Interpretation as discourse analysis.

At the final level of sociological analysis, discourse requires interpretation. The sociological interpretation of discourse involves making connections between the discourses analyzed and the social space in which they have emerged. These links or connections can be very diverse depending on the analyst's own theoretical orientation. In practice, however, sociological interpretations of discourse are limited to three types: those which consider discourse as social information, those which consider discourse as a reflection of the ideologies of the subjects who engage in it, and those which consider discourse as a social product. Yet these three types of interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, analysts often use a combination of two or even all three forms of interpretation.

Semiotic (structural and formal) as a level of textual discourse analysis.

Within the field of semiotic analysis it is also possible to distinguish between two broad types or trends: structural semiotic analysis and formal semiotic analysis. Structural semiotic analysis attempts to reveal hidden linguistic codes in order to discover and describe their internal logic, which is understood as a generative matrix that "reproduces" the text¹⁰⁾. This type of structural discourse analysis was largely developed and gained widespread acceptance in the 1960s and 1970s. However, since the end of the past century, the structural analysis of texts has been widely criticized and questioned.

Formal semiotic analysis, on the other hand, centers its attention on the effects of the meaning of discourse at the enunciation level. It is therefore a first step for considering the context in which the discourse is produced and in which it acts. In the text, form is as significant as content in terms of producing meaning.

Frame discourse analysis.

— is a form of analysis drawn from GOFFMAN (1986), who adopted the concept of frame originally formulated by BATESON in order to extend upon and integrate the notions of façade, performance, frontstage / backstage, role and role-distance (HERRERA & SORIANO, 2004).

Conversation discourse analysis.

— views everyday communicative events as a process of negotiating meaning.

focuses on the pragmatic component of language: through language subjects not only say things, but also do things.

— problematizes a question that is evident in our everyday lives: what do speakers want to say when they communicate with us.

Sociological interpretation of discourse.

involves making connections between the discourses analyzed and the social space in which they have emerged.

— Is limited to three types:

— 1) those which consider discourse as social information,

— 2) those which consider discourse as a reflection of the ideologies of the subjects who engage in it,

— 3) those which consider discourse as a social product.

— These types of interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Analysts often use a combination of two or even all three forms of interpretation.

Discourse as social information.

— focuses on the informative dimension of discourse. The mere fact that subjects are involved in, and have contact with, the social reality under investigation means that they are familiar with and knowledgeable about it. Discourses contain this knowledge of social reality; hence the analysis should provide relevant information about it. This type of interpretation attempts to explain discourse in terms of the social competence of subjects as informants, namely their knowledge of the reality, their expository capacity, etc.

60. Discourse categories (addressor identifying).

 

⇐ Предыдущая234567891011

Поделиться: