Error analysis about thesis "Improving Students' Writing Ability in Report Text by Using Presentation Practice Production (PPP) Method at Eleventh Grade (Science) of SMA Negeri 13 Pekanbaru".
 Chapter 1:
Introduction
Student => Students
Difficult => Difficulties
Public => Published
Factor => Factors

Chapter II
Review of the Related Literature
Written =>  Writing
Stage => Stages
Its => It

Chapter III
Wrote => Written
Conducted => Conducting
School => Schools

Michael W. Apple (born August 20, 1942) is an educational theorist specialized on education and power, cultural politics, curriculum theory and research, critical teaching, and the development of democratic schools.
He is currently the John Bascom Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies, at the University of Wisconsin–Madison School of Education, where he has taught since 1970. Before completing his Ed.D. at Teachers College, Columbia University, Apple taught in elementary and secondary schools in New Jersey, where he grew up, as well as served as the president of his teachers union. For more than three decades Apple has worked with educators, unions, dissident groups, and governments throughout the world on democratizing educational policy and practice.

Bibliography

Selected works:

• Can education change society? New York: Routledge, 2013.
• Education and power. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, 2011.
• Global crises, social justice, and education. New York: Routledge, 2010.
• The Routledge international handbook of sociology of education. New York: Routledge, 2010.
• The Routledge international handbook of critical education. New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Democratic schools. 2nd edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2007. With James A. Beane.
• Educating the "right" way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2006.
• Ideology and curriculum. 25th anniversary 3rd edition. New York: Routledge, 2004.
• The state and politics of education. New York: Routledge, 2003.
• Official knowledge: Democratic knowledge in a conservative age. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 2000.
• Cultural politics and education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.

Education

Doctor of Humane Letters,
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Doctorate Honorus Causa,
University of Rosario
Rosario, Argentina
Doctorate Honorus Causa, World Scholar and Professor of Educational Policy Studies,
University of London, Institute of Education
London, England
Medal for Distinguished Academic Acheivement (Equilvalent of Honorary Ph.D.),
University of California - Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
World Scholar and Distinguished Professor of Educational Policy Studies,
East China Normal University
Shanghai, China
EDD, Curriculum and Teaching
Columbia University
MA, Curriculum and Philosophy
Columbia University
BA, Education
Glassboro State College

Critical Discourse Analysis

TEUN A. VAN DIJK

1. Introduction: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis?

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily
studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted,
reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.
Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of the
Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996).
CDA is not so much a direction, school, or specialization next to the many other
“approaches” in discourse studies. Rather, it aims to offer a different “mode” or
“perspective” of theorizing, analysis, and application throughout the whole field.

Critical research on discourse needs to satisfy a number of requirements in order to
effectively realize its aims:
• As is often the case for more marginal research traditions, CDA research has to be
“better” than other research in order to be accepted.
• It focuses primarily on social problems and political issues, rather than on current
paradigms and fashions.
• Empirically adequate critical analysis of social problems is usually multidisciplinary.
• Rather than merely describe discourse structures, it tries to explain them in terms of
properties of social interaction and especially social structure.
• More specifically, CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.
Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271–80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:
1. CDA addresses social problems
2. Power relations are discursive
3. Discourse constitutes society and culture
4. Discourse does ideological work
5. Discourse is historical
6. The link between text and society is mediated
7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory
8. Discourse is a form of social action.

1 Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks
Since CDA is not a specific direction of research, it does not have a unitary theoretical
framework. Within the aims mentioned above, there are many types of CDA, and
these may be theoretically and analytically quite diverse. Critical analysis of conversation
is very different from an analysis of news reports in the press or of lessons and
teaching at school.Thus,
the typical vocabulary of many scholars in CDA will feature such notions as “power,”
“dominance,” “hegemony,” “ideology,” “class,” “gender,” “race,” “discrimination,”
“interests,” “reproduction,” “institutions,” “social structure,” and “social order,” besides
the more familiar discourse analytical notions.1
In this section, I focus on a number of basic concepts themselves, and thus devise a
theoretical framework that critically relates discourse, cognition, and society.

1.1 Macro vs. micro
Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the microlevel
of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are
typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis.This means that CDA has to
theoretically bridge the well-known “gap” between micro and macro approaches, which
is of course a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander
et al. 1987; Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981). In everyday interaction and experience
the macro- and microlevel (and intermediary “mesolevels”) form one unified whole.
There are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to arrive at a
unified critical analysis:
1 Members–groups: Language users engage in discourse as members of (several)
social groups, organizations, or institutions; and conversely, groups thus may act
“by” their members.
2 Actions–process: Social acts of individual actors are thus constituent parts of group
actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the reproduction
of racism.
3 Context–social structure: Situations of discursive interaction are similarly part or
constitutive of social structure; for example, a press conference may be a typical
practice of organizations and media institutions. That is, “local” and more “global”
contexts are closely related, and both exercise constraints on discourse.

1.2 Power as control
A central notion in most critical work on discourse is that of power, and more specifically
the social power of groups or institutions. Summarizing a complex philosophical
and social analysis, we will define social power in terms of control.

Closing the discourse–power circle, finally, this means that those groups who control
most influential discourse also have more chances to control the minds and
actions of others.
Simplifying these very intricate relationships even further for this chapter, we can
split up the issue of discursive power into two basic questions for CDA research:
1 How do (more) powerful groups control public discourse?
2 How does such discourse control mind and action of (less) powerful groups, and
what are the social consequences of such control, such as social inequality?

