Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Today, in the age of commercialization of culture, rap music has become a serious business. Of course it is possible to observe the same situation not only in the sphere of music but in other spheres of human life. But everybody who is connected with art works just for money it means that it is impossible to create a real masterpiece. The interaction of culture and business can not make masterpieces.
A great influence of the culture of the USA can be found all over the world in the sphere of show-business and entertainment sphere: cinema, music, videos, talk-shows, sport, and in the names of young fashion styles. The language of young people is one of the most important components of the spheres enumerated above. It is also used in the films and shows, and in such as hip-hop and rap, which a part of hip-hop (graffiti, break dance and rap) and the history of which goes back to the USA. It should be mentioned that rap-discourse is greatly influenced by the hip-hop culture. Speaking about culture it should not be remembered that it is closely connected with a particular group of society and that is why the work is written in the light of sociolinguistics and discourse theory and analysis.
The interaction between discourse and society has a great impact on the discourse theory and discourse analysis. Though this problem is not well researches and some difficulties of discourse practice are connected with it.
Many researches are convinced that the interpretation of the difficult relations between discourse and society is achieves with the help of cooperation of linguistic and social approaches.
It would be appropriate to note that the great majority of subcultures and life styles demands great mental activity in understanding the meaning of words and context. That is why the works in sociolinguistics are of current importance. It is impossible to research the main issues of discourse without connecting it to the aspects of reality which are the peculiarity features of the epoch. Historical background of the epoch is very important for discourse. So, the work is dedicated to Lil Wayne’s rap lyrics as the promotion of sex, drugs, and violence.
Discourse and society
It should be mentioned that the interaction of language and society is impossible without pragmatics. The aim of the pragmatic approach is not to make the final list of prepositions and generalizations out of the context but to connect the issues of forming of the new theory and conceptualization with the problems to be analyzed. So, there should be a question for the research – What are the conceptual approaches which are appropriate for the research of the problem?
A similar thing was already made by T. van Dijk. The claim that the discourse context requires an adequate interpretation leads to the integration of the cognitive theories in discourse analysis. In the recent researches the context is strongly associated with the notion of society and social practices. These are the researches by van Dijk, Wodak, Weiss. As a result of such researches the problems which are connected with “knowledge” became of current importance and the questions appeared – how do people decode the information in the context? Why do people of different social groups understand the same information indifferent way? The most probable is that the understanding depends on the conceptual background knowledge. Here it would be appropriate to speak about sociolinguistics.
Sociolinguistics is a scientific discipline which is developed at the interface of linguistics, sociology, social psychology, and ethnography, and studying a wide range of issues related to the social nature of language, its social functions and mechanism of the effect of social factors on language. Sociolinguistics examines the following issues: language and nation, learning the national language as a historical category, associated with the formation of the nation, the social differentiation of language at all levels of its structure and, in particular, the nature of the relationship between language and social structures; typology of language situations characterized by the distribution of social functions between different languages and dialects used by the community, patterns of interaction of languages in different social settings, social aspects of bilingualism, multilingualism and diglossia (the interaction of various social and subsystems of the same language facing each other) and, in particular, discussed in the context of the social situation; language policy as a form of conscious influence of society on language. The methods of sociolinguistics represent a synthesis of linguistic and sociological methods of research.
The subject of study of sociolinguistics is the problem of person and society and the immediate object of sociolinguistics is socially determined variation of linguistic structure. Since the subject of consideration is the variability of linguistic structure, it is the variables and not constants are subject to close scientific examination, with the linguistic facts relate to the social facts. One of the most important methods of sociolinguistics is the correlation of linguistic and social phenomena.
Currently, sociolinguistics as the science which is focused on the functioning of language in society has significantly expanded the object of the study. It has been enriched with new information on the factors of social variation of language, has started to use the data of related sciences – cultural anthropology, ethnic psychology, psycholinguistics, sociology, etc. Data depending on the linguistic characteristics of the individual from social indicators (education level, age, gender, profession, etc.) can be obtained by interviewing informants, which is widely used in sociolinguistic research. This method was further developed in sociolinguistics, because it not only gives information about the speaker, but determines the prevailing ideas about language, establishes the relative social prestige of competing linguistic forms to give a forecast.
The need to build a socially oriented linguistics was thoroughly grounded in 60-ies of the twentieth century. Thus, the American linguist K. Pike developed the theory of the structure of human behavior and postulated the existence of certain units of behavior, the constituent elements of verbal and non-verbal activity. One of the most important principles of linguistic analysis used in sociolinguistics is the principle of consistent distinction synchronic and diachronic approach to the phenomenon under the consideration (Lemke 65).
The study of linguistic systems of various linguistic groups, even the smallest, the identification of typological and language-specific patterns of functioning in modern society has allowed sociolinguists not only to get the new data on the social stratification of language, but also to abandon the old stereotypes, for example, that in the U.S., unlike Britain, less attention is being paid to the social prestige of speech, and class differences in language are insignificant.
It became possible to consider the role of the pronunciation in shaping public perceptions of stereotypes in society. It is well known that in Britain the listener usually draws conclusions about the education, political sympathies, the reliability as a business partner, and even – about the attractiveness and bases the opinion only on the pronunciation of the speaker. There have been found, such a situation of communication, when more favorable impression on the audience produce less prestigious pronunciation variants – regional.
According to current sociolinguistic concepts, the social environment should be viewed as a multidimensional space in which individuals are native speakers and are classified according to their age, place of birth and upbringing, social and occupational backgrounds, gender. However, each speaker is as important in sociolinguistics, as cell is important in biology.
