FollowingBillig(2009,p.3),apragmati

FollowingBillig(2009,p.3),apragmaticapproachtodiscourseandcommunicationseeks to ‘examine what language users are doing in particular discursive contexts’: the intended and actual effects of different discourses and communicative formats in the world. Assuming – with TSR – that ‘language users’ are communicating in the context of self–other relations suggests paying attention also to power and asymmetries in those relations, and in the types of representations being used – so that we can understand whether they are resisting change or promoting it. In this vein, pragmatic discourse analysis embraces, for us, forms of analysis already discussed here, specifically rhetorical discourse analysis (Batel et al., 2015; Billig, 1991; Di Masso et al., 2011; Hopkins & Reicher, 1997), some forms of Critical Discourse Analysis (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2008; Batel & Adams, 2016; Wetherell, 1998), and dialogical analysis (Castro & Mouro, 2016; Castro et al., 2018; Markova, 2008) – thereof pragmatic discourse analysis can be considered more of an umbrella designation.

Αποτελέσματα (Αγγλικά) 2:

FollowingBillig (2009, p. 3), apragmaticapproachtodiscourseandcommunicationseeks to ' examine what language users are doing in particular discursive contexts ': the intended and actual effects of different discourses and communicative formats in the world. Assuming – with TSR – that's language users ' are communicating in the context of self – other relations suggests paying attention also to power and asymmetries in those relations, and in the types of representations being used – so that we can understand whether are Resisting change or promoting it. In This vein, pragmatic discourse analysis embraces, for us, forms of analysis already discussed here, specifically rhetorical discourse analysis (Batel et al., 2015; Billig, 1991? Di Masso et al., 2011; Hopkins & Reicher, 1997), some forms of Critical Discourse Analysis (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2008; Batel & Adams, 2016; Wetherell, 1998), and Dialogical analysis (Castro & Mouro, 2016; Castro et al., 2018; Markova, 2008) – Thereof pragmatic discourse analysis can be considered more of an umbrella designation.

Αποτελέσματα (Αγγλικά) 3:

FollowingBillig(2009,p.3),apragmaticapproachto scoursend communicationseeks to'examine what language users are doing in particular discursive contexts': the intended and actual effects of different discourses and communicative formats in the world. Assuming, with TSR, that "language users" are communicating in the context of self-other relations suggests paying attention also to power and asymmetries in those relations, and in the types of representations being used, so that we can understand whether they are resisting change or promoting it. In this vein, pragmatic discourse analysis embraces, for us, forms of analysis already discussed here, speci cally rhetorical discourse analysis (Batel et al., 2015; Billig, 1991; Di Masso et al., 2011; Hopkins & Reicher, 1997), some forms of Critical Discourse Analysis (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2008; Batel & Adams, 2016; Wetherell, 1998), and dialogical analysis (Castro & Mouro, 2016; Castro et al., 2018; Markova, 2008) thereof pragmatic discourse analysis can be considered more of an umbrella designation.