• Control of public discourse
• Mind control

2 Research in Critical Discourse Analysis

Although most discourse studies dealing with any aspect of power, domination, and

social inequality have not been explicitly conducted under the label of CDA, we shall

• nevertheless refer to some of these studies below.

• Gender inequality

One vast field of critical research on discourse and language that thus far has not

been carried out within a CDA perspective is that of gender.

• Media discourse

The undeniable power of the media has inspired many critical studies in many disciplines:

linguistics, semiotics, pragmatics, and discourse studies. Traditional, often

content analytical approaches in critical media studies have revealed biased, stereotypical,

sexist or racist images in texts, illustrations, and photos.

• Political discourse

Given the role of political discourse in the enactment, reproduction, and legitimization

of power and domination, we may also expect many critical discourse studies of

political text and talk (see Wilson, this volume).

• Ethnocentrism, antisemitism, nationalism, and racism

The study of the role of discourse in the enactment and reproduction of ethnic and

“racial” inequality has slowly emerged in CDA. Traditionally, such work focused on

ethnocentric and racist representations in the mass media, literature, and film (Dines

and Humez 1995; UNESCO 1977; Wilson and Gutiérrez 1985; Hartmann and Husband

1974; van Dijk 1991). Such representations continue centuries-old dominant

images of the Other in the discourses of European travelers, explorers, merchants,

soldiers, philosophers, and historians, among other forms of elite discourse (Barker

1978; Lauren 1988). Fluctuating between the emphasis on exotic difference, on the

one hand, and supremacist derogation stressing the Other’s intellectual, moral, and

biological inferiority, on the other hand, such discourses also influenced public opinion

and led to broadly shared social representations. It is the continuity of this sociocultural

tradition of negative images about the Other that also partly explains the

persistence of dominant patterns of representation in contemporary discourse, media,

and film (Shohat and Stam 1994).

Later discourse studies have gone beyond the more traditional, content analytical

analysis of “images” of the Others, and probed more deeply into the linguistic, semiotic,

and other discursive properties of text and talk to and about minorities, immigrants,

and Other peoples (for detailed review, see Wodak and Reisigl, this volume).

Besides the mass media, advertising, film, and textbooks, which were (and still are)

the genres most commonly studied, this newer work also focuses on political discourse,

scholarly discourse, everyday conversations, service encounters, talk shows,

and a host of other genres.

Many studies on ethnic and racial inequality reveal a remarkable similarity among

the stereotypes, prejudices, and other forms of verbal derogation across discourse

types, media, and national boundaries.

• From group domination to professional and institutional power

We have reviewed in this section critical studies of the role of discourse in the

(re)production inequality. Such studies characteristically exemplify the CDA perspective

on power abuse and dominance by specific social groups.6 Many other studies,

whether under the CDA banner or not.

3 Conclusion

We have seen in this chapter that critical discourse analyses deal with the relationship

between discourse and power. We have also sketched the complex theoretical

framework needed to analyze discourse and power, and provided a glimpse of the

many ways in which power and domination are reproduced by text and talk.

First, the cognitive interface

between discourse structures and those of the local and global social context is

seldom made explicit, and appears usually only in terms of the notions of knowledge

and ideology (van Dijk 1998).

Second,there is still a gap between more linguistically oriented studies of text and talk and

the various approaches in the social. The first often ignore concepts and theories in

sociology and political science on power abuse and inequality, whereas the second

seldom engage in detailed discourse analysis. Integration of various approaches is

therefore very important to arrive at a satisfactory form of multidisciplinary CDA.

Definition Discourse

- Discourse is generally used to designate the forms of representation, codes, conventions and habits of language that produce specific fields of culturally and historically located meanings. 
 -the use of words to exchange thoughts and ideas
 -a long talk or piece of writing about a subject

Definition analysis

1. A systematic examination and evaluation of data or information, by breaking it into its component parts to uncover their interrelationships. Opposite of synthesis.
2. An examination of data and facts to uncover and understand cause-effect relationships, thus providing basis for problem solving and decision making 
3. .the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it. 
4. a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other .
5. an explanation of the nature and meaning of something
6.  problems rather than solutions 
7.  why rather than how 
8.  discovery rather than invention 
9.  critique rather than acceptance 
10.  decomposition rather than recombination

Definition Discourse Analysis
  

• sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow together. 
• Discourse analysis is gradually becoming more established in family practice. 
• Discourse analysis is the study of social life, understood through analysis of language in its widest sense (including face-to-face talk, non-verbal interaction, images, symbols and documents). 
• Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which language is used in texts and contexts. Also called discourse studies.

COMMENT AND QUESTION ABOUT SYNTAX

question to ami

 question to ari nugriah

 

question to devi

 

question to dian adeotari

 question to ernurdiana

question to kezia

 question to matra

 question to lisnawati

 question to romi ardyanti

 question to syahreza andika

question to taufik

 question to widya

 question to wildani

 question to wiwit

 question to yulia

COMMENT AND QUESTION ABOUT MORPHOLOGY


 question to ari nugriah

question to dian adeotari

 

 question to ernurdiana

 

question to julia ramadani

 question to kezia

question to lia afriani

 

question to romi ardyanti

 

 question to sarpani

 

question to taufik

 

question to tuti alawiyah

 question to widya

 question to wildani

 question to wiwit

 

 question to yulia

 question to masridar zega