Table of ContentsThe Importance of ContextCritical Discourse AnalysisSystemic Functional Linguistics “Race,” Racism, and DiscourseLetseka and Pitsoe (2013) state that the idea of ​​“discourse” is multidimensional , generally seen and has some definitions. An abundance of scholarly work finds that in the study of language, "discourse" regularly refers to instances of speech and language use, dialects, and satisfying proclamations within a society. Sociologists and academics will generally use the term "discourse" to describe discussions and the meaning behind them by a gathering of like-minded individuals. The idea of ​​“discourse” comes from the Latin “discursus,” meaning “rushing to and from,” and mostly attributes “written or oral communication.” In summary, “discourse is conversation or information”. “Discourse is socially constitutive and constituted” (Reisigl and Wodak 2001). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The entire following paragraph provides an overview of Fairclough's (1992) approach to the concepts of 'discourse' and 'text'. Fairclough (1992: 3-4) considers "discourse" to be a problematic notion, due to the multitude of definitions that can be found in various theories and disciplines. Although, as he reveals in linguistics, "discourse" can sometimes refer to spoken words as opposed to written "texts", Fairclough recognizes that the most common usage of "discourse" in linguistics is "an extended sample of language spoken or written. Furthermore, it also identifies the interaction between "speaker and addressee or between writer and reader" as an essential part of "discourse" understood in this particular sense, drawing attention to the context of the situation of a given use of the language. . Here, the “text” would only be perceived for him as one of the dimensions of the “discourse”, namely: “the written or spoken “product” of the process of producing the text”. Finally, “discourse” is also used for many types of language in various forms of social contexts. He cites a few examples: “newspaper discourse, advertising discourse, classroom discourse, medical consultation discourse.” For Fairclough, there appears to be “a mutually constitutive relationship between discourses and social systems.” in which they function” (Howarth 2000: 4), cited by Poole (2010) who himself adds that Fairclough’s realization of “discourse” is “both a representation and an influence on social practice”. This problem is further illustrated in the following passage from Fairclough and Wodak: “CDA views discourse – the use of language in speaking and writing – as a form of “social practice.” Describing discourse as a social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institutions, and social structure(s) that frame it. A dialectical relationship is a two-way relationship: the discursive event is shaped by situations, institutions and social structures, but it also shapes them. To put the same points in a different way, discourse is both socially constitutive and socially shaped: it constitutes situations, objective knowledge, as well as social identities and relationships between people and groups of people” ( 1997: 259) Wodak (2008). , also decides to differentiate the notions of “discourse” and “text”. She considers it an act of respectof “the most important traditions in text linguistics and discourse studies”. She introduces the definition established by Lemke: When I speak of discourse in general, I generally mean the social activity of creating meanings with language and other symbolic systems in a particular type of situation or setting… In each Once the particular meaning characteristic of these speeches is being taken on, a specific text is produced. Discourses, as social actions more or less governed by social habits, produce texts which, in certain respects, will be similar in their meanings... When we want to focus on the specifics of an event or occasion , we are talking about text; When we want to examine patterns, commonalities, relationships that span different texts and occasions, we can talk about discourse. (1995: 7) She goes on to explain that “discourse” is characterized at an alternative and more abstract level to “text”. “Discourse” suggests common patterns and features of information and structures, while “text” is a particular and unique recognition of “discourse.” The importance of context It is difficult to consider “discourse” and “text” without making an effort to examine the notion of “context”. Discourse does not occur in a vacuum, it fits into a particular framework. Therefore, a speech cannot be understood without thinking about its specific circumstance (Hülsse 1999). He emphasizes that this point is crucial in pragmatics and was originally raised by Wittgenstein. He then quotes Wodak (1996): “statements only have meaning in their situational, cultural, ideological and historical context”. He then concludes that this is why, for CDA, context analysis plays a crucial role. Furthermore, Hülsse adds that other discourses, past and present, are also imperative to context and that, therefore, intertextuality constitutes a key notion for CDA. Here he follows the work of Titscher (1998: 45, 181). This paragraph draws on the work of Song (2010) who highlights the following definition of “context”: “Context is the physical environment in which a word is used. (Christmas 2000: 128). She then decides to divide “context” into three different categories: linguistic, situational and cultural. Linguistic context refers to the situation within the discourse, that is, the connection between “words, phrases, sentences and even paragraphs”. Song illustrates this by mentioning a phrase: “He’s a bachelor.” It is impossible to understand the meaning of the word "bachelor's degree" here without knowing the context surrounding it, as it could mean "a single man" or "a person with a university degree." Situational context refers to the environment, time and place, etc., in which the speech takes place, as well as the connection between the speakers. This theory is usually approximated through the idea of ​​register, which elucidates the interrelation of language with context by attending to it under three fundamental headings: “field, tenor and mode”. The scope of the discourse concerns the action in progress. Song goes on to state the view that "the field is the linguistic reflection of the language user's intentional work in the situation in which a text occurred." Tenor refers to the type of “social relation implemented in or through discourse”. The idea of ​​ten-or therefore illustrates how linguistic decisions are influenced not only by the theme or subject of the communication, but also by the type of social relationship within which the communication exists. The modeis the “linguistic thinking” between the language user and the