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
Post a Comment