[ad_1]
Speech refers to language patterns and acceptable statements within a community. Discourse describes conversations and the meaning behind them in a group with common ideas. A discursive community shares similar thoughts and ideas, and ideology defines what can be discussed. Competing discourses can be seen in politics, literature, and art. Language choice defines thoughts and alliances. Political correctness is its own community, battling with anti-politically correct speech communities.
The term speech has several definitions. In the study of language, it often refers to the speech patterns and use of language, dialects and acceptable statements, within a community. It is being studied in people who live in secluded areas and share similar linguistic conventions.
Sociologists and philosophers tend to use the term discourse to describe conversations and the meaning behind them by a group of people who have certain ideas in common. Such are the definitions of the philosopher Michel Foucault, who believes they are the acceptable statements made by a certain type of discursive community. This explanation will mainly consider the definition related to sociology.
A discursive community can be defined as people who share similar thoughts and ideas. The Rolling Stones fan base, for example, could make up such a community. Within this fanbase, certain attitudes would be considered unacceptable and outside the community. For example, someone who didn’t hold the song Brown Sugar in the same high regard as the other members might be summarily kicked out the ear. Ideology defines what can be discussed.
Speech in this way can exist in time and represents the sum of all written/spoken/recorded thoughts that the community claims. Thus, early analyzes of the Rolling Stones are as valid as the opinions expressed by modern fans today. When the discourse applies to a broader philosophical ideal, such as Marxism, explaining Marxism, predating Marxism, and applying Marxism to today would be part of the community, and some study the history of such discourse.
It is as flexible as a discursive community permits. For example, post-structuralist discourse tends to be open to new interpretations and ideas, as well as vehement attacks on the contributions of others. As long as some community member accepts a new conversation, then it is part of the community and therefore exists without a timeline.
Rhetoricians and philosophers often speak of competing discourses. We can see such an example in the Christian right movement and the liberal left. Each group has a discourse that competes with other thoughts and beliefs, and each has a story. Some study the times when certain competing discourses start to emerge and become more popular. For example, a philosopher or political scientist might look at the mainstream religious right and ask how this discourse influenced the presidential election.
The same analysis of competing discourses could be applied to approaches to literature or art. For example, for a while, postmodern discourse tended to be more influential in the study and interpretation of art. This led to a backlash from Formalist critics and their community. Philosophers like Foucault see competing discourses as something akin to war. Indeed, real warfare can often be attributed to this competition.
Others liken speech and its communities to an essential need for humans to express belonging and share beliefs. Variety is essential due to a person’s individual needs. Speech assessment helps us discover trends in all of these communities.
Studies may also exist to determine how words within speech can express viewpoints. The words stay-at-home have negative connotations and are mostly used by those who view television as an inferior activity. In contrast to the words avid television fan, it shows how feelings about a subject are often put into words. A liberal person might use the term thumper bible, where a religious right person might use the term religious right. The choice of language often defines where our thoughts and alliances lie.
Some efforts have been made to nullify offensive speech and language communities through what is often referred to as political correctness. However, the language of political correctness is now its own community. Those who use this language believe that words should exist without sexism or racism. Using politically correct speech, such members are actually making claims that sexism and racism are not acceptable. Anti-Politically Correct Speech communities now battle with those who consider themselves politically correct. Therefore, the two communities are very similar to those described by Foucault, who fight wars of words to express ideology.
