UNDERSTANDING VARIABILITY OF ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION
Written by Norhenriady, Naimatul Muflihah and Yulia Shopiaty
A. Discourse within poststructuralism
Poststructuralism is defined as “oppositionally” of the seventeenth-century “Enlightenment”. Poststructuralist theorists reject the idea of universal truth and objective knowledge, delivered through the proper use of reason, and assert. Poststructural theorists argue that subject are constituted within discourse that establish what it is possible (and impossible) to “be” – a woman, mother, teacher, child, etc.- as well as what will count as truth, knowledge, moral values, normal behavior and intelligible speech for those who are “summoned” to speak by discourse in question.
Discourses within poststructuralism involve much more than language. They can be thought of as practices for producing meaning, forming subjects and regulating conduct within particular societies and institutions at particular historical times.
One of the poststructuralist thinkers is Michel Foucault. Within a Foucauldian approach, discourses are inextricably linked to institutions (the law, education, the family, etc.) and to the disciplines that regularize and normalize the conduct of those institutions such as psychology, medicine, science, and so on). Discourses are also a power that means diffuse, circulating in a capillary fashion around and through institutions such as parents, children, prisoners, teachers, therapists, lawyers, employers, and so on.
Deconstruction
Deconstruction is something to do with that confounded, indirect, abyssal relation to truth and reality the examples try to conjure. It is binary distinction –between words and meaning, language and reality.
One of the most important propositions of deconstruction is that our dealings with/in the world are unrelievedly textual. This is in contrast to many other theories or philosophies, which dream of a binary universe of fundamental things on the one hand.
A deconstructive view by contrast proposes that textuality is the condition of truth, being, substance, and so on.
B. Linguistic discourse analysis
Linguistic discourse analysis was originally driven by the goal of describing the organization of language “beyond the level of the sentence” (Cameron 2000: 10). Discourse analysis investigates the rules for building extended stretches of talk or writing. It also studies “language in use” where language used to do something and mean something, language produced and interpreted in a real-world context (Cameron 2001).
One famous early example of discourse analysis was the analysis of classroom talk developed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). This discourse lesson includes the basic interactional unit of the “exchange”, the “transaction”, consisting of a sequence of tropically related exchanges, and the lesson as a whole.
Discourse analysts have studied a wide range of settings, formal and informal, public and private. The focus in linguistically oriented work has been predominantly upon spoken language.
a. The influence of discourse analysis on classroom research
Classrooms were a fertile ground for discourse analysts in the 1970s and early 1980s. For sociologists of education, classroom discourse appeared to provide a form of socializations (unwittingly on the part of teachers) into the relations of subordination and authority required for the operation capitalists modes of production.
The work of the discourse analysts raised questions about relationships between classroom discourse and learning. Educationists noted that traditional teacher-led talk tended to position students as passive recipients of knowledge, and began to argue for collaborative, informal, non-hierarchical discursive arrangements, such as small-group talk, which would grant students greater autonomy and initiative in negotiating their own learning.
b. Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
CDA is the name applied to do work of a group of linguists who emphasize the social and institutional dimensions of discourse, and attempt to relate these to the textual fabric of everyday life.
Critical discourse analysis provides theories and methods for the empirical study of the relations between discourse and social and cultural developments in different social domains. (Marianne Jørgensen and Louise Phillips: 2002).
Key figures whose have explicitly indentified their work with critical discourse analysis Include Gunther Kress (1990), Norman Fairclough (1992, 1995), Allan Luke (1995) and Teun Van Djik (2001):
1. Gunther Kress; CDA brings an ‘overtly political agenda’ to the study of text. The aim is identify the workings of power and domination that inhere in discursive practices and thereby to facilitate emancipator social change.
2. Allan luke; he refers to the ways in which discourses ‘naturalize’ power relations and the social inequalities that these distribute, and describe CDA as ‘a political act in it self, an intervention in the apparently natural flow of talk and text in institutional life that attempts to to ‘interrupt’ everyday common sense.
3. Teun Van Djik; Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality.
C. The Significance Of Discourse Analysis In Language Teaching And Learning
- Application of discourse analysis to teaching grammar
- Application of discourse analysis to teaching vocabulary
- Application of discourse analysis to teaching text interpretation
No comments:
Post a Comment