type of media they use. Each member of the language group must know or make assumptions about their status relative to the next, and overall, status will also be an imperative factor in determining who should initiate the discussion. Thus, language cannot help but be influenced by each of these elements such as social employment, economic well-being, gender and age, etc. “Language is a social phenomenon” and it is firmly “linked to the social structure and value system of society.” Song continues to assert that by societal position we mean the relative social status of members. Social jobs are culturally explicit functions, systematized in the general public and perceived by its individuals. Critical Discourse AnalysisThe vast majority of this section is devoted to a description of what critical discourse analysis (CDA) is in following the work of Wodak (2009). She explains that the terms Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably, but today the use of the term CDA appears to be more widespread and has incorporated the theory previously known as CL. It lists the fields of study which constituted until the creation of the CDA as follows: “Rhetoric, linguistics of texts, anthropology, philosophy, socio-psychology, cognitive sciences, literary studies and sociolinguistics, as well as (...) Applied and pragmatic linguistics. . She also notes that some scholars opt for the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). She then highlights the commonalities between the many disciplines that make up (critical) discourse studies: they all examine the type of language that "occurs naturally", they are all concerned with considering discourse as a whole, from a more wide. on a scale greater than that of “word and sentences”, they carry out a linguistic study of “actions and interactions” instead of being concerned only with the “grammar of sentences”. They study not only verbal but also “non-verbal (semiotic, multimodal, visual)” aspects. of interaction” in each of them, the emphasis is placed “on dynamic (socio)-cognitive or interactional movements and strategies”; they explore "the contexts of language use" and their functions "(social, cultural, situational and cognitive)" these disciplines examine a wide range of "text grammar and language use phenomena: coherence, anaphora, topics , macrostructures, speech acts, interactions, turn-taking, signs, politeness, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models and many other aspects of text grammar and language use.” text and discourseWhat differentiates critical discourse analysis (CDA) from discourse analysis (DA), so what allows CDA to actually be considered "critical"? Bennett (2015) highlights its issues-oriented nature and that CDA attempts to “change or, at the very least, challenge the social status quo.” He asserts that although critical discourse analysts deal with various issues, they are similar in that all of these issues are, in one way or another, linked to social inequalities. “[t]he use of a certain language and (…) the control of the means of production and distribution of discourse” are at the origin of the establishment and maintenance of these social inequalities. He also draws attention to the function that the language used by people has and the fact that there is no objectivity in the discourse, which is why "linguistic choices are considered ideological." The responsibility ofCDA researcher is to identify these choices as well as their effects and the motivations behind them. Bennett also decides to quote Jäger (2001): “The aim is therefore to criticize dominant discourses and to reveal contradictions and non-expressions”. Wodak (2009) reports that a small symposium in Amsterdam in January 1991 was where a group of researchers met and had the opportunity to discuss theories and methods of CDA and, in turn, formed what it calls the “CDA Group”. The group of academics who met at the time in question included: Teun Van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and Ruth Wodak herself. The meeting allowed the mentioned scholars to share with each other their positions on the approach to discourse analysis. They had “distinct and different approaches”. Some of them have changed radically since then, while the relevance of others remains intact in our times. She goes on to recognize that all approaches to CDA are problem-driven, hence the need for interdisciplinarity and eclecticism. Wodak adds that other characteristics of the CDA paradigm include the common desire to "demystify ideologies through the systematic and retroducible investigation of semiotic (written, oral or visual) data". CDA understands power as a means of control . Powerful people have a platform to develop abuse. So those in power should be continually questioned. Power analysis is also imperative to understanding “the dynamics and specifics of control (action) in modern societies, but power remains largely invisible” (Wodak 2009: 10). According to Foucault, to understand power, analysts had to recognize and break down the implementation of power, where it was exercised, and its effects in order to grasp how individuals were also transformed into the effects of power. It was just after the discovery of how power worked that it could be revealed “how and why power was economically or politically useful” (Bennett 2015). The two other notions, besides power, that come up constantly with regard to the CDA include ideology. and knowledge. They are linked and inseparable. Bennett (2015) argues that a simple clarification of the relationship between them would be that power is established to a limited extent through discourse or, one could also say, through the control and dispersion of knowledge. Also, “knowledge is not objective but ideological to the extent that (...) an ideology presents a perspective on the world”. Finally, for this ideology to take over, power must be used. Systemic Functional Linguistics Bennett (2015) notes that from a premise of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), critical discourse analysts argue that language is a set of choices, for example everything that is said or not is done as such for a reason and often that reason is power. He also cites “Hallidayan functional linguistics considers language as a societal phenomenon” (Halliday 1994). SFL is an approach designed by Michael Halliday for which the use of language is functional and its function is to create meanings. These meanings are influenced by context. Language is also considered a semiotic process. SFL, unlike CDA, is concerned with language use at the most basic sentence level. Using a given word in place of another and what difference it makes to a sentence. What separates the linguistic choices that were made and those that could have been made? It also uses the analysis of ». ( 2001: 18)