// On :Sabtu, 01 Oktober 2016
1. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
Critical
Discourse Analysis has been since 1952 when Zellig Harris created an article
that its title is Discourse Analysis in language journal. In 1970's, the
analysts realized that to be more critical when analyze a text or discourse is
extremely important. Then, many experts try to make theories of CDA.
critical discourse analysis can be also aimed at revealing ideological biases on the basis of the sychoronic studies of lexical patterns.
critical discourse analysis can be also aimed at revealing ideological biases on the basis of the sychoronic studies of lexical patterns.
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.
According to Fairclough (1995), CDA is one of Discourse Analysis branches that
focuses on the connections and interactions between language use, ideology,
power, discourse, and socialcultural change.
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.
2. Political Discourse
Political discourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or
political institutions, such as presidenta and prime ministers and other
members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local,
national and international levels. Some of the studies of politicians take a
discourse analytical approach (Carbó 1984; Dillon et al. 1990; Harris 1991;
Holly 1990; Maynard.
This
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 or educational discourse, we not only think of participants such as
doctors, lawyers or teachers, but also of patients, defendants and students.
Hence, the delimitation of political discourse by its principal authors' is
insufficient and needs to be extended to a more complex picture of all its
relevant participants, whether or not these are actively involved in political
discourse, or merely as recipients in one-way modes of communication.