It is the pronunciation is used to identify the social status of the speaker, their professional affiliation. In the literature numerous instances are described which illustrate the putting on the accent, for example: Scotch by Londoners, Creole by white teens, members of British pop bands and disc jockeys – a pseudo-American. This pronunciation, according to the just remark of the American sotsioliguist R. Hudson, reflects the identity of the speaker to a permanent social group, while the syntax acts as an element of cohesion in society, and vocabulary – its social heterogeneity.
Speech characteristics of different age groups have traditionally been the focus of sociolinguistics. However, in recent years, their attention was focused on the study of sociolinguistic development of child in four main stages of their language socialization (babyhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood). It is in childhood when the child usually prefers contacting with the members of their same sex, creating favorable conditions for differential language development of boys and girls, which subsequently reflected in the language of adults in the community. In addition, the juvenile stage (adolescence) deserves the attention of sociolinguists, when the young are going to become the next generation of adults. During this period, particularly noticeable effect on their language, their own age group, they are boldly experimenting with the language, try using slang to oppose the people of other generations – and the younger and older. Rap music was always strange for the people of older generation and is the reflection of contemporary events. It is possible to speak about a special kind of discourse connected with the peculiar features of the contemporary reality.
At present, the study of discourse is around six main areas: the theory of speech acts, sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis and variance analysis. It should be noted that the formation of models of understanding the sources and methods of analysis of discourse in these approaches (with all the many differences between them) were achieved by such disciplines as linguistics, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, communication theory, social psychology and artificial intelligence (Shiffrin154). The sociolinguistics is an approach to discourse, when the focus is situational value. Researchers working in this direction combine the ideas of John Gumperz and Ervin Goffman.
An anthropological impetus to the development of this direction was introduced by John Gumperz. The main purpose of his study the author shows in his book “Strategies of discourse”, the author defines the development of interpretive sociolinguistic approaches to the analysis of processes occurring in the real flowing in space and time, direct contact (face-to-face) (Gumperz 233). In his early works J. Gumperz concerned with language and the variety of dialects, language use and social interactions, and this perspective is retained in his later writings. The researches by J. Gumperz of this period are based on a key provision of social and cultural anthropology: Linguistic Meaning, the internal structure of language and language use socially and culturally conditioned.
The importance of this situation is illustrated by the work that is focused on regional and social differences in language, on the transition in the communication process from one language to another and the convergence of languages (dialects). It covers not only the individual elements of linguistic structure, but also how they become part of the verbal repertoire of interacting social groups. Three concepts – the language structure, language use and social group – are the foundation formulated by J. Gumperz classical definition of speech community as “any collection of people, characterized by regular or continuous cooperation based on common, well known to all linguistic signs and different from other such groups significant difference in the use of language” (Dil 114).
Despite the fact that in the early works Gumperz focused on cultural and social conditioning of language, the individual aspects of speech also found a place here (which will be further developed in the concept of “strategy”). For example, J.Gumperz distinguishes between two kinds of transition from one language to another option: the first named them situational change, which may occur due to changes in the participant communication rights and responsibilities to each other (Dil 294), and the second set as a metaphorical change of code, in which people move from one option to another within the same situation in order to convey a different view of this situation and their relationships (Dil 295). J.Gumperz notes that in order to understand the complex interaction and interdependence of language, thought, culture and society, a general theory of verbal communication is required it integrates knowledge of grammar, culture, and interactive conventions in a single comprehensive complex concepts and analytical procedures.
The theory of verbal communication, proposed by J. Gumperz, is supported by the introduction of new concepts – context subtitle (cue), which is closely linked with the other two – the contextual presupposition and situational inference. According to J.Gumperz, the reason lies in the marginal characteristics of language such as intonation, rhythm, choice of vocabulary, phonetics and syntax options. They influence the expressive qualities of the transmitted information, rather than essential. Gumperz’s research of interracial and interethnic communication situations show that it is the difference between the marginal characteristics of the language which are the sources of misunderstanding and lead to the formation of racial and ethnic stereotypes. So, this is called the context subtitles.
These are the particular aspects of language and behavior (verbal and nonverbal symbols) that are associated with what is called contextual knowledge (frames, by E. Hoffmann), which are based on presuppositions necessary for correct output value implied. Contextual presuppositions are a variety of background knowledge which determines the process of inference (deduction) of two levels of meaning which are interrelated. One level refers to the communicative activity (lectures, talk, etc.), and another level is illocutionary act, which correlates with the intention of the speaker. It is important to note that the interpretation of the illocutionary act depends on the use of a frame, which appears also on the basis context subtitle. Thus, when the speaker and listener speak the common context subtitle the verbal interaction between them takes place without any problems.
The definition of the shared values is only possible by examining the process of direct verbal interaction, i.e. reactions to the statement as evidence of compliance with the interpretive conventions must be analyzed. However, due to the fact that context subtitles digested in the long process of direct contact, many members of contemporary speech community, characterized by a marked cultural differences and social heterogeneity, prefer to communicate without resorting to their use.
And it is the study of cases of misunderstanding between people of different groups may reveal the most obvious evidence of the existence of context subtitles. Moreover, such cases of communication difficulties (confusion) may be the most alarming consequences for members of social minorities who do not know how to use and interpret the context subtitles.
In conclusion it should be noted that the key point of sociolinguistics by J. Gumperz is a vision of language as a socially and culturally conditioned system of symbols, which in its use reflects the macro-social values (e.g., the definition of group differences in status) and creates micro-social values (for example, what is said and done at the time of speech). This theory states that the speakers are the representatives of social and cultural groups, which manifest themselves in the peculiarities of their use of language, which manifests their affiliation to any social group, an indication of their status, communicative intention and the availability of information on how to implement it. The ability to participate in the process of interpersonal communication and understand each other is part of communicative competence.
