Content deleted Content added
ThePhantasos (talk | contribs) →Poor example of CDA's criticism: new section |
Bastemhebet (talk | contribs) Added section on simplifying language |
||
Line 15:
*'''Strongly Oppose''' - for many reasons, the major one being the very principle of Wikipedia to provide correct, detailed and relevant information: (a) CDA obviously is a specific part (approach, perspective) within discourse studies in general, and hence cannot be identified or collapsed with the broader field: we do not collapse syntax with grammar, or grammar with linguistics either: an encyclopedia should also have items that are specific; (b) CDA is now a vast field of research with many scholars, its own journals, meetings, etc. in many countries (c) Many users search the internet specifically for CDA and should thus also find it in Wikipedia (indeed the Wikipedia item on CDA comes out on top in Google!). The article is not perfect, and there are regular intrusions that add blatant errors or information that has nothing to do with CDA, but as it stands the article gives the essential. More specifically what is needed is (i) more history of the development of CDA in several disciplines, (ii) a longer section on methods of CDA (also showing that there is no such thing as ''specific'' methods of CDA), (iii) more information about the applications of CDA in real world problems. ''Teun A. van Dijk'' (Nov 17, 2006)
</div>
==Simplifying the language==
I'm not an expert in this subject, so I don't know to what degree this is possible. But I know enough that I can tell there is plenty of advanced technical language here that can be simplified or explained in plain English. I can see no conceivable reason for the terms macro level, meso level, and micro level, just for starters, and there's plenty more of that kind of thing in there. Could someone knowledgeable about the subject please take this on? [[User:Bastemhebet|Bastemhebet]] ([[User talk:Bastemhebet|talk]]) 14:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
==CDA and Discourse Analysis==
| |||