Discourse Meaning HOT!

Discourse is a generalization of the notion of a conversation to any form of communication.[1] Discourse is a major topic in social theory, with work spanning fields such as sociology, anthropology, continental philosophy, and discourse analysis. Following pioneering work by Michel Foucault, these fields view discourse as a system of thought, knowledge, or communication that constructs our experience of the world. Since control of discourse amounts to control of how the world is perceived, social theory often studies discourse as a window into power. Within theoretical linguistics, discourse is understood more narrowly as linguistic information exchange and was one of the major motivations for the framework of dynamic semantics, in which expressions' denotations are equated with their ability to update a discourse context.

In the humanities and social sciences, discourse describes a formal way of thinking that can be expressed through language. Discourse is a social boundary that defines what statements can be said about a topic. Many definitions of discourse are largely derived from the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault. In sociology, discourse is defined as "any practice (found in a wide range of forms) by which individuals imbue reality with meaning".[2]

Discourse Meaning

Download Zip 🔥 https://urlca.com/2y2EOo 🔥

Political science sees discourse as closely linked to politics[3][4] and policy making.[5] Likewise, different theories among various disciplines understand discourse as linked to power and state, insofar as the control of discourses is understood as a hold on reality itself (e.g. if a state controls the media, they control the "truth"). In essence, discourse is inescapable, since any use of language will have an effect on individual perspectives. In other words, the chosen discourse provides the vocabulary, expressions, or style needed to communicate. For example, two notably distinct discourses can be used about various guerrilla movements, describing them either as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists".

Modernist theorists were focused on achieving progress and believed in the existence of natural and social laws which could be used universally to develop knowledge and thus a better understanding of society.[7] Such theorists would be preoccupied with obtaining the "truth" and "reality", seeking to develop theories which contained certainty and predictability.[8] Modernist theorists therefore understood discourse to be functional.[9] Discourse and language transformations are ascribed to progress or the need to develop new or more "accurate" words to describe new discoveries, understandings, or areas of interest.[9] In modernist theory, language and discourse are dissociated from power and ideology and instead conceptualized as "natural" products of common sense usage or progress.[9] Modernism further gave rise to the liberal discourses of rights, equality, freedom, and justice; however, this rhetoric masked substantive inequality and failed to account for differences, according to Regnier.[10]

In contrast to modernist theory, postmodern theory is more fluid, allowing for individual differences as it rejects the notion of social laws. Such theorists shifted away from truth-seeking, and instead sought answers for how truths are produced and sustained. Postmodernists contended that truth and knowledge are plural, contextual, and historically produced through discourses. Postmodern researchers therefore embarked on analyzing discourses such as texts, language, policies, and practices.[9]

In The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969), a treatise about the methodology and historiography of systems of thought ("epistemes") and of knowledge ("discursive formations"), Michel Foucault developed the concepts of discourse. The sociologist Iara Lessa summarizes Foucault's definition of discourse as "systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs, and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak."[15] Foucault traces the role of discourse in the legitimation of society's power to construct contemporary truths, to maintain said truths, and to determine what relations of power exist among the constructed truths; therefore discourse is a communications medium through which power relations produce men and women who can speak.[9]

The inter-relation between power and knowledge renders every human relationship into a power negotiation,[16] because power is always present and so produces and constrains the truth.[9] Power is exercised through rules of exclusion (discourses) that determine what subjects people can discuss; when, where, and how a person may speak; and determines which persons are allowed speak.[13] That knowledge is both the creator of power and the creation of power, Foucault coined the term power/knowledge to show that an object becomes a "node within a network" of meanings[citation needed for your direct quote and page number]. In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault's example is a book's function as a node within a network [of?] meanings[citation needed, precise page number please]. The book does not exist as an individual object, but exists as part of a structure of knowledge that is "a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences." [citation needed] In the critique of power/knowledge, Foucault identified Neo-liberalism as a discourse of political economy[citation needed], which is conceptually related to governmentality[ciation needed], the organized practices (mentalities, rationalities, techniques) with which people are governed.[17][18]

