Ruth Wodak expert of discourse analysis

RUTH WODAK

Ruth Wodak (born 12 July 1950 in London) is an Austrian linguist, who is Emeritus Distinguished Professor and Chair in Discourse Studies at Lancaster University.^[1] and Professor in Linguistics at the University of Vienna.
Her research is mainly located in Discourse Studies (DS) and in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Together with her former colleagues and Ph.D students in Vienna (Rudolf de Cillia, Gertraud Benke, Helmut Gruber, Florian Menz, Martin Reisigl, Usama Suleiman, Christine Anthonissen), she elaborated the Discourse Historical Approach, an interdisciplinary, problem-oriented approach to analysing the change of discursive practices over time and in various genres.
She is member of the editorial board of a range of linguistic journals, co-editor of Discourse and Society, Critical Discourse Studies, and of the Journal of Language and Politics. She was the founding editor (together with Paul Chilton) of the book series Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture. She was also section editor of "Language and Politics" for the Second Edition of the Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Ruth Wodak chaired the Humanities and Social Sciences Panel for the EURYI award, in the European Science Foundation from 2006 to 2008.

Books

• Wodak, Ruth (2015). The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage.
• Wodak, Ruth (2011). The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual (2nd revised edition). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Reisigl, Martin & Wodak, Ruth (2001). Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
• Wodak, Ruth (1996). Disorders of Discourse. London: Longman.

Edited books

• Wodak, Ruth, Mral, Brigitte, & Khosravinik, Majid (Eds.) (2013). Right Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Wodak, Ruth (Ed.) (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: Four Volumes. Sage.
• Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, & Kerswill, Paul (Eds.) (2011). The Sage Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Los Angeles: Sage.
• Wodak, Ruth & Meyer, Michael (Eds.) (2009). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd revised edition). London: Sage.
• Wodak, Ruth & Reisigl, Martin (Eds.) (2009). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: EUP.
• Wodak, Ruth & Koller, Veronika (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Wodak, Ruth, Krzyzanowski, Michal (2008). Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wodak, Ruth & Chilton, Paul (Eds.) (2005). New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Weiss, Gilbert & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wodak, Ruth, de Cillia, Rudolf, Reisigl, Martin, & Liebhart, Karin (Eds.) (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: EUP.
• Wodak, Ruth (Ed.) (1997). Gender and Discourse. London: Sage.
• Wodak, Ruth (Ed.) (1989). Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

41

Areas in Discourse Analysis

Ethnography is the systematic study of people and cultures. It is designed to explore cultural phenomena where the researcher observes society from the point of view of the subject of the study. An ethnography is a means to represent graphically and in writing the culture of agroup. The word can thus be said to have a "double meaning", which partly depends on whether it is used as a count noun or uncountably. The resulting field study or a case report reflects the knowledge and the system of meanings in the lives of a cultural group.

Ethnography, as the presentation ofempirical data on human societies andcultures, was pioneered in the biological, social, and cultural branches ofanthropology, but it has also become popular in the social sciences in general—sociology, communication studies, history—wherever people study ethnic groups, formations, compositions, resettlements, social welfare characteristics, materiality, spirituality, and a people's ethnogenesis. The typical ethnography is a holisticstudy and so includes a brief history, and an analysis of the terrain, theclimate, and the habitat. In all cases it should be reflexive, make a substantial contribution toward the understanding of the social life of humans, have an aesthetic impact on the reader, and express a credible reality. An ethnography records all observed behavior and describes all symbol-meaning relations, using concepts that avoid causal explanations

CRITICAL DISCOURSE

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a branch of linguistics that seeks to understand how and why certain texts affect readers and hearers. Through the analysis of grammar, it aims to uncover the 'hidden ideologies' that can influence a reader or hearer's view of the world. Analysts have looked at a wide variety of spoken and written texts – political manifestos, advertising, rules and regulations – in an attempt to demonstrate how text producers use language (wittingly or not) in a way that could be ideologically significant.