Speaking about the interaction of sociolinguistic and discourse it would be appropriate to speak about the influence of sociocognitive theories and their impact on the discourse analysis. It would be appropriate also to distinguish the potential perspectives of applying the cognitive approach in the frames of discourse analysis.
The greatest impact on the research was made by the theories of T. van Dijk and J.Lakoff. Going back to the works in cognitive linguistics it should be mentioned that there is a hard argument – there are some mental processes which connect the production and understanding the text with utterance, text, communication, and social phenomena. This fact is especially obvious when analyzing such phenomena as language behavior, stereotypes, prejudice which can be found in social groups. Moreover the views and opinions, recollections about the past should be taken into account while researching the problem of identity. It should be also noted that such notions as “social memory” and imaginary community are the integral categories of the cognitive processes. Many scientists agree with this. They are Halbwachs, Anderson, Confino, Musolff.
In addition, even in everyday life, we always assure that very often people use special mental models for the life difficulties. This affects the personal interaction greatly (Luhmann 310). Being the representative of some definite culture people can easily recognize the systematic events, react to them and renew the information going back to the knowledge about their culture (Kunda 100 – 167). Thus, cognitive and sociocogitive approaches should be a part of discoursive practice, because the task of discourse analysis is the explanation of social problems of interdisciplinary character. In the recent research by Koller (Koller 112 – 115) where he focuses on metaphor and the social role of discourse, claims that there are the possibilities of using the cognitive theory in discourse analysis. Integrating the theory of T.van Dijk and the recent research of metaphoric modeling (Hawkins 132), Dirven distinguishes two types of “ideology”. He comes to the conclusion that cognitive linguistics suggests the analysis of the critical estimation of the “ideology” but not the ideal ways of its conceptualization (Dirven 77).
It should be noted that a great majority of cognitive researches in the sphere of discourse analysis (except the works by van Dijk) is based on the research of the metaphoric units in the traditions of researching the cognitive metaphor and that is why it would be appropriate to speak about another process which connects discourse and society.
Trying research these questions the recent works in discourse analysis are devoted to the problem of interaction – “discourse – society”? They used different cognitive models for the understanding the text (van Dijk, Wodak). These works are based on the cognitive strategies which are based on mental processes. So, the model of text understanding can include several parameters: knowledge and experience (these are the cognitive structures – frames, schemes which help to decode the discourse, authors and target group which has age, gender, social and other differences. Text understanding is the recoursive process and it always has a feedback of the mental models kept in memory and the renewal of these models.
The processes of information renewal are closely connected with the systematic and conscious strategies. So, there is a cognitive connection between discourse and society.
In the book “Prejustice in Discourse” T. van Dijk suggests a sociocognitive model according to which there is a range of stereotypes and prejustice in combination with the complex of cognitive processes, the most important of which is keeping the experience as a situational model in memory.
There is a question about how these biases are widespread, how and why specific periods of time are connected with a particular ideology and sociopolitical context. The theories based on the group memory and group experience, and must be confirmed by the relevant empirical results.
For example, anti-Semitic beliefs have different historical roots in Austria, Germany, France and Italy. They depend on the complex of historical and socio-political factors and events (religion, industrialization, national-socialist ideology, etc.). Currently, a variety of stereotypes are not only present in the minds of ordinary citizens, but also deliberately used for political purposes in the discourse of elites (Wodak 253).
The stereotypes and prejudices are manifested in metaphors, analogies, allusions and stories. Such cultural frames are difficult to change. The system of bias is also explained by the widespread phenomenon of anti-Semitism without Jews: man can never meet with the Jews and not have negative experiences of interaction with them, but has negative judgments about them. Opinion polls suggest that anti-Semitic sentiments are stronger and disseminated, if there are no contacts with representatives of this social group. The same is about gender, ethnic inequality, inequality of sexual minorities.
The state of the problem
Discourse can be defined as a substance which does not have any certain volume and is constantly moving. There are some parameters which impact the discourse structure:
Discourse producing and discourse consuming
Every member of society makes a contribution to the material substance of discourse by their experience as well as every member of society is a discourse consumer. (Lemke 126).
In discourse people are involved as linguistic identities. This concept is a complete application in linguistics, discourse, in correlation with the language system, actually coincides with the concepts of sociolect and idiolect. Under the language person we should understand the unity of knowledge and skills to participate in discourse. This is the knowledge of the possible roles in communication, primary and secondary speech genres and their corresponding speech tactics and the strategies of speech. The specific content of these characteristics is the basis of natural typology of language personalities.
Communicating
The discourse is permeated with the “ways of communication” – the channels of communication. Oral channel is universal, but also the most vulnerable, the next channels are writing, radio, television, internet. Channel of communication is not indifferent to the discoursive contributions of native speakers and is one of the grounds for a separation of substance of discourse (oral, written, online discourse). The language conceptualization, which embodied the national mentality and world view, is the basis for the separation of the discourse on ethnic grounds. In relation to the discourse translation can be seen as discoursive process by which the borders of national discourses are demolished.
Discourse formations (the varieties of discourse)
Discourse formations are formed at the intersection of communicative and cognitive components of discourse. Possible positions and roles that are given in the discourse to the native speakers – a linguistic personality belong to the communicative component. Knowledge contained in discoursive communication belongs to the cognitive component. Discourse formations are intertwined, partly coinciding on communicative and cognitive signs, used by genres.
Intertextual interaction
The notion of intertextuality that is inconsistent with the structural paradigm, finds an adequate place in linguistic discourse. Intertextuality is included to the ontology of discourse, providing the stability and interaction of discoursive formations. Stability, reproducibility and advancement in time of discursive formations are created by their own linguistic intertext. All types of intertext participate in the discoursive processes of derivation and mutual borrowing.
