Speech analysis, semantics
The ability to understand written speeches is different from that of understanding oral speeches, written discourse is any text produced by a speaker in a communication process where oral or written linguistic code is used, since the text establishes the magnitude of analysis of analysis ofSpeech studies.
The written speech is not subject to changes nor is it possible.
From a general perspective, when analyzing the written discourse of in the context of the semantics, being understood by semantics as one of the youngest linguistics branches because it was not until 1883 when the French linguist Michel Bréal enunciated in his essai of Sémantique(Semantics essay) The emergence of a new language science that points to changes in meaning and the meaning of expressions. Since then, the advances in studies about semantics, which in its origins was called semasiology, diverged in two large groups: studies of the closed meaning of words and the study of meaning that a word in context can collect, however, the meaning was linked to pragmatic and continued studying in conjunction with semantics and pragmatic, so we ask ourselves. How does semantics, context and argumentation influence the written discourse ?.
Given this, the researcher at the University of Alicando, Jorge Fernández says that: “[…] is a linguistics discipline that has taken longer to become a place in the aspect of language sciences […].". Throughout the following years the semantics in its study of meaning with the meaning of words and with a historical sense of these, had part in the actions of other sciences, in fact, one of those areas is the analysis of critical discourse. There is conferred the function of determining the ideology in the speeches, Van Dijk states "all speech is historical". However, from the concept of ideology provided by the SAR: "set of fundamental ideas that characterizes cultural, religious or political thinking", and the perspective of critical analysis as: "the interdisciplinary approach of discourse study, understood as any manifestationlinguistics, which generally focuses on analyzing social relationships that are established and enhanced through language.”, It can be argued that any speech issued in a community evidences the linguistic manifestations, since they express and contribute to the fact that an ideology is maintained, which, contained and subsistent within the same linguistic expressions, the place where they are supported andThey transmit through communication ignoring the origin of the terms employed.
In other words, ideology can be maintained and transmitted unconsciously since the meaning or meaning of the words used and their historical path is linked.
As an example, in order to give clarity, it can be exposed that: a subject within a community uses the prayer "one day at a time". This prayer contains a historical and ideological route over time, since the aforementioned subject subject in an existential sense: it is only aware of the time that is going just at the time. Or also in a religious sense from Christianity by referring to Paul of Tarsus, who asked God in his prayers to help him take his life from day to day or the popular phrase of Jesus Christ "every day brings his eagerness". It is clearly the context that gives meaning to expression and multiple interpretations can be given just knowing the immersed meaning within the oral code.
Then, it is understood that one of the functions of the semantics within the critical analysis of discourse is the same as in the texts – especially that there is an oral and written discourse – because both are composed of series of concatenated statements specifically with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end with an end. The statements contain thinking, reasoning and the feeling of the author. Therefore, refer to semantics as a system of study of the perspective of the closed meaning of linguistic expressions as mentioned above (formal semantics), it would not be very useful. However, Van Dijk limits from his perspective:
[…] If it is assumed that ideologies are produced and reproduced socially especially through concrete forms in the texts, and in communicative interactions between social actors, while group members, it seems plausible to assume that some semantic structures of the discourse function.
The above clarifies the position taken in front of the semantics as an effective ideological tool when deciphering statements from the sense itself, because in this section the implicatures are found. Explained more widely from Paul Grice’s perspective: "Information that the speaker manifests towards his interlocutor, which" implies ", and that, therefore does not express implicitly."
In the same way, it agrees with the fact confirmed by the same Van Dijk and gives continuity to the order of ideas that until now is carried: “ideologies must be considered an abstract, understanding them as the“ axiomatic ”base of the socially shared belief system inA group of humans." . This means that ideology is not explicit most of the time, is implicit in what is not said but is implied with what is said and how what is said. Returning to the aforementioned example, the subject who has expressed "one day at a time" does not shout to mouth that believes that tomorrow is uncertain, but it is clear that this is his thinking and what he tries to say is that he is busy in hispresent and not in the future.
Leave feedback