IndexThe importance of contextCritical discourse analysisSystemic functional linguistics"Race", racism and discourseLetseka and Pitsoe (2013) state that the idea of ​​"discourse" is multidimensional, viewed in a complete and has some definitions. Numerous academic works point out that in the study of language, "discourse" often alludes to linguistic examples and language usage, dialects, and satisfactory pronouncements within a society. Sociologists and scholars, in general, will use the expression "discourse" to describe discussions and the meaning behind them by a group of individuals who share similar ideas. The idea of ​​'discourse' comes from the Latin 'discursus', which means 'running here and there', and is mostly attributed to 'written or spoken communication'. In short, “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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an 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 a variety of theories and disciplines. Although, as he reveals in linguistics, "discourse" can sometimes denote spoken word as opposed to written "texts", Fairclough recognizes that the most common use of "discourse" in linguistics is that of "extended sample of spoken or written language" . Furthermore, it also identifies the interaction between "speaker and addressee or between writer and reader" as a vital part of "discourse" understood in this particular sense, drawing attention to the situational context of a given language use. Here the "text" for him would be perceived only as one of the dimensions of "discourse", that is: "the written or spoken "product" of the text production process". Finally, "speech" is also used for numerous types of language in different forms of social contexts. He gives some examples: "'newspaper speech', 'advertising speech', 'classroom speech', 'medical consultation speech'." For Fairclough there appears to be "a mutually constitutive relationship between discourses and social systems". in which they function” (Howarth 2000: 4), as cited by Poole (2010) who himself adds that Fairclough's realization of 'discourse' is “both a representation of, and an influence on, social practice”. This same issue is further exemplified 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), institution(s) 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 express the same points differently, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially shaped: it constitutes situations, objective knowledge, social identities and relationships between people and groups of people” (1997: 259) Wodak (2008) , also decides to distinguish between the notions of "discourse" and "text". He believes that this is an act of following the “most important traditions in text linguistics and discourse studies.” She introduces the definition established by Lemke: When I talk about discourse in general, I usually mean the social activity of creating meaning with language and other symbolic systems in a particular kind of situation or environment... On every occasion into which a particular meaning characteristic of these discourses is attributed, a specific text is produced. Discourses, as social actions more or less governed by social habits, produce texts that will be somewhat similar in their meanings…When we want to focus on the specificity of an event or occasion, we talk about the text; when we want to look at models, common elements, relationships that span different texts and occasions, we can talk about discourses. (1995: 7) He goes on to explain that 'speech' is characterized at an alternative and more abstract level than 'text'. “Discourse” suggests shared 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 contemplate "discourse" and "text" without trying to examine the concept of "context". The discourse does not occur in a vacuum, but is inserted into a particular context. Consequently, a discourse cannot be understood without thinking about its specific circumstance (Hülsse 1999). He points out that this point is crucial in pragmatics and was originally made by Wittgenstein. Subsequently, he quotes Wodak (1996): “expressions have meaning only 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, both past and present, are also imperative to the context and, for this reason, intertextuality is a key notion for CDA. Here follows the work of Tischer (1998: 45, 181). This paragraph is based on the work of Song (2010) who indicates the following definition of 'context': “Context is the physical environment in which a word is used." (Yule 2000: 128). Therefore, he decides to divide the "context" in three different categories: linguistic, situational and cultural. The linguistic context alludes to the internal setting of the discourse, that is, the connection between “words, sentences, sentences and even paragraphs”. sentence: “He is a bachelor.” It is an impossible task to understand the meaning of the word “bachelor” here without knowing the context in which it is found, because it could mean “a single man” or “a person with a university degree”. it alludes to the environment, time, place, etc. in which the speech takes place, and also to the connection between interlocutors. This theory is usually approached through the idea of ​​register, which clarifies the interrelationship of language with context considering it under three fundamental headings: "campo, tenor and mode". The field of discourse touches the ongoing action. Song goes on to say that it can be said that "the field is the linguistic reflection of the intentional work of the language user in the situation in which a text occurred." The tenor alludes to the type of "social relationship enacted in or by speech". The idea of ​​ten-o, therefore, characterizes the way in which linguistic decisions are influenced not only by the topic or object of the communication, but also by the type of social relationship within which the communication exists. The modality is the "linguistic reflection" between the user of the language and the type of media he uses. Each member of the speech event must know or make assumptions about their status in relation to the next one, and in general, status will also be a key factor in ensuring who should initiate the discussion. In this way, language cannot avoid being influenced by each of these elements such as social work, economic well-being, gender, age, and so on. “Language is a social phenomenon” and is firmly “linked to the social structure and value system of society.” Song continuesto state that by social position we mean the relative social position of the members. Social jobs are functions explicit by culture, systematized in the general public and perceived by its individuals. Critical Discourse Analysis The vast majority of this section