all a form of language use, it goes without saying that linguistic
methods of analysis have played a predominant role in the study of text and
talk. Many types of structural, generative, or functional grammars have been
developed to describe the properties of verbal utterances. Thus, phonology,
morphology, and syntax have emerged as increasingly explicit subcomponents of
such grammars in order to characterize sound structures, word formation, and
the formal structures of sentences.
The brach of discourse analysis:
Some of the branches
include Critical Discourse Analysis, Social, Religious, Scientific,
Feminism, Corpus, Racism and Media Discourse Analysis.
1.
1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a branch of
Discourse Analysis (DA) which
focuses
on the connections and interactions between language use, ideology, power,
discourse
and sociocultural change (Fairclough, 1995). As a method of analyzing these issues CDA has existed and been prominently
used for long enough to establish itself as a
recognized
and generally respected branch of Applied Linguistics research.
CDA
has not only helped to expand the broader linguistic field of DA, but has given
rise to a few widely-used DA approaches such as Ruth Wodak’s Discourse
Historical Analysis
(DHA)
(see Wodak, 2007 for discussion) as well as a variety of CDA approaches which examine
issues such as racism and discrimination (see, e.g., van Dijk, 1988) and issues
of ideology and power (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1995).
2.
Corpus Linguistics Whilst branches of linguistics such as
syntax, semantics, and sociolinguistics have as their aim the description of an
aspect of language structure or language use, corpus linguistics is a broader
concept that can be applied to many aspects of linguistic enquiry. During its
early days corpus linguistics was seen merely as a bundle of methods and
procedures that deal with empirical data in linguistics. It was predominantly
employed to serve lexicography and language teaching. With the formulation of
more theoretical principles underlying the corpus approach, we can observe the
emergence of corpus linguistics as a (sub-) discipline in its own right. This
has lead to a new focus on qualitative analysis together with a concern of
discourse in Foucauldian sense, i.e. as a concrete socio-historical formation
characterised by particular ways of using language. This article takes up and
develops such an approach.
3.
Discourse in social In the late 1960-s
significant shifts occurred in the conceptualisation of how meanings are
constructed through the social use of language. The models developed as the
result of this shift have the notion of discourse as their central category.
Their common feature is the definition of discourse as a form of social
practice. The new angle on the view of discourse challenged the structuralist
concept of “language” as an abstract system (Saussure’s langue) and emphasized
the process of making and using meanings within particular historical, social,
and political conditions. At this level, then, the term discourse is employed
to explain the conditions of language use within the social relations that
structure them.
4.
Eclecticism in Discourse Analysis If
discourse analysis were represented pictorially by a tree, I see it as a tree
with many branches—each shaped by different pioneers (from Searle to Schegloff,
Gumperz to Grice), disciplines (linguistics to philosophy, anthropology to
sociology to psychology), and perspectives (theoretical to methodological).
Discourse researchers occupying these different branches have a history of
maintaining their own set of aims and, in so doing, drawing clear lines between
one another’s work. As Lakoff (2001) writes, each domain of language study has advanced
its own way of talking, with such boundaries both “guarded jealously and
justified zealously” (p. 200).
5.
Media discourse refers to
interactions that take place through a broadcast platform,whether spoken or written,in which the discourse is oriented to a non-present reader,listener
or viewer. Though the discourse is oriented towards these recipients, they very often cannot make Instantaneous
responses to the producer(s) of the discourse,
though increasingly this is changing with the advent of new media technology, as we shall explore.Crucially, the written or spoken
discourse itself is oriented to thereadership
or
listening/viewing audience, respectively. In other words, media discourse is a
public, manufactured, on-record, form of interaction. It is not ad hoc or
spontaneous (in the same way as casual speaking or writing is); it is neither private
nor off the record. Obvious as these basic
characteristics may sound,nthey are crucial
to the investigation, description and understanding of media discourse.
Well, that’s all the explanation about
the branch of discourse analysis thanks for read and I will give u the another
of discourse analysis explanation next week ..
Thanks for reading ..^^
REFERENCES:
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar