Political discourse is the result of a social construction. It constructs the social world it aims to reflect. The reality of the world isn’t showed through PD. Indeed, political discourse appears to be a reality in itself. Through political discourse, power relations will be established according to the weight granted to a type of discourse, and to the speaker who is legitimate to speak politics. In this sense, “political discourse” generally refers to politicians only. These power relations are expressed through diverse discursive processes, which maintain the legitimacy of the speaker. They are the result of a relation of interdependence between language and action. An act of language follows a principle of alterity (Charaudeau: 2014, 12). …show more content…
Values arise from a social construction, they are “shared mental objects of social cognition” (Van Dijk, 1998: 74). A politician must be able to defend the values he promotes, and they must have a meaning within the discourse. If George W. Bush and Barack Obama have promoted the value of “freedom”, this value will adopt a certain meaning in a certain context. Martin and Wodak wrote that “interpreting what happened involves social values […]” (2003: 9). The attacks of 9/11 have been interpreted has an attack on “freedom”, on the American “freedom”. Terrorism itself is defined as a threat to “freedom”. From the interpretation of values within a political discourse, an ideology will emerge. “It is the specific, group-related and interest-defined, interpretation of values that forms the building blocks of ideological beliefs” (Van Dijk, 2000: 14). And ideologies “are based on a selection and combination of values drawn from a cultural common ground” (Van Dijk, 1998: …show more content…
As explained by Guillemi (quoted in Charaudeau, 2014: 151), the role of these representations is to interpret the reality that surrounds us, and to symbolise it with specific meanings. They form the set of beliefs, knowledge, and opinions that are produced and shared by individuals belonging to a same community. Through discourses, they shape our world views and the way we judge the world with values. This process typically generates knowledge that will be set up in systems of thoughts. However, two types of knowledge are to be distinguished: “savoirs de connaissance”, that we will translate as “scientific knowledge”, and “savoirs de croyances”, that we will understand as “beliefs” (Charaudeau, 2014: 153). “Scientific knowledge” establishes the truth on real-world phenomena. On the other hand, knowledge belonging to a set of beliefs judges the world on the basis of values. PD strategically gets these two types of knowledge mixed up. The speaker typically tries to make up a moral standard arising from beliefs in a universal standard. The knowledge stemming from beliefs aims to construct the reality in a realm of meanings. These beliefs are mirrored in utterances within the discourse and are spread afterwards inside a social group, and subsequently becoming reference standards. Accordingly, we speak of “socio-discursive
John Swales and James Paul Gee discuss about the samic tipic “Discourse”. In my point of view, their understanding of “Discourse” is similar. However, they explain it in different ways. In John Swales’ essay, he gives six defining charactertics of discourse community.
With the simple use of metaphors, Lakoff introduces to us the concept of “framing.” As the word suggests, framing gives us a picture in our mind when certain words are said. Within our minds, we all have different types of “frames” and how they each get activated is different as well. Most of the time they are activated unconsciously because the words that activate the frames are drilled into our heads over a large amount of time so it comes natural to us. When politicians say a specific combination of words, it unlocks our brain and our decision ends up being influenced.
Similar to how Aristotle and other individuals took a keen interest in the study of rhetoric and selected a particular area of focus, the authors in this essay concentrate on race and race relations. Initially, it points out that the evaluation and analysis of how race is integrated within the study of rhetoric and how it affects various cultures is still in its premature stages. The article is an
AP Language Gender, Semiotics, Power Assessment Societies view on every person is objectively determined by their language: the way they speak, how they say it, and whom they deem important enough to address. Obviously, other things, such as looks or actions, inform the impression someone leaves, however the way one speaks and what they say has arguably the greatest affect on the people they are surrounded by. This is why rhetoric and language play such a huge role in the process of establishing superiority over others and creating truths that may or may not be accurate. Social norms are established that are then used and manipulated by others through eloquence of speech to gain power over others. Through the examples provided in pieces such
As such, there is not one catch-all method to describe all the discourse communities on campus, thus necessitating further study. Therefore, in this paper I will compile several primary sources, including observation
Constructing the procedures around an experience, event, or subject allows the exploration of the matter through play by the audience5. Ultimately this leaves three possible areas of argumentation from Procedural Rhetoric: political, educational, and advertisement5. The framing of procedures may be determined to force perspective, allowing an understanding of political ideologies and the experiences that propagate them. It might be used to display how and why certain systems function, in order to provide understanding. And it might also be used to display a certain group, organization, or individual as a positive force.
