Critical discourse analysis is important for deconstructing ideologies. To Widdowson (2000), CDA is a device for uncovering implicit ideologies in texts. It unveils the underlying ideological prejudices and therefore the exercise of power in texts. Little wonder then, Ayoola (2008) opines that most linguistic investigations on power and ideology fall under the aegis of CDA. Further, Jimoh (2012) claims that in CDA, the notions of ideology, power, hierarchy, gender and so on, are considered relevant
features for sociologically and critically oriented discourse analysis that distinguish them from the linguistic approach is understanding discourse as both speech and text and also to attaches in the proceedings research importance to the context in which they are played and to draw attention to his processuality. Representatives of the sociological discourse analysis set themselves primarily cognitive targets, representatives of critical discourse analysis treat their studies as a form of social practice
CRITICAL REVIEWS ON CORPUS • Corpus Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: A Case Study on News Reports of the 2011 Libyan Civil War1-Sibo Chen School of Communication, Simon Fraser University This paper reports a comparative analysis of the news coverage of the 2011 Libyan civil war in two national media. The 2011 Libyan civil war attracted wide attention and was extensively covered by various media around the world. However, news discourse regarding the war was constructed differently across
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Prayut Chan-o-cha’s Speeches of Elections and Reforms Rachayanandhana Phraekhao 5406610039 1 Introduction Politics is a struggle of power in order to put certain political, economic and social ideas into practice. In this process, language plays a crucial role. Every political action is prepared, accompanied, influenced and played by language. This paper analyses the political discourse of General Prayut Chan-o-Cha, the Prime Minister of Thailand who gave the
used to achieve his aim. The results of this study show that most of selected discourses appeared as speech act of promise and the speaker used different ways in order his utterance serve his aim. The concept of "discourse" is a pivotal position in all the research
will delve into the societal representations which the global media portray, through dominant discourses that help to frame and define our social understandings, opinions and attitudes of the world we live in. An emphasis will be shown on the effect these discourses have on our interpretations of people from other cultures, as well as people of another gender, or social position. These damaging discourses can serve to negatively affect sections of society by almost demonizing them by creating an ‘othering’
studies, the gathered data were needed to be rated; therefore, the last part of this chapter is allocated to the rating procedures. 3.2. Research Design Three research questions were addressed in this study; in fact, this study was a kind of discourse analysis; therefore, it adopted a descriptive and qualitative design. The first question intended to investigate the dominant types of cohesive devices found in both
therapeutic relationship explored on the basis of previous literature. Secondly, this chapter includes the analysis section. The analysis mainly looks into the interactional strategies and the underlying power mechanism and the involvement of contextual factors in the compliance and non-compliance conversation and how it influences the therapeutic relationship. In the interactional level, the analysis looked at how compliance and noncompliance are managed in the interaction and the interactional strategies
use language for different purposes. The second component is the listener’s ability to get the language and understand the speaker’s real intentions. The third component is the command of the rules by which utterances integrate together to create discourse (Bialystok, 1993, 52). Active communication, then, can only occur when the message transmitted by the speaker is interpreted and comprehended appropriately by the hearer (Savignon, 1993,
James Paul Gee defined discourse as “ a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or 'social network.'” In Gee’s journal, What Is Literacy?, he made five points about discourses which included being able to recognize objects and values in a specific discourse, and obtaining power and status when associated with a discourse. Those two points were