Foucault merit was that he was able to step through the final form of verbal activity, presented them together and looked at those communities that in this dynamic, ever-changing space were actually allocated. The question of the varieties of discourse for Foucault – this was the overriding question of the mode of existence, about the metaphysics of discourse. He was looking for these methods, researching the history of discourses of madness and sexuality, medical discourse, he sought the discoursive regularities, emphasizing the unity of discourse – the statement.
He wanted to show the discoursive being objectified as a spontaneous product, in which order arises from chaos and chaos from order. Hence there is the external rule: not to go from discourse to its inner and hidden language, but to a certain core idea or values, which allegedly manifested in it, but taking as the point of the discourse itself, its appearance and its regularity, going to the external conditions of its opportunities, to what makes a place for a random series of events that captures their borders.
In a certain mental measuring all the knowledge presented in the discourse can be regarded simply as information, or an equivalent for it. However, the discoursive formations represent them as different. The aim of discourse, in accordance with the general definition of cognitive science, is to make possible the processes of acquiring, storing, transformation, generation and application of human knowledge. Discourse formations carried out the specification of different kinds of knowledge through the various verbal expressions. The specification of knowledge is a specification for pragmatic use. Discourse is characterized by the following features in the cognitive-pragmatic aspect (Lemke 137):
- Discourse as an information structure is a repository of different types of knowledge. Discourse formations are the specification of knowledge for their application.
- The atomic knowledge, on the level of utterances, is not the peculiarity of discourse. Specification occurs at the level of discursive formations.
- Discursive formation is a model of verbal exchange and formed together with the privileged for it values constituting an act of communication.
- Discoursive formations have their own history and the rhythm of their forming which is the basis for the internal time in discourse. There is a question what knowledge is specified in discourse. Firs of all these are the communicative situations which are valuable for the society. So, the very utterance can not be just an event, it has much broader sense and creates discourse.
The composition of discoursive formations is inextricably linked with the historical era, social and cultural needs and aspirations of producers and users of discourse. Indicators, for example, declared on the eve of the First World War, the pathos of the merger of religious and scientific discourse in a single esoteric knowledge. Foucault sought to identify the procedures for dissection of discourse. The specification of knowledge in discourse can talk about different types of knowledge: private, spiritual, religious, social, science and culture. These basic types of knowledge correspond to different “I”, who binds human existence and language: “I” as an individual with experience of the body, “I” in a spiritual aspiration for the Creator, “I” in the society. Another type of knowledge does not correspond to any of the proposed roles and puts “I” in the world of imagination – in the art world with its own verbal status of existence.
Methodology
Discourse analysis is a set of methods and techniques of interpretation of various kinds of texts or utterances as products of speech activities in specific socio-political circumstances and cultural and historical conditions. Theme, substantive and methodological specifics of such research is intended to stress the notion of discourse, which is defined as socially constructed and culturally enshrined rationally organized system of rules of usage and relationships of individual sentences in the structure of speech (discourse).
This understanding of discourse is repelled by the definition given by Van Dijk: “In a broad sense, the discourse is a complex unity of linguistic form, meaning and action, which could best be described using the notion of a communicative event or communicative act.” (Van Dijk 321) (Discourse analysis as an independent scientific discipline or, at least, an autonomous branch of scientific knowledge, was born in 1960 in France as a result of the connection of linguistics, Marxism, and psychoanalysis in the general trends of structuralist ideology. In the works of the founders of this direction E. Benveniste, L. Althusser, R. Jacobson, R. Barth, J.Lacan, and others are still being proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure separation of speech and language when trying to connect them with the theory of speech acts, linguistics of speech, cognitive pragmatics of text, etc.
Discourse analysis sought to create such a technique of interpretation, which identifies socio-cultural (ideological, political, religious, etc.) conditions of the organization of speech activity, present in the texts of the various statements and appear as their implicit or explicit bias. This was the policy orientations and a common purpose of further development of this scientific field. The work of these scientists has initiated the emergence of various studies and a whole branch of knowledge, which is denoted as “the school of discourse analysis”. She formed the theoretical basis of the critical linguistics, which emerged in 1960-1970 and interpreted verbal activity primarily in terms of its social significance. According to this theory, utterances are the result of the communicants (speaking and writing) in a particular social situation, the relationship of speech subjects typically display various types of social relationships (dependencies and interdependencies), communication on any level they function socially conditioned, so the correlation of the content and form of expression not arbitrary, but always motivated by the speech situation. As a result, most of researchers are increasingly drawn to the notion of discourse, defined as an integral and coherent text, which is determined by updating the various socio-cultural factors. In this context for the study of social communication, it is important that the discourse reflects not only the linguistic forms of expression, but contains information and assessment, personal and social characteristics of the communicators; their knowledge implies communicative intentions and is determined by socio-cultural situation. (Lemke 139)
Discourse analysis is focused primarily on the linguistic level in the structure of social communication as dominant throughout the historical development of society and culture. And although at the present stage, it has been increasingly replaced by paralinguistic and especially synthetic levels of communication, relying on the non-verbal means of communication, its role is still quite large and significant for all types of social interaction. Discourse analysis allows you to emphasize not only the essential characteristics of social communication, but secondary, content and formal indicators (eg, trends in the variability of speech formulas, or the construction of sentences). This is a distinct advantage of this approach, so the modeling techniques of discourse, the justification of its components and study of its structure as integrated communication units are widely used by different researchers. For example, M. Holliday, creates a model of discourse in which there is an interaction of three structural components: the semantic (thematic) field, the tone (the register) and ways to implement the discourse. These components are given formal expression in speech and can serve as an objective basis for the selection of meaningful features of communication, which are caused by the social context of power relations against the background of the addressee and addresser. Also, some methods of discourse analysis are used in a variety of studies when considering the specific texts of expression of social agents in the communication process. Discourse analysis as a holistic, socially conditioned unit of communication and understanding of the relationship of different types of discourses (scientific, political, ideological, etc.) reveals the prospect of a general theory of social communication. But it must precede the development of situational models, reflecting the impact of sociocultural factors on the process of communication.
At present, this problem is the focus of many research groups and research centers. Since the 1960 to 1990 this line of research had felt the impact of the ruling in different periods of history of science paradigms: critical, interpretive, positivist (structuralist) and postmodern (poststructuralist). Accordingly, depending on the influence of the ruling on one point or another paradigm shift in discourse analysis to the fore that the ideological and pragmatic development, the linguistic (textual) and statistical methods, proclaimed the need to limit the boundaries of a separate text or its breaking in the sociocultural context. Currently discourse analysis is perceived as an interdisciplinary approach, formed at the intersection of sociolinguistics and linguistics, but also absorbed techniques and methods of various sciences humanities: rhetoric, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, political science, sociology, etc. Therefore, it is permissible to allocate an appropriate approach as the main strategy of the research carried out by discourse analysis, for example, psychological (cognitive, cultural, historical, etc.), linguistic (grammatical, textual, stylistic, etc.), semiotic ( semantic, syntactic, pragmatic), philosophical (structuralist, poststructuralist), logical (argumentative and analytical), information and communication, rhetorical, etc.
In terms of ethno-cultural (regional) preferences in the history of the formation and development of the theory of discourse there are following schools and traditions, as well as their main representatives of: the French structural and semiological (Barthes, Todorov, Greimas, Serio, Pesce), Germany linguistics (Merringer, Shuhart) Dutch cognitive-pragmatic (Van Dijk), English logician and analytical (Austin, Searle, Quine) and sociolinguistic (Gilbert, Malko). In various traditions, presented including data schools, attempts to simulate a variety of theoretical and practical aspects of the functioning of discourse in processes of social communication. And then the main problem lies not in how to develop the most accurate, objective and comprehensive methodology for research in the discourse analysis, but both agree among themselves on many similar developments. The main approaches in the modeling of communicative discourse are mainly related to a generalized notion of the conceptual structure of its organization. It is regarded as a mechanism for organizing the knowledge about the world around them to streamline and systematize, regulate behavior in certain situations (at work, rest, play, ritual, etc.), creation of social orientation of the participants of communication, the functioning of the main components of discourse adequate interpretation of information and behavior. Here, the cognitive aspect of the discursive practice merges with the pragmatic aspect, where the important role is played by social context interaction communicants. In view of these aspects the analytical models of discourse are established, as a “mental mode” (F. Johnson-Laird), which represents a generalized scheme of the knowledge about the world, developed a model of “frames” (M. Minsky, Charles Fillmore) as an organization chart representations about different ways of behavior in typical situations, as well as the model of “scripts” (scenarios) (R. Schenk, R. Abelson) to permit the development and modification of model situations, and their adjustment.
To study the communicative aspects of the functioning of discourse the situational model is applied. T. van Dijk, combining the principles of analysis of social categories that define our perceptions and actions in a social context with personal knowledge of the subject (estimates, opinions, attitudes), as well as sociosemiotic approach by Holliday and his “field model” of discourse, combining empirical, logical, interpersonal, and contextual levels of analysis. As a result, at present the main strategies and tactics within the discourse analysis appear in a variety of interdisciplinary research, which is characterized by diversity as a means of raising the problems of interpretation, and their solutions in terms of interpretation of the content of texts: from simple, extensive (of demonstrating) to descriptive, interpretive (latent). At the same time within the boundaries of the problem the field is assumed to correlate with each other such qualitative methods of studying the text, as structured, semiotic (semiological) system, the symbolic (mythological) analysis, analysis of social indicators and narrative (lines), keywords, and social role, rhetorical, performative, genre, psychoanalytic, critical, historical, cultural, intertextual, phenomenological types of analysis, content and intent analysis, analysis of communication strategies and free association; pragmapsychological, socio-, ethno-, cognitive – linguistic analysis. In order to try to compare and coordinate these methods and approaches integrative research program is needed – new methods that use broad categories of different approaches, selected on the basis of the principles of complementarity and verification in common metatheoretical framework and conceptual installations of discourse analysis.
It is possible to summarize and group these different areas in the form of three main groups, united on the principle of the relationship between the analysis of individual statements and texts. And then it is possible to distinguish: 1) the textual approach as consciously limiting their research interests outside of a single text as an isolated, stand-alone speech formation, 2) inter-or hypertextual approach that tries to identify and analyze the semantic relationship (quotations, references, allusions, reminiscences) between various texts, and 3) contextual approach, considering any statement (text) as a product of social agents, and always included to the social interaction and structure, specific political and cultural-historical situation. (Lemke 176)
General methodology of discourse analysis always reproduces the model of quality of content analysis, which is in contrast with the formal-quantitative techniques (eg, content analysis) can reveal not only clearly present and clearly fixed by the text data, but hidden, latent meanings of the message. Generalized model of quality informative of discourse analysis consists of the following turn-based strategy research: the fixation of the material, the selection of its formal characteristics, the designation of context as a communicative situation, choosing the direction and strategy analysis, a theoretical derivation and structuring phases of the study, the definition of techniques and tools to analyze the use of a particular model of research, the definition of units of analysis; verification system of categories in both theory and empirical material, the implementation of key phases of the study (descriptions, reconstruction, and interpretation); fixation of the study, their synthesis, interpretation, and structuring. Methodological scheme discourse analysis is close to the logic to other forms of content analysis and is built on the following stages: defining the goal of the study, sampling (selection of units of analysis), collecting materials and documents (survey methods, interviews, scanning, etc.), fixing the main indicators of verbal material; transcription (transcript) of the data and to identify their basic parameters; recoding in accordance with the system adopted by the categories, the reconstruction of the meaning of the reports received, analysis of data processed, their generalization and systematization; general report and conclusions.
Rap community and related issues
The subcultures, as specific groups of consumers of fashion products are not a new phenomenon, since there were always the subcultural differences in society over the centuries due to the emergence of different styles of dressing and styles in different spheres of life. However, modern society, whose structure is determined not only by the general group, but smaller, more individualized characteristics, which demonstrates the diversity represented in its subcultures. The scientific community drew attention to the phenomenon of subculture recently. The contemporary view abut subculture states that subculture is a distinct sphere of culture. This is the culture of a certain young generation with a community lifestyle, behavior, group norms. If a young person appears unusual – these may be the signs of belonging to a particular subculture. Of course, each subculture keeps its own peculiarities.
Adolescents perceive the world around us in different way. The features of the psychological state of adolescence do not allow the majority of young people to express their world view in their own way. Therefore, adolescents prefer to join the company and they are succeeding in creating their distinctive communities, and very often it is the only possible way for them to survive in society. It is extremely attractive for adolescents belonging to such communities, because, coming from a closed social unit of the family, a young person world inevitably falls into a social vacuum in the modern. This phenomenon is a specific feature of various social groups, in particular, informal small groups. The easiest way to fill this social vacuum is the union of their own kind. Forming the group young people create subculture. Under subculture we should understand the basic characteristics of social values, norms and preferences of adolescents, which are reflected in social attitudes and other forms of individual self-realization. Thus, any subculture is a way of expressing individuality of young people.
The core of any youth subculture is a street style. Some subcultures (including rap) have national and social roots, and, in essence, are originally the product of criminalized slums. Slang is one of the main features of subculture. Speaking and understanding the specific language is a pass to the group. Sociologists divide the youth groups into the formations of abundance and crisis. Entering the adult life young people take it for granted that they have achieved the level of society, and experienced respect. Youth due to their age was not yet fit into the dominant social structures, and because it is easier to understand their transient nature and limited in order to begin to create their social reality, which is not so similar to the reality of youth of the previous generation.
The commercialization of the media, to some extent, and the entire broadcast of culture creates a certain image of sub-culture, no less than the main agents of socialization – friends, family and education system. After all, watching television, along with communication, as already mentioned, is the most common form of recreational self-realization. In many of its features subculture simply repeats the television subculture, which shapes under a suitable viewer. Today, scientists are identifying the youth as a socio-demographic group in society based on population characteristics, social status and caused by the socio-psychological characteristics which are determined by socio-economic and cultural development, especially the socialization of society.
Young people live in the general social and cultural space, and therefore the crisis of society and its major institutions could not help reflecting on the content and direction of youth subculture. It is therefore any development of specifically youth programs has both – positive and negative sides, except social adaptation and career guidance. Any efforts to correct the socialization process will inevitably be met with dissatisfactory state of all the social institutions of society and particularly the education system, cultural institutions and the media. Our society consists of different social groups, distinguished both by the number of its constituent individuals, and the nature of the group orientation. The usual social group may consist of two or more individuals who have common goals and established relationships. The larger group size, the greater the likelihood it will include individuals with a broad range of skills and abilities. In order to be part of a group, people should directly or indirectly interact with each other. According to size, the group divided into large and small. A small group is a group of a small (3-50 people), well-organized, independent unit of the social structure of community, whose members are united by a common purpose, joint activities and are in direct personal contact (intercourse) and emotional interaction for a long time.
The psychology of small group and its individual elements accumulate in their experience all the preceding generations, and this community. At the same time, the presence of certain socio-psychological phenomena in it is a natural result of specific, immediate conditions of life and activities of its members. These conditions determine the characteristics of rational and emotional response team members on events and facts of public life. Small groups are divided into conventional (combined on some common grounds, such as age, sex, etc.) and real (united by some common grounds, such as age, sex, etc.), formal ( where people are constantly in everyday life, there are natural and laboratory, that is created for the benefit of their scientific research) and informal (which are formally given the outside structure), weak (in the early stages of its existence) and highly (group long-established other than the presence of unity of purpose and common interests, a highly developed system of relations, organization, cohesion, etc.), the reference (groups to which people orient themselves in their own interests, personal preferences, likes and dislikes) and non-referential (the group in which people actually included and work), diffuse (random, in which people are united by a common emotions and experiences) and staff (the highest form of bringing people together, creating the most favorable conditions for joint activities). Typically, rap subculture meets informally and diffusive groups.
The relationship in a small group is a subjective context, arising from exposure to its members and accompanied by various emotional experiences of individuals involved in it. These relationships must comply with certain principles. Youth subculture arose because thanks to it young generations meet certain essential requirements. In explaining the reasons and objectives of the youth subculture of specialists has developed the following point of view. There are many complex problems that young people can not solve, drawing on past experience or the experience of adults. They need a group of peers who face the same problems, have the same values and ideals. This period of uncertainty arises because a person leaves the childhood – the period of minimal responsibility, and enters into adulthood – the period of maximum liability. To soften the transition from one extreme to another a youth subculture is needed, accumulating the experience in dealing with life problems accumulated by many generations of young people and different from the experience of older generations.
One of the specific features of youth subculture is the Americanization of cultural needs and interests. Values of national any culture are replaced by samples of Western mass culture. Accordingly, the changes of values palette of adolescent consciousness are played by pragmatism, cruelty, excessive desire for material success. Accordingly, a set of values of young people are squeezed out a highly revered values, such as politeness, respect for others. In choosing the cultural idols of today youth often followed the requirements of the group environment (hangouts), and fashions, and not their own choice or the advice of parents.