Davis’s text emphasizes on the connection between the target Discourse community
Grant-Davie describes thoroughly the term rhetorical situation and how the development of the definition and its constituents has contributed to the discovery of the motives and responses behind any discourse. The analysis of rhetorical situations could determine the outer or inner influences of the rhetors, the audience, and their particular constraints. Grant Davie supports his claims by using the earlier definitions of scholars and teachers as his foundation. He also addresses his own analysis drawn by life experienced discourses which it also helps the reader understand the causes of rhetorical situations. This is important because it teaches any writer or reader to analyze a situation and think about the options and paths it could lead
The way communication changes when talking to an audience or talking to fellow people in the field is something that occurs in each. Though each of these discourse communities use different sets of jargon. The idea of making an idea easier for an audience of common people is something that happens with both communities. Another important aspect that is the same among the discourse communities is the cost. Though the cost comes from different areas, the bottom line the cost is great.
Every research project provides a link between a paradigm, epistemology, theoretical perspective, and research practice. A paradigm is identified in any school of thought – the integrated worldviews held by researchers and people in general that determine how these individuals perceive and attempt to comprehend truth (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2003). Furthermore, a paradigm includes an epistemological belief as well as an ontological belief that, when combined together, govern perceptions and choices made in the pursuit of scientific truth. In practice, individuals’ epistemological beliefs determine how they think knowledge or truth can be comprehended, what problems – if any – are associated with various views of pursuing and presenting knowledge and what role researchers play in its discovery (Robson, 2002). Different epistemologies offer different views of researchers’ relationships with their object of inquiry.
Methods of Rationalism by Plato and Descartes Philosophy has had an impact on mankind for thousands of years. This topic attempts to answer questions about the everyday world, and how things are the way they are. In Philosophy, there are many different topics that are discussed. These topics include Epistemology, Ontology, Ethics, Political and Social Philosophy, Aesthetics, Logic, and more. The topic that will be discussed in this paper is Epistemology, or the study of knowledge.
A discourse in this understanding is not based on the classical distinction between thought and action, it “(…) is about the production of knowledge through language. But it is itself produced by a practice: “discursive practice” – the practice of producing meaning” (Hall, 2006:165). It follows that because all social practices involve meaning, all practices necessarily have a discursive side. A discourse is comparable to what sociologists would call an ‘ideology’. It is composed of statements and/or beliefs that shape knowledge in the interest of one particular group.
Whilst the knower’s perspective is always essential in the pursuit of knowledge, it’s essence is greater in some areas of knowledge than others. Perspective shapes both what we pursue in knowledge and it affects how we interpret pursued knowledge. Whilst the latter has greater influence over subjective areas such as the arts and history, the former affects even the pursuit of knowledge in more objective areas such as the natural sciences and maths. What’s more, for knowledge to be knowledge, there must be a knower. Each individual knower gains knowledge through the ways of knowing reason and emotion (amongst others); these ways of knowing shape and are shaped by our perspective.
There is such a variety of definitions regarding discourse that make it difficult to stick to one definition, therefore the context to which discourse is used is helpful to narrowing down a less diverse definition. Michel Foucault (philosopher, social theorist and literary critic) used various definitions of discourse at separate instances. The rough definition that Foucault suggests for Discourse is ‘the general domain of all statements’. He also defines discourse as an adapted cluster of statements, which could relate to the distinct structures in discourse. Discourse has to do with distinguishing groups of statements which are controlled in a way that they match and reach a mutual effect.
Conversation analysis owes a supreme role in the real world as people can 't live without interaction. Conversation is a means of communication with other people with different purposes: social, official , medical, and commercial modes of life. Wang (2011: 76 ) states that “conversation analysis tries to discover, describe, and analyze structures of various, naturally occurring, interactional phenomena”, therefore, the analysis functions on how conversation participates to simplify things in daily life. Conversation analysis was introduced by Emmanuel Schegloff, Harvey Sacks and Gail Jefferson in the early of 1970s and was inspired by Ethno methodology. It has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology.