Expert Biography

Teun Adrianus van Dijk (born May 7, 1943 in Naaldwijk, the Netherlands), is a scholar in the fields of text linguistics, discourse analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

With Walter Kintsch he contributed to the development of the psychology of text processing. Since the 1980s his work in CDA focused especially on the study of the discursive reproduction of racism by what he calls the 'symbolic elites' (politicians, journalists, scholars, writers), the study of news in the press, and on the theories of ideology, context and knowledge.

He founded six international journals: Poetics, Text (now called Text & Talk), Discourse & Society Discourse Studies, Discourse & Communicationand the internet journal in Spanish Discurso & Sociedad, of which he still edits the last four.

Teun A. van Dijk was a professor of discourse studies at the University of Amsterdam from 1968 until 2004, and since 1999 he has taught at the Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona. He has widely lectured internationally, especially in Latin America.

Selected bibliographyEdit

• Some aspects of text grammars. A Study in theoretical poetics and linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.
• Text and context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman, 1977.
• Macrostructures. An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Studies in the pragmatics of discourse. The Hague/Berlin: Mouton, 1981.
• Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1984.
• Communicating Racism. Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.
• News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.
• News Analysis. Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.
• Racism and the Press. London: Routledge, 1991.
• Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1993.
• Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage, 1998.
• Racism and Discourse in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005.
• Discourse and Context. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• Society and Discourse. How social contexts control text and talk.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• Discourse and Power. Contributions to Critical Discourse Studies.Houndsmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.

• Discourse and Knowledge. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in press
• Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. with Walter Kintsch. New York: Academic Press, 1983.

Edited books

• Pragmatics of language and literature. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976.
• Handbook of Discourse Analysis. 4 vols. London: Academic Press, 1985.
• Discourse and communication. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1985.
• Discourse Studies. A multidisciplinary introduction. 2 vols. London: Sage, 1997. Second, one-volume edition, 2011.
• Discourse Studies. 5 vols. Sage Benchmark Series. New Delhi: Sage, 2007.
• Discourse and Discrimination. With Geneva Smitherman-Donaldson. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1988.
• Racism at the Top. Parliamentary Discourses on Ethnic Issues in Six European Countries. With Ruth Wodak. Klagenfurt: Drava Verlag, 2000.
• Communicating Ideologies. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Language, Discourse and Social Practice. With Martin Pütz and JoAnne Neff-van Aertselaer. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2004.
• Racism and Discourse in Latin America. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2009.

Critical Discourse Analysis & Political Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis

Since the late 1980s, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has become a well-established field in the social sciences. However, in contrast with some branches of linguistics, CDA is not a discrete academic discipline in the traditional sense, with a fixed set of research methods. The manifold roots of CDA lie in a myriad of disciplines including rhetoric, anthropology, philosophy and cognitive science, to name a few. This four-volume set brings together seminal articles on the subject from varied sources, creating an invaluable roadmap for scholars seeking to consolidate their knowledge of CDA, and of its continued development. Sculpted and edited by a leading voice in the field, this work covers the interdisciplinary roots, the most important approaches and methodologies of CDA, as well as applications in other disciplines in an updated and comprehensive way.

Political Discourse Analysis

We have seen that political discourse analysis first of all should be able to define its proper object of study: What exactly is 'political discourse'? The easiest, and not altogether misguided, answer is that political discourse is identified by its actors or authors, viz., politicians. Indeed, the vast bulk of studies of political discourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidenta and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and
international levels.

Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture

contributions that investigate political, social and cultural processes from a linguistic/discourse-analytic point of view. The aim is to publish monographs and edited volumes which combine language-based approaches with disciplines concerned essentially with human interaction — disciplines such as political science, international relations, social psychology, social anthropology, sociology, economics, and gender studies.

Discourse Analysis

Definition of Discourse Analysis

      Duscourse is teh study of the ways in witch langusage is used in text and context

A. Definition of Discourse
·     (Crystal 1992:25) "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". 

·     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).

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

.     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.
 
B. Definition Analysis
·       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)

·       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).

C.    Definition of  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 Discourse Analysis 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).

     So, we can conclude that Discourse Analysis is the study language and the deeper meaning in ways language is used. People use various ways of communication not only by verbal conversations but also letters, e-mail, and ev

Semantic

Idiom

An idiom is a word or phrase which means something different from its literal meaning. Idioms are common phrases or terms whose meaning is not real, but can be understood by their popular use.

Because idioms can mean something different from what the words mean it is difficult for someone not very good at speaking the language to use them properly. Some idioms are only used by some groups of people or at certain times. The idiom shape up or ship out, which is like saying improve your behavior or leave if you don't, might be said by an employer or supervisor to an employee, but not to other people.

Idioms are not the same thing as slang. Idioms are made of normal words that have a special meaning known by almost everyone. Slang is usually special words that are known only by a particular group of people.