concerns a description of what critical discourse analysis (CDA) is about following the work of Wodak (2009). He explains that the terms Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably, but nowadays the use of the term CDA seems to be more widespread and that it has incorporated the theory formerly known as CL. It lists the fields of study that constituted the birth of the CDA as follows: "Rhetoric, Textual Linguistics, Anthropology, Philosophy, Socio-psychology, Cognitive Sciences, Literary Studies and Sociolinguistics, as well as (...) Applied and Pragmatic Linguistics". Also note that there are scholars who opt for the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). He then highlights the commonalities between the numerous disciplines that make up (critical) discourse studies: all examine the type of language that "occurs naturally", all are busy looking at discourse as a whole, in a broader perspective. scale with respect to "words and sentences" they carry out a linguistic study of "actions and interactions" instead of dealing only with the "grammar of sentences" they investigate not only the verbal but also "non-verbal (semiotic, multimodal, visual) aspects of interaction" all Within all of them, there is a focus “on dynamic (socio)-cognitive or interactional moves and strategies” they explore “contexts of language use” and the functions of these “(social, cultural, situational and cognitive)” these disciplines examine a wide range of "phenomena of text grammar and language use: coherence, anaphora, arguments, macrostructures, speech acts, interactions, turns, signs, politeness, argumentation, rhetoric, mental models and many other aspects of the 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 problem-oriented nature and the fact that the CDA seeks to “change or at least challenge the social status quo”. He states that although there are various problems that critical discourse analysts deal with, they are similar in that all of these problems are somehow connected to social inequalities. “[t]he use of a certain language and (…) control over the means of production and distribution of discourse” is what ensures that these social inequalities are established and maintained. It also draws attention to the function that the language used by people has and that there is no objectivity in speech, therefore “linguistic choices are believed to be ideological”. The CDA researcher's responsibility is to identify these choices, their effects, and the motivation behind them. Bennett decides to also quote Jäger (2001): “The aim is therefore to criticize dominant discourses and reveal contradictions and non-expressions”. Wodak (2009) informs that a small symposium in Amsterdam in January 1991 was where a group of scholars met and had the opportunity to discuss theories and methods of CDA and, in turn, form what she calls the “CDA Group”. The group of scholars 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 academics mentioned to share their positions on the approach to discourse analysis with each other. They had “distinct and different approaches.” Some of them have changed drastically since that date, while the relevance of others remains intact to this day. He goes on to agree on thefact that all CDA approaches are problem-oriented, so there is a need for interdisciplinarity and eclecticism. Wodak adds that other characteristics of the CDA paradigm include the common inclination to “demystify ideologies through the systematic and retroducible investigation of semiotic (written, spoken) or visual) data.” The CDA understands power as a means of control. Powerful people have a platform to develop abuse. Therefore, those in power should be continually questioned. Analyzing power is also crucial to understanding “the dynamics and specifics of control (of action) in modern societies, but power remains mostly invisible” (Wodak 2009: 10). According to Foucault, to understand power, analysts had to recognize and decompose the implementation of power, the places where it was implemented and its effects, so as to grasp the way in which individuals were also transformed into effects of power. It was precisely after discovering how power works that it was possible to reveal “how and why power was economically or politically useful” (Bennett 2015). The other two, in addition to power, that constantly emerge notions regarding CDA include ideology and knowledge. They are intertwined and inseparable. Bennett (2015) states that a clear clarification of the relationship between them would be that power is established to a limited extent through discourse or, one might also say, through the control and dispersion of knowledge. Furthermore, “knowledge is not objective but is ideological in that (…) an ideology presents a perspective on the world”. Finally, for this ideology to prevail, it is necessary to employ power. Systemic Functional Linguistics Bennett (2015) notes that starting from a premise of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), critical discourse analysts argue that language is a set of choices, for example, that Everything that is said or not said is done as such for a reason and regularly this reason is power. He also mentions “Hallidayan functional linguistics views language as a social phenomenon” (Halliday 1994). SFL is an approach created by Michael Halliday for which the use of language is functional and its function is to create meaning. These meanings are influenced by context. Language is also seen as a semiotic process. SFL, unlike CDA, deals with the use of language at the most basic sentence level. The use of a certain 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 grammar analysis. “In a grammatical system (…) every choice is made not in particular words (…), but in the order and arrangement of the grammatical roles that the words cover. That is, these choices are realized by structures” (Eggins 2005: 18). Because CDA is busy looking at discourse as a whole, on a larger scale than the sentence level, discourse analysts sometimes criticize SFL for simply analyzing the sentence level. “Race,” racism, and discourse This section is largely an overview of Reisigl and Wodak (2001) on this topic. As in Bennett (2015: 43), who here also follows Reisigl and Wodak (2001), the idea of ​​race, as a (pseudo)biological method for separating individuals along essentially phenotypic bases, came to have a wide scope in the eighteenth and 19th century. centuries. Before this "scientificization" of the idea, it was largely used to clarify "aristocratic descent and belonging to the nobility". In the past, individuals were subjected to racial persecution because they were deemed biologically inferior. After it became public knowledge that this”. ( 2001: 18)