The main way of influencing of rap subculture on society is rap (or recitative). The meaning of the text in rap music is crucial, as it was originally formed as a subculture of protest, so the rap has the slogan form sometimes. The main thing in rap is the rhythm of words and text. With careful selection of sounds in rap there is an effect of the simple utterance melody (recitation) of texts. The reading of texts should not be monotonous, and should be memorable, so enormous importance is the selection of rhyme, intonation, the principle of alliteration]. Rap is constantly gaining popularity and is now a trend is being intensified. So, any subculture is nothing but an attempt of young people to assert themselves at the expense of certain values, which are taken as a constant and the basic principle of life.
Rap is unique by the fact that it lacks the musical beginning. It is recitation of texts, still depends on the rhythm, but separated from the singing tradition. It is at the border of musical texts and poetry in its purest form. The poetry of a man of the future, and the present is the fusion of poetry, music and visual series. In its pure form, in our opinion, poetry has exhausted itself. First, new media and additional features of perception, to some extent can be called a means of expression of rap texts. Secondly, in terms of modern man, living in a regime of constant lack of time, in the era multitasks, audio books and products it is much more profitable to use their time on poetry, music and philosophy, sublimated in the form of rap.
However, the rap-poetry can not be viewed only in terms of technical tricks. In the rap texts we see the necessary criteria for artistry, designed for a long time: quite original content and its embodiment in an extremely bright and most relevant to it an art form. The originality of the meanings of the plan lies in the fact that rap pays attention not only to intimate and philosophical, and topical social themes, such as drug addiction, prostitution, homophobia, and AIDS. The latest in the classic modern poetry has received little attention, because, again, following the tradition and the complexities associated with the design of such subjects. The innovation of rap poetry from the standpoint of form, primarily, is manifested in the metric. Rap-text, as has been observed is the importance of oratory: iambic base, characteristic of almost all texts, can move in spondee and trochee. As a result not only the rhythm changes, but also the meaning, emotion, the focus of the text.
There is a label of mass culture on the rap-poetry and modern poetry. To take its place among the popular forms of art and the development of modern society, this poetry should not be complex and ambiguous process of self-actualization, hard work of reflective consciousness. On the other hand, its function should not be reduced to entertainment and basic psychotherapy. Rap poetry, on the one hand, is a literary tradition, on the other hand it takes into account the tastes of the public, and it is between these two extremes.
Conclusion
In conclusion it should be said that discourse is a central aspect of human life in the language. Every act of language use whether it is product of high value or just a remark in a dialogue – it is a particle of a continuously moving stream of human experience. It absorbs and reflects the unique set of circumstances under which and for which it was created. These circumstances include 1) the communicative intention of the author, 2) the relationship between the author and recipients, 3) all kinds of facts which are meaningful and random, 4) common ideological and stylistic features of the climate of the epoch in general and the particular environment and specific individuals who directly or indirectly are addressed, in particular, 5) genre and stylistic features as the message itself, and of the communicative situation in which it is included, 6) a number of associations with previous experiences, fallen into the orbit of the linguistic actions. Under the human experience, we also mean the complex of sociolinguistic relationship between people, as well as the values and specific vision of the world of people.
The discourse analysis is carried out with different positions, but there are some general basic assumptions: 1. static model of the language is too simple and does not correspond to its nature; 2. the dynamic model of language must be based on communication, i.e. joint activities of people who are trying to express their feelings, exchange ideas and experiences, influence each other; 3. communication occurs in communicative situations, which should be considered in a cultural context; 4. the central role in the communicative situation belongs to people, not the means of communication; 5. Communication includes pre-communicative and post-comminicative stage; 6. text as a product of communication has several dimensions, interpretation of the text is the most important.
It is impossible to research the main issues of discourse without connecting it to the aspects of reality which are the peculiarity features of the epoch. So, speaking about the peculiar features of the epoch it should be mentioned that we are still experiencing the sexual revolution, i.e. its final stage. As every event, sexual revolution has three stages: precondition, event, results.
What does the sexual revolution bring to society? Drugs have become an attribute of sexual life. And they are strongly promoted in Lil Wayne’s music:
I can mingle with the stars, and throw a party on Mars
I am a prisoner, locked up behind Xanac bars
I have just boarded a plane, without a pilot
And violets are blue, roses are red
Daisies are yellow, the flowers are dead
Wish I can give you this feeling… I feel like buying
And if my dealer don’t have no more, then…
(I feel like dying)
Only once the drugs are done, that I feel like dying… I feel like dying
Only once the drugs are done, that I feel like dying… I feel like dying
(I Feel Like Dying lyrics)
Here we can see that a young person who has money can not buy any drugs and this situation is fatal for them. It is obvious that he issue of money is promoted also by the phase: “I feel like buying”. Very often the feeling of a peron who takes drugs are described by beautiful words like – flowers, stars but then everything breaks because of the problem that person can not proceed this state.
