Critical analysis on advertising discourses

Abstract

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) appeared in the early 1990s and has become increasingly popular as an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing various types of discourse. The roots of CDA lie in classical Rhetoric, Textlinguistics and Sociolinguistics, as well as in Applied Linguistics and Pragmatics (Wodak, 2002, p.7-8). It sees discourse as language use in speech and writing and as a social practice. Its feature of being social practice means discursive cases have a dialectical interaction with social situations, institutions, and structures that surround them. They constantly influence and shape each other. CDA focuses on the relationship between language and power and is primarily concerned with investigating the explicit and implicit structural relations of domination, discrimination, power, and control as manifested in language. As transferred from Wodak (2001, p. 2), for Habermas, “Language is also a medium of domination and social force. It serves to legitimize relations of organized power. In so far as the legitimations of power relations, . . . are not articulated, . . . language is also ideological.” Ideologies are the fundamental frameworks for organizing the social cognitions that members of social groups, organizations, or institutions share. CDA seeks to demystify discourses by deciphering ideologies (Dijk, 1995, p. 18; Wodak, 2002, p.10). This paper aims to explore the relationship between discourse and social cognition, to analyze critically the language of advertisement, and to clarify how social structure and institutions are affected by advertising discourses.

Keywords

• Critical Discourse Analysis
• advertising discourse
• persuasion
• manipulation

Critical analysis on advertising discourses

Öz

Kaynakça

1. Aristotle (n.d.). Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html Accessed 02 Mar. 2023.
2. Beaugrande, R. A. & Dressler. W. U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman
3. Dijk, T. A. van. (1995). Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis. Language & Peace, 1st Edition, Routledge, 17-33.
4. Dijk, T. A. van. (2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse & Society. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 359-383.
5. Erciş, A., Kotan, G., Türk, B. (2016). Ölüm Kaygısının Tüketici Tutumları Üzerindeki Etkileri. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 23, 107-134.
6. Glatch, S. (2023). Common Rhetorical Devices List: The Art of Argument. https://writers.com/common-rhetorical-devices-list Accessed 07 Apr. 2023.
7. Rapp, C. (2022). Aristotle’s Rhetoric. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2022 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
8. “Rhetoric.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric. Accessed 26 Nov. 2023.

9. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. Method of Critical Discourse Analysis, Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (Eds.), Sage Publications London · Thousand Oaks · New Delhi.
10. Wodak, R. (2002). Aspect of Critical Discourse Analysis. ZfAL 36, 5-31.
11. https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/subliminal-message Accessed 30 Jan. 2023.
12. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/about-us/history/history-of-coca-cola-advertising slogans Accessed 10 May. 2023.