{"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.
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。