What is a critical discourse analysis?


INTRODUCTION

Is the field that is concerned with studying and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality and bias. It examine how these discursive source are maintained and reproduced within specific social, political and historical contexts, (Dijk, 1998)
Discourse analysis defined as a discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between discursive practices, events and texts, and wider social and cultural structure, relations and processes;
Discourse analysis refers to the ensemble of techniques of the study of textual practice and language use social and cultural practices, (Farclough, 1992).
The practical techniques of critical discourse analysis are delivered from various  displinary fields .work in pragmatics, narratives and speech act theory that argue that are forms of social action that occurs in a complex social contexts.
Critical discourse analysis uses analytic tools from their field to address persistence questions about large, systematic relation of class, gender and culture. In educational deals with examination of how knowledge and identity a constructed across the range of texts in the institutional sites like school
To put it simply critical discourse analysis aims at making transparent the connection between discourse analysis practices, social practices, and social structures might be opaque to the layperson
So critical discourse analysis as outlined by the practitioners such as; Fairclough, (1995), Kress,(1991), Hodge & Kress, (1993), Van Dijk, (1998)and Vadak(1996) have summarized the principles of  critical discourse as follows;
Language is a social practice through which the world represented. This means that in the world language is more practiced in the society where by the member of the society us language in both written discourse and written discourse.
Discourse / language use as a form of social practice in itself not only represents and signifies other social practices but it also constitutes other social practices such as exercise of power, domination, prejudice and resistance.
Text acquire their meaning by the dialectical relationship between text sand the social subjects, writers and readers who always operates with various degrees of choice ad access to text and mean of interpretation .the text must refers to the topic which is directed for in coherence and cohesive system of thought in which a listener or a reader can easy understood the content of the discourse.
Linguistic features/structures are not arbitrary. They are purposeful whether or not the choices are conscious or unconscious, in critical discourse analysis linguistic structure is planned phenomena where by the speaker involves effective in grammar, vocabulary, phonology and morphology of a particular discourse.
Power relation are produced, excised and through discourse; this due to fact that critical discourse analysis  are produced and used in both written  and spoken form where by the speakers make their relation through  written and discourse also exercise that through spoken form and written forms.
All speaker and writer operate from specific discursive practice originating in specific interests and aims which involves inclusion and exclusion.
Discourse is historical in the sense that texts acquire their meaning by being situated in specific social, cultural and ideological contexts, and time and space.
Critical discourse analysis does not solely interpret texts, but also explains them. In discourse analysis tend to explain the meaning of the text and not the not interpret the texts as what as it. 

 CONCLUSION
In critical discourse  analysis have various evolution in the late of 1970s ,which have developed by the group of linguistics and literary theoretic whereby come with many  things  in the field of language where by the linguistics come with the evolution of both spoken and written language through investigation in morphology, phonology Syntax, semantic and pragmatic.

 REFFERENCES
Fairclough, N (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: the critical study of language.
Van Dijk T.A.(1998) critical discourse analysis. Available; http://www.hum.uva.nl/teun/cda.htm.                 (1/25/2000).
Kress (1993). Language as ideology. (2 and ed.). London: Routledge.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

International Law

KATIBA YA KIKUNDI