Interdiscourse studies the external semantic relations among discourses[citation needed], because a discourse exists in relation to other discourses, e.g. [for example], books of history; thus, do academic researchers debate and determine "What is a discourse?" and "What is not a discourse?" in accordance with the denotations and connotations (meanings) used in their academic disciplines.[14][page number is needed]

There are more than one types of discourse analysis, for example, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis and Linguistics Discourse Analysis and Political Discourse Analysis. In discourse analysis, discourse is a conceptual generalization of conversation within each modality and context of communication[citation needed]. In this sense, the term is studied in corpus linguistics, the study of language expressed in corpora (samples) of "real world" text[citation needed].

Moreover, because a discourse is a body of text meant to communicate specific data, information, and knowledge, there exist internal relations in the content of a given discourse, as well as external relations among discourses. As such, a discourse does not exist per se (in itself), but is related to other discourses, by way of inter-discursive practices[citation needed].

In Francois Rastier's approach to semantics, discourse is understood as meaning the totality of codified language (i.e.,[that is,] vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social practice, such as legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse, etc.[19] In this sense, along with that of Foucault's in the previous section, the analysis of a discourse examines and determines the connections among language and structure and agency.

In formal semantics and pragmatics, discourse is often viewed as the process of refining the information in a common ground. In some theories of semantics such as discourse representation theory, sentences' denotations themselves are equated with functions which update a common ground.[20][21][22][23]

In my opinion, the Community Spirit kicks in when users experience value from interacting with the community.

Just like people do in real life through social interactions.

So, the key to making a forum work and establishing a Community Spirit, is to offer users value.

That in it itself is the basis of social transactions.

Value can be created in different ways, but I suspect that the very nature of successful online forums such as Discourse, makes content prevalent.

When Community Spirit really takes off, a forum becomes a self-generating content machine through its participating members.

So the meaning of Community Spirit is the self-evident right to existence as a medium of communication for its community.

Or, put simply: it lends its community a voice.

Together, these two questions result in numerous reasonable translations, but the most common appear to be "discourse power" and "the right to speak." (Others have included "discursive power" or, more loosely, a "seat at the table.")

While the term is broadly used and its meaning can be highly varied, it appears frequently in discussions surrounding technology, the internet, and academia. (Note: In the quotations below, an apparently better-fitting translation for huy qun is used, though all ambiguities in the above explanation of different senses of course remain present.)

There are two main ways the term is used in reference to the internet. In the first, the internet is framed as a crucial space to establish global opinion in which nations compete for discourse power." Lu Wei is a central figure in this line of thinking. The second, often appearing in academic articles, is used to describe online social dynamics, and more likely refers to individuals rather than countries or companies.

Background: Processes of meaning-making are central to personal recovery in mental distress. Scientific inquiry of meaning-making is scarce within psychiatry, while it has the potential to better attune care to the lived-experience and views of service-users.

Aim: To gain insight into how service-users make meaning of mental distress; how this meaning is shaped by mental health discourses, and how these discourses influence the search for identity and recovery. METHODS: Qualitative study of service-users’ narratives (N = 25) from the Psychiatry Story Bank. Narratives were collected through an open interview and analyzed with discourse analysis. RESULTS: We identified four patterns of meaning: Mental distress as ‘weakness’, as ‘social isolation’, as ‘necessity for care’ and as ‘disconnection’. Disposal - and integration - of various discourses apparently helped participants to find meaning, attuned to their recovery phase and the particular recognition they pursued. The quest for recovery was complicated when they experienced a clash between their own meaning-making and dominant ideals in care. CONCLUSION: Caretakers can stimulate the creation of helpful meaning, by attuning to their patients’ context, recovery phase and plea for recognition. Awareness of the effects and limitations of their own assumptions on mental distress is of importance as well. ff782bc1db