Not only students or academics have definitely heard the expression “ah Just discourse” in everyday chat. Usually this statement is expressed as a response to a vision or idea, design, or rumor that may and has been realized in the real world. However, when asked to explain concretely, many were confused. Why does the concept of discourse feel so abstract?

In essence, the language we use is present as the main human medium in understanding the world and social reality. Social reality is born, persists, and continues to be continuous in a dialectical pattern involving symbolic interactions, relations between powers, as well as collective agreements or conventions that are continuously updated in daily communication practices. In short, discourse or in the branch of linguistics known as discourse analysis (Discourse Analysis) talks about the use of language in context originating from social reality as the most complete and unified unit of language. It is formed from the unity and overall message of a series of words, phrases, sentences, or even symbols that are interconnected in constructing a meaning. The applications can be found in various forms, not only written texts, but can be everyday chats, speeches, advertisements, political campaigns, etc.

Discourse, if examined, is difficult to observe without tools because of its abstract nature. Indeed, discourse is contained in a conversation and the various types of communication above, but they are not authentic forms of discourse itself. Discourse puts itself behind the text we consume. This is in the form of the understanding we gain of something, the ideological tendencies in the text, and the arrangement of rhetoric and selection of diction used. This assumption is rarely questioned in the discourse itself, as it is accepted as “truth”. These unspoken things are abstract, but become the foundation of our understanding.

Another characteristic underlying discourse is that it lives in a network of power. At the beginning, we mentioned power relations, which means that whoever controls the device with all his authority (government, academics, media) is able to control and dominate certain discourses. Even though it seems like a dictator because it has the opportunity to force the development of certain ideologies through text, discourse is not that passive. It is built in a continuous chain of intertextuality (never ending) over time, and that is why historical context also needs to be considered in its study of the origins of the context that overshadows a phrase or word. 

The essence of the problem is what kind of framework should be used when faced with this abstract problem. Just like being a detective, we need to know the symptoms, causes, and implications or possible consequences that will arise from creating a text. This includes 3 things: Who is talking?, What is not being talked about?, and What is the purpose of this way of conveying?

Thus, linguists consider it necessary to have an empirical approach in dismantling the order of meaning and ideology that is hidden through the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (Critical Discourse Analysis). One of the central figures in this study is Norman Fairclough who thinks that language is a battlefield. He classified his analysis model into 3: Text dimension, discourse practice dimension, and social practice dimension. The text dimension dissects concrete elements in the text (can be writing, conversation, video, the discourse practice dimension dissects how this text is produced, distributed and consumed and finally the social practice dimension examines the effects of ideology and cultural context on society and the structure of power. greater. That's why when we read, don't just read what's on the surface, but it's necessary to dive deeper into the mechanics of the text and what influences the author wants to try to insert into the reader.

Author: Andika Pratama

Reference

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.

Photo Source: https://s1sj.fbs.unesa.ac.id/post/berkenalan-dengan-analisis-wacana-kritis-awk