To learn a language a person needs to learn the words in that language, and how and when to use them. But people also need to learn idioms separately because certain words together or at certain times can have different meanings. In order to understand an idiom, one sometimes needs to know the culture the idiom comes from.

The Example of Idioms: 

1. Break a leg (A way to wish someone good luck)
2. To live it up (To enjoy life, to live widely)
3. To kick the bucket (To die)
4. Shape up or ship out (Used to tell someone that they should leave if they don't improve their behavior or performance)

POLYSEMY

POLYSEMY

Polysemy is the association of one word with two or more distinct meanings.

A polyseme is a word or phrase with multiple meanings. 

Adjective: polysemous or polysemic.

In contrast, a one-to-one match between a word and a meaning is called monosemy. 

Homonymy is the relation between words with identical forms but different meanings that is, the condition of being homonyms. A stock example is the word bank as it appears in "river bank" and "savings bank." 

Homonymy and polysemy both involve one lexical form that is associated with multiple senses and as such both are possible sources of lexical ambiguity. But while homonyms are distinct lexemes that happen to share the same form, in polysemy a single lexeme is associated with multiple senses. The distinction between homonymy and polysemy is usually made on the basis of the relatedness of the senses: polysemy involves related senses, whereas the senses associated with homonymous lexemes are not related.

Examples of polysemy:

Man

1. The human species (i.e., man vs. animal).

2. Males of the human species ( i.e., man vs. woman).

3. Adult males of the human species (i.e., man vs. woman).

This example shows the specific polysemy where the same word is used at different levels of a taxonomy. Example 1 contains 2, and 2 contains 3.

Synecdoche & Metonymy

Synecdoche

Definition of Synecdoche

Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase that refers to a part of something is substituted to stand in for the whole, or vice versa. For example, the phrase “all hands on deck” is a demand for all of the crew to help, yet the word “hands” just a part of the crew stands in for the whole crew.

Synecdoche is a subset of metonymy. We explore the similarities and differences between the two in more detail below. Synecdoche and metonymy are also considered forms of metaphor in that all three literary devices involve a substitution of one term for another that requires a conceptual link. Synecdoche can sometimes be described as a form of personification in the cases when it substitutes a human element for a non-human organization, such as referring to a weapon falling into “the wrong hands.” In this case, the human element of “hands” stands in for an opposing group.

The word synecdoche comes from the Ancient Greek word synekdoche, which means “simultaneous understanding.”

Common Examples of Synecdoche

There are many common expressions that are examples of synecdoche. Here is a list of some of these examples:

• Boots on the ground : refers to soldiers
• New wheels : refers to a new car
• Ask for her hand : refers to asking a woman to marry
• Suits : can refer to businesspeople
• Plastic : can refer to credit cards
• The White House : can refer to statements made by individuals within the United States government

Significance of Synecdoche in Literature

Some literary theorists have posited that synecdoche is not merely ornamental, but instead one of the chief ways to describe and discover truths via literature. Along with metonymy, metaphor, and irony, synecdoche displays and creates new connections in the way that humans understand concepts. Whether or not authors use synecdoche intentionally, any connection between previously unassociated concepts creates new cognitive links. By exploring the usage of synecdoche in literature, we are able to better understand the human mind.

Metonymy Definition

It is a figure of speech that replaces the name of a thing with the name of something else with which it is closely associated. We can come across examples of metonymy both from literature and in everyday life. 

Examples of Metonymy in Everyday Life

We use metonymy frequently in our everyday life. For a better understanding, let us observe a few metonymy examples:

• England decides to keep check on immigration. (England refers to the government.)
• The pen is mightier than the sword. (Pen refers to written words and sword to military force.)
• The Oval Office was busy in work. (“The Oval Office” is a metonymy as it stands for people at work in the office.)
• Let me give you a hand. (Hand means help.)

Function of Metonymy

Generally, metonymy is used in developing literary symbolism i.e. it gives more profound meanings to otherwise common ideas and objects. By using metonymy, texts exhibit deeper or hidden meanings and thus drawing readers’ attention.  In addition, the use of metonymy helps achieve conciseness. For instance, “Rifles were guarding the gate” is more concise than “The guards with rifles in their hands were guarding the gate.”

Furthermore, metonymy, like other literary devices, is employed to add a poetic color to words to make them come to life. The simple ordinary things are described in a creative way to insert this “life” factor to the literary works.

Difference Between Synecdoche and Metonymy

The definition of synecdoche requires the substituted term to be either a part of the whole or a whole standing in for a part. Metonymy, on the other hand, can refer to the substitution of a term that is connected in any way to the original concept. For example, using “the crown” to refer to a member of royalty is metonymy because the concept of the crown is related to royalty. However, a crown is neither part of the royal person, nor is the royal person part of the crown.