CDA is not a monolithic method or field of study but rather a loose agglomeration

of approaches to the study of discourse, all of which are located broadly within the

of critical social research that has its roots in the work of the Frankfurt

School (Wodak and Meyer 2001). Though having developed, at least initially, largely

independently of each other, these approaches are united by a concern to understand

how social power, its use and abuse, is related to spoken and written language.

0

Definition of Discourse Analysis

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

A.    DEFINTION DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

·       Brown and Yule (1983) ) observe that DA examines  “how addressers construct  linguistic messages for addressees and how addressees work on linguistic messages in order to interpret them.”

·       Stubbs (1983:1) describes DA thus:

The term discourse analysis is very ambiguous. It refers mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring connected speech or written discourse. Roughly speaking, it refers to attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also concerned with language use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers.

·       Discourse analysis does not presuppose a bias towards the study of either spoken or written language. In fact, the monolithic character of the categories of speech and writing has been widely challenged,especially as the gaze of analysts turns to multi-media texts and practices on the Internet.

Stef Slembrouck (DA web page)

·       Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'

This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of as they flow together.

Deborah Tannen

(From Linguistic Society of America web

·       While Nunan (1993), states the definition of discourse linguistics as the study of how stretches of language used in communication assume meaning, purpose and unity for their users: the quality of coherence (an interaction of text with given participants/context)

B.    DEFINITION OF DISCOURSE

·       On the other hand Dakowska, being aware of differences between kinds of discourses indicates the unity of communicative intentions as a vital element of each of them. Consequently she suggests using terms ‚text’ and ‚discourse’ almost interchangeably betokening the former refers to the linguistic product, while the latter implies the entire dynamics of the processes (Dakowska 2001:81).

·       "Discourse: a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative" (Crystal 1992:25).

·       Discourse is written as well as spoken: every utterance assuming the a speaker Foucault, 1972: 80) The specification with the term is that ‘discourse must be used with its social purpose’ this is the main specification of discourse.

·       According to Cook (1990:7) novels, as well as short conversations or groans might be equally rightfully named discourses.

C.    DEFINITION ANALYSIS

·       Analysis means to break something up into parts,pieces, reason, or steps and look how those peces are related  to each other.

·       While Nunan (1993), states the definition of discourse linguistics as the study of how stretches of language used in communication assume meaning, purpose and unity for their users: the quality of coherence (an interaction of text with given participants/context)

·       Discourse analysis does not presuppose a bias towards the study of either spoken or written language. In fact, the monolithic character of the categories of speech and writing has been widely challenged,especially as the gaze of analysts turns to multi-media texts and practices on the Internet.

Stef Slembrouck (DA web page)

·       Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'

This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of as they flow together.

Deborah Tannen

(From Linguistic Society of America web)

0

Video Semantic

0

Need Analysis - English For Specific Purpose - Faculty of Forestry

0

polysemy in semantic

0

hyperbole in semantic

0

metonymy and synecdoche

Assalammualaikum.wr.wb. 

Baiklah disini saya akan menjelaskan apa itu metonimia dan sinekdoke.

1.   Metonymia

majas metonimia berasal dari bahasa Yunani meto yang berarti "menunjukkan perubahan" dan anoma yang berarti "nama". pengertian metominia adalah metonimia adalah majas yang menggunakan merek dagang atau nama barang untuk melukiskan sesuatu yang dipergunakan sehingga kata itu berasosiasi dengan benda keseluruhan. Dapat dikatakan pula bahwa majas metonimia adalah majas yang memakai nama ciri atau nama hal yang ditautkan dengan orang, barang, atau hal, sebagai penggantinya.

untuk contoh metonymia adalah sebagai berikut

·         Tania berangkat ke Jakarta menggunakan Air Asia 

(seperti kita ketahui bahwa Air Asia adalah salah satu nama transportasi udara(pesawat). meskipun kita tidak menyebutkan namanya, kita sudah tahu bahwa Air Asia adalah pesawat.)

