Discursusanalüüs can be broadly categorized into two main traditions: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative discourse analysis often employs computational methods, such as corpus linguistics, to identify patterns in large datasets of text. This approach quantifies linguistic features, such as word frequency, collocations, or discourse markers, to reveal trends or biases in language use. Qualitative discourse analysis, on the other hand, focuses on interpreting smaller, often conversational or textual samples through frameworks like critical discourse analysis (CDA) or conversation analysis (CA). These methods prioritize understanding the social and ideological implications of language, often critiquing how power is exercised through discourse.
Critical discourse analysis, a prominent qualitative approach, was developed by Dutch linguist Teun van Dijk and others. It examines how language contributes to social inequality, oppression, or domination, particularly in media, politics, and education. By analyzing discourse as a site of struggle, CDA seeks to uncover hidden agendas, stereotypes, or ideological biases embedded in communicative practices. Conversation analysis, meanwhile, studies the structure and organization of naturally occurring interactions, such as conversations or interviews, to reveal how participants use language to achieve social goals.
Discursusanalüüs has applications across disciplines, including education, media studies, psychology, and political science. It is particularly valuable in studying phenomena such as propaganda, gender representation, or institutional discourse, where language plays a pivotal role in shaping perceptions and behaviors. The method’s interdisciplinary nature allows researchers to bridge gaps between linguistic theory and real-world social issues, making it a versatile tool for understanding how communication functions in diverse contexts.