It considers political, gender, institutional and also media discourses. Critical Discourse Analysis focuses on the relationship between texts and its social context. Upon doing my research, I came across the fact that CDA is an interdisciplinary approach in viewing language as a social practice, meaning that it is related to more than one branch of knowledge. It is a broad concept. According to (Le & Short, 2009, p. 4) “Critical Discourse Analysis not only uses a variety of methods developed in various disciplines, but it is also not confined to a specific range of topics that normally belong to a particular discipline”.
1. A control description sheet communicates to orienteers detailed information about features of a control point. But what does communication mean? It is not only a subject of study, on the grounds that it involves approaches from various perspectives, e.g. linguistic, sociological, psychological.
The supporters of this approach argue if the author has correctly understood and interpreted the principles of Jung 's theory regarding the personality nature. If her perception of Jung 's ideas was mistaken, then the whole methodology on which the identification of personality types is based would be considered unsound. The opponents of Myer 's ideas state that even Jung himself realized that his typology functions while applying to particular individuals. Besides, many would consider the claims and the explanations provided by Myer in her book as too vague and the ones that could be used referring to anyone. One more point for critics is the simple way of the presentation of information in the book.
“[T]heory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change.” Once the facts and truths of the idea have been set, they cannot change. Eventually with enough facts (truths) this hypothesis can be claimed as a fact itself. It is deemed truth. Of course people have different values, morals, opinions, views, etc.
Discourse does not have a general definition , but Foucault ( as cited by Mills, 2004) have stated that the most effective ways of think of discourse is" practices that systematically creates the object which they speak" (p. 61). In other words, what we say and think are two different things. Discourse is also an idea that language is planned according to different areas of social life, and a way of talking about and understanding the world (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). Discourses are made up of practices, forms and objects (Mill, 2004). It depends on the understanding that there are much more meanings when people communicate than simply just transferring information (University H., 2008).
This is done so through achieved using the rules of separation and classifications. Identifiers and differentiators in the way in which the object is described highlights the connotations and that are implied to it. Hence, through the thematic choice and the presence of correlations, that the meanings of objects are defined. The unity of discourse refers to the coherence of meaning, signifying that meaning is thus constructed and can be found in the interplay of rules based on the social period. Foucault explains that the relations between discursive formations may include analogy, opposition, or complementarity.
This slice will help to understand the relation between the ideology discourse and the idea of quality though it is difficult to connect to each other conceptually. To start with ideology, it is a puzzling concept which can be interpreted in both positive and negative ways . But, in a general view, ideology represents social interests.
He considers several conditions under which this is most likely and asserts that groups tend to defect after "partial or incomplete fratricide", where they still have functional capability or pertinent information to aid the state. Competing ideas that he brings up as causes of defection include ideology differences and state policies targeted at causing defections. Staniland presents Kashmir and Sri Lanka as examples and examines them with all three theories. Though it is not accurate every time, the fratricide-flipping theory is more accurate than other theories at predicting the actions of the targeted faction in both cases. The weaknesses in Staniland's argument come from the way he defined his thesis.
Hence, there is no ‘one truth’; representations are not pure reflections of reality, but rather cultural constructions. Every group, culture, society or community creates its own representation of what is to be seen as the ‘truth’. Existing dominant representations, however, call for the
In every situation certain communications are expected and not others. Expected premises for decision-making are valid for more than one decision. On the basis of the systems theory we define organisations (complex social systems) with the following characteristics (Luhmann, 2003, Chapter 3; Boos & Mitterer, 2014, p. 25): • There is no objective reality. Reality is created by the own standards and design principles of the system. • The basic element of organizations are not people, but the communication of decisions.