·         barsa membeli Marlboro di toko pak Anta 

(sama seperti contoh pertama, disini saya mengambil contoh Marlboro. Marlboro adalah nama Merk rokok)

2.   Sinekdoke

Majas sinekdoke dibedakan menjadi dua, pars pro toto dan totem pro parie. Pengelompokkan ini didasarkan pada bentuk pengungkapan kalimat yang dibentuk. Majas sinekdoke dikelompokkan ke dalam majas perbandingan dilihat dari bentuk kalimatnya. Sedang dikelompokkan ke dalam majas pertautan jika dilihat dari penyampaian maknanya. Seperti dalam majas metonimi, majas sinekdoke memainkan hubungan antar acuan sebagai komponen makna. Makna yang diungkapkan oleh kata yang digunakan dapat merujuk pada kata lain karena memiliki hubungan acuan. Cara pengungkapkan sinekdoke dapat dibedakan menjadi dua.

a.    Pars pro toto

Adalah gaya bahasa yang menyebutkan bagian kecil dari sesuatu untuk mewakili keseluruhan.
Contoh: "Mana Anton, hari ini aku belum melihat batang hidungnya". Nah kata batang hidung merupakan majas pars pro toto. Penutur disini menyebutkan bagian kecil dari sosok Anton, yaitu batang hidungnya. Padahal maksud penutur sebenarnya adalah Anton seutuhnya tidak sebatas hidungnya saja.

b.    Totem pro parie

Adalah gaya bahasa yang menyebutkan bagian besar dari sesuatu untuk mewakili sebagian.
Contoh: "Indonesia mendapatkan mendali emas pada cabang perlombaan bulu tangkis". Nah kata batang Indonesia merupakan majas Totem Pro Partw. Penutur disini menyebutkan Indonesia untuk mewakili satu orang atlite bulu tangkis yang memenangkan mendali emas.

0

collocation in semantics

0

synonym, antonym and hyponym in semantic

0

simile

A simile is a figure of speech that makes a comparison, showing similarities between two different things. Unlike a metaphor, a simile draws resemblance with the help of the words “like” or “as”. Therefore, it is a direct comparison. We can find simile examples in our daily speech. We often hear comments like “John is as slow as a snail.” Snails are notorious for their slow pace and here the slowness of John is compared to that of a snail. The use of “as” in the example helps to draw the resemblance.

Some more examples of common similes are given below. Common Examples of Simile Our soldiers are as brave as lions. Her cheeks are red like a rose. He is as funny as a monkey. The water well was as dry as a bone. He is as cunning as a fox. Simile inputs vividness into what we say. Authors and poets utilize comparisons to convey their sentiments and thoughts through vivid word pictures like a simile

0

Metaphor

1.Definition of metaphor

Is a figure of speech which make animplicit, implied or hidden cimparison between two things that are unrelated but share some common characteristics.

2. The Extended Metaphor

Kind to the metaphor is the extended metaphor, which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like:  a metaphor written large and lengthy to make an even deeper, more involved comparison between the subject and the thing it's being compared with.
Extended metaphor often pop up in poetry and fiction, as in this passage from poet emily dickinson, who was a great lover of extended metaphor:

* my life had stood-a loaded gun-in corners-till a day

* The owner passed-identified-and carrier me away

0

Ambiguity in Semantic

A.      Definition of Ambiguity

Ambiguity (ambiguity) is a meaningful word or two-timing double meaning.  As well as the ambiguity polysemy, where polysemy is also ambiguous. Distinguishing between ambiguity and polysemy are:

·         doubling the ambiguity of meaning yangberasal larger grammatical units, namely fraseatau sentence.

·         and polysemy just doubling said.

B.      examples of ambiguity:

a.      A good life depends on a liver – Liver may be an organ or simply a living person.

b.      Foreigners are hunting dogs – It is unclear whether dogs were being hunted or foreigners are being spoken of as dogs.

c.       Each of us saw her duck – It is not clear whether the word “duck” refers to an action of ducking or a duck that is a bird.

d.      The passerby helps dog bite victim – Is the passerby helping a dog bite someone? Or is he helping a person bitten by a dog? It’s not clear.

 

0