First of all to understand the discourse of Lil Wayne’s music we should pay attention to the epoch we live in. there are really many problems which are of current importance and some of them are really difficult to solve because they are interrelated and demand a complex solution. Lil wayne’s music is full of different concepts, like sex, drugs, and violation. The example of violation promotion can be found in “You want war lyrics”:
Nigga, respect me
When you see tha left hand buggin’, nigga, respect it
But if you see tha left hand bustin’, nigga, your disrespectin’
Took one to tha chest, I never die, I’m tha same brotha
Jump out and shoot K’s, let ’em fly, I’m tha same brotha
It’s a must they recognize that I’m untamed, brotha
Disconnect a boy like a damn change number
Uhhh, hang up and try again
I kill ya, wake ya up, and make you die again
Spark it up, and make a nigga block fry again
Go ta jail, and do life, not five ta ten
Me, Lil’ Mario, and Toolie, that’s my man, fam
My niggas don’t give a Jean-Claude VanDamme
About’chu, ’cause we don’t play around
Bring tha K around, spray tha town, take tha ground
Take tha ground that you walk on
Tap tha phones that you talk on
Jam ya up and take your arms off
I hit you twice with tha sawed-off
And your nigga just watch your head fall off… fall off
You think ya love me, I shoot anybody that look suspicious (what)
I bust tha three-six until tha damn drum bust (what)
I hit tha hood, (I hit tha hood) be up in all black, (be in all black)
numb-nut
I run up in your house with a tommy gun, what
I’m standin’ there like all mine
Run through your click like a weak defensive line
Doggy fresh
The new forms of marriage – group, triads, swingers, and the problems connected with them – a sense of guilt, disgust, violation – all increases the incomes of psychotherapists and drug traffickers. The perverted forms of sex are promoted:
Don’t y’all lip quit
Put your lips on this dick
Let me get on some livin’
Spit all over ya chin
Weezy be on some pimp shit
I see ’em, peep ’em, meet ’em, beep ’em (Act A Ass lyrics)
Start suck it ’til that middle come out
Ride me (ride me), put that dick inside you (inside you)
After that wiggle your ass and make that juice move
I’ma donkey (donkey), better yet a veteran (veteran)
At the same time I can fuck you and your best friend
The Number 1 Stunna, Baby you wit me
Bump in my head never let a bitch play me
Always get the tec nigga fuck ’em all
Wrap a chain ’round ya neck and walk it like a dog (Act A Ass lyrics)
Promoting sex among teenagers gives millions unwanted pregnancies and abortions, providing a large influx of customers to drug market and to the criminal world:
I’m a man to another man to a bitch I’m a pimp in the whip I’m a hundred grand
And in the streets I’m a money man
And I’m a hunt it with the streets I get money in the streets like a hundred men
A hundred proof in my other hand
If ever fall spring back like a rubberband know what I’m sayin (Ain’t That A Bitch lyrics)
Narcotic drugs and free sex are cheap substitute for a full sexual life, love and family happiness. The new forms of family decrease fertility; polls say about many people keenly felt a sense of loneliness. There is an ugly picture of social devastation that amply explains the true causes of the sexual revolution, as a pillar of the behavioral revolution. The attitude of a man to a woman is shown in the next example, which shows also the degradation process of the society.
She always ask for me to take it out her pussy
Put it right in her ass and the
B is for Brittany she right in the class
She be hatin on Ashley ’cause she tight in the ass
The C is for Christina want me to big screen her
The way she dick Kiss should be a misdameanor so if you seen her
I been searchin but can’t find her
Ever since I been wit Diamond wit Diamonds in her vagina
And the E is for ever elegant Ericka
Sweet red bitch
We used to call her Miss America
I aint gon lie now Ericka is a dog
But to the that magnolia nigga she done fucked em all, (Slim! )
Speakin of slim, the f is for Fat,
A real skinny hoe so you know
Why they call her that
And the G for gabriel, you can call her Gabby
But all my homeboys seem to call her nasty (man) (Alphabet Bitches lyrics)
It should be noted that the promotion of sex, drugs and violence is a long-standing illness, artificially created phenomenon caused by economic and moral failure of a democratic society. Energetically implanted through the arts and the media, homosexuality, sexual deviance and other simplified forms of sexuality channeled sexual energy, and were forced to measures of the ruling elite, taken out of fear of qualitative change in society in order to reduce population growth and prevent social unrest.
So, the discourse analysis of Lil Wayne’s lyrics as one of the representatives of rap subculture is an attempt to systematic distinguishing the values of young people. Subculture is a part of cultural system which is located inside the society, It determined the style of life, value hierarchy, and mentality.
Works cited
Anderson, Benedict. Die Erfindung der Nation: Zur Karriere eines erfolgreichen Konzepts. Frankfurt a. Main/New York: Campus, 1988. Print.
Confino, Alon. The Nation as a Local Metaphor. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Print.
Dil, Arnold. (ed.) Language in Social Groups. Stanford, 1971. Print.
Dirven, Richard. Cognitive Linguistics, Ideology, and Critical Discourse Analysis // Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.
Gumperz, John. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, 1982. Print.
Halbwachs, Moris. Das kollektive Gedachtnis. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985. Print.
Hawkins, Bruce. Ideology, Metaphor and Iconographic Reference // Language and Ideology / R. Dirven, R. Frank, C. Ilie (eds). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2001. Vol. II. Print.
Kunda, Ziva. Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Print.
Koller, Veronica. Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Cognition: Evidence from Business Media Discourse // Discourse & Society. 2005. Vol. 16(2). Print.
Luhmann, Niklas. Soziale Systeme: Grundrisse einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp, 1984. Print.
Lemke, Jay. Textual Politics: Discourse and Social Dynamics. London: Taylor & Francis, 1995. Print.
Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print.
Shiffrin, David. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, 1994. Print.
van Dijk, Teun. Contextual Knowledge Management in Discourse Production. A CDA Perspective // New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis / R. Wodak, P.A. Chilton (eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2005. Print.
van Dijk, Teun.. Critical Discourse Analysis // Handbook of Discourse Analysis / Schiffrin David (ed). Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Print.
Wodak Ruth., Meyer Mark. (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 2001. Print.
Wodak, Ruth. Critical Discourse Analysis // Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage, 2004. Print.
Wodak, Ruth. Visions, Ideologies and Utopias in the Discursive Construction of European identities: Organizing, Representing and Legitimizing Europe // Communicating Ideologies: Language, Discourse and Social Practice. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang, 2004. Print. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.