In the same way as we need a general notion of power, which may also include form of resistance of counterpower, we need a general notion of ideology. Critical discourse analysis may then very well focus especially on the dominant groups and their ideologies. Here, are some theories of critical discourse analysis according to Norman Fairclough, Sara Mills and Teun Van Dijk. Firstly, according to Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 258) “CDA sees language as social practice” Critical Discourse Analysis is not only about the structures of text and talk, but essentially about structures of society, that is, about power, domination, inequality, oppression, marginalization, discrimination, and all other forms of power abuse perpetrated in and by language use, discourse, interaction and communication.
The main point of Fairclough’s interest is that he sees language as power practice in order to see how the language-users bring ideologies value is needed analysis comprehensively. Language, socially and historically, is kinds of action, in dialectic relation with social structure. Therefore, the analysis should be focused on how language was formed in social relation and social context (Fairclough in Eriyanto 2005, 285).
Fairclough set up an analysis model that integrates together with discourse analysis based on linguistic and social and political thought, and commonly it is integrated on the social change. Therefore, the model brought by Fairclough is often stated as social change model. Fairclough is interested in the discourse on language. Fairclough uses discourse to show language use as social practice, more than individual activities or to reflect a thing. He divided discourse analysis in three dimension: text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar