THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

E. Riyanti
{"title":"THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS","authors":"E. Riyanti","doi":"10.20871/kpjipm.v9i2.293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Critical discourse analysis has become an effective multidisciplinary approach to uncovering hidden ideologies and powers along with the changing times and the increasing prevalence of various discourses in society, both in the form of information written in text and distributed in the digital world. Discourse battles are commonplace in the context of life—as a form of dialectics and freedom to convey ideas. Researchers through this article discuss basic assumptions about the basic or main principles of critical discourse analysis developed by Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak. The basic assumptions are that critical discourse analysis focuses on social issues, power relations are discursive, discourse shapes society and culture, discourse manages ideological works, discourse is historical, the relationship between text and society is mediated (discourse), discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory, and discourse is a form of social action. The article also discusses three models of discourse analysis: the Sociocultural (Norman Fairclough), Socio-cognitive (Teun A. van Dijk), and Historical-Discourse (Ruth Wodak) models. Fairclough’s sociocultural model interprets text not only through the way objects are described but also through the relationships between objects that are defined. Meanwhile, Teun A. van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model emphasizes text, social cognition, and social context, forming a chain of analysis. Lastly, Ruth Wodak’s historical-discourse model puts historical aspects of discourse into his analysis.","PeriodicalId":508721,"journal":{"name":"Kanz Philosophia: A Journal for Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism","volume":"37 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kanz Philosophia: A Journal for Islamic Philosophy and Mysticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20871/kpjipm.v9i2.293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Critical discourse analysis has become an effective multidisciplinary approach to uncovering hidden ideologies and powers along with the changing times and the increasing prevalence of various discourses in society, both in the form of information written in text and distributed in the digital world. Discourse battles are commonplace in the context of life—as a form of dialectics and freedom to convey ideas. Researchers through this article discuss basic assumptions about the basic or main principles of critical discourse analysis developed by Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak. The basic assumptions are that critical discourse analysis focuses on social issues, power relations are discursive, discourse shapes society and culture, discourse manages ideological works, discourse is historical, the relationship between text and society is mediated (discourse), discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory, and discourse is a form of social action. The article also discusses three models of discourse analysis: the Sociocultural (Norman Fairclough), Socio-cognitive (Teun A. van Dijk), and Historical-Discourse (Ruth Wodak) models. Fairclough’s sociocultural model interprets text not only through the way objects are described but also through the relationships between objects that are defined. Meanwhile, Teun A. van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model emphasizes text, social cognition, and social context, forming a chain of analysis. Lastly, Ruth Wodak’s historical-discourse model puts historical aspects of discourse into his analysis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
批判性话语分析的哲学基础
随着时代的变迁和社会中各种话语的日益盛行,无论是以文字形式书写的信息,还是在数字世界中传播的信息,批判性话语分析已成为揭示隐藏的意识形态和权力的一种有效的多学科方法。话语之争是生活中司空见惯的现象--它是一种辩证法,也是传递思想的自由。研究人员通过本文讨论了诺曼-费尔克拉夫(Norman Fairclough)和露丝-沃达克(Ruth Wodak)提出的批判性话语分析的基本假设或主要原则。这些基本假设是:批判性话语分析关注社会问题、权力关系是话语性的、话语塑造社会和文化、话语管理意识形态作品、话语是历史性的、文本和社会之间的关系是中介性的(话语)、话语分析是解释性和说明性的、话语是社会行动的一种形式。文章还讨论了三种话语分析模式:社会文化模式(诺曼-费尔克拉夫)、社会认知模式(蒂恩-A-范戴克)和历史话语模式(露丝-沃达克)。费尔克拉夫的社会文化模式不仅通过描述对象的方式来解释文本,还通过定义对象之间的关系来解释文本。同时,Teun A. van Dijk 的社会认知模式强调文本、社会认知和社会背景,形成了一个分析链。最后,露丝-沃达克(Ruth Wodak)的历史-话语模式将话语的历史方面纳入分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EPISTEMOLOGY METHODOLOGY OF IMRE LAKATOS'S SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAM AND CONTRIBUTION TO ISLAMIC SCIENCE PLATO’S ETHICAL PHILOSOPHY AND RELEVANCE TO THE CONCEPT OF BIRR AL-WĀLIDAYN IN THE QUR’AN THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION ON THE INTERCONNECTION OF LIFE, RELIGION, AND HISTORY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY ON PHILIP KITCHER’S PERSPECTIVES
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1