“John, it‟s time to move on.” We signal a relatively informal and intimate relationship with him. It should be kept in mind that
institutional discourse can also be informal and an everyday constraint among other social practices for discourse is continuously
contextualized by signaling various conditions or situations by the social relationships between the participants. The criterion this task
brings: The construing of a social identity, position or profession as obligated within their domain skills, e.g. a student would relate a
teacher with terms like “educate”, “guide”, and “learn”, but also with “friend” or “care” if more intimacy is established. Furthermore, the
focus of this task is about the enactment of relationship or relationships in a piece of language.
51
e. Politics the distribution of social goods
We use language to build or destroy social goods and the nature of their distribution in the society.
52
Almost all humans view being treated with respect or deference as a social good. By doing
that, we build a certain perspective on them. Much alike with news companies using this task with tendencies in the representation of
discourse in and to suggest their ideologies and values implicitly in practices of news production.
53
For example, if we say, “You put too much sugar in your tea,” we treat the person as purposeful. On the
51
Gee, 2005, op. cit., p. 12
52
Gee, 2011, op. cit., p. 118.
53
Norman Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, New York: Longman Group Ltd, 1995, p. 54
other hand, if we say, “Your tea has too much sugar.” We treat the person as being less purposeful. Whenever the speaker or writer
building and formulating the discourse, they seem to have consequences for further action or decision making of the participants
engaged in it.
54
How we phrase the matter has implications for social goods. The criterion this task brings: The dealing of linguistic units on
negotiation over social goods and how they should be distributed including the work of government, elections, and political parties, e.g.
“law” and “conflict”. Furthermore, the focus of this task is about the enactment of perspective on social goods in a piece of language.
55
f. Connections
We use language to connect or disconnect things and to make things relevant or irrelevant.
56
For example, we talk and act so as to make what we are saying about whether we should buy more sugar
connected to or relevant to or, on the other hand, not connected to or relevant to what was said before about the excessive use of it in tea
by a certain person. The presentation of news contents including the ones about particular social groups in discourses appear to be
connected in ways that are often rather similar or as can be said stereotypically if not negatively in reflection with the values, norms,
and beliefs held by the institution.
57
The criterion this task brings:
54
van Dijk, 2008, op. cit., pp. 53-54.
55
Gee, 2005, op. cit., p. 12.
56
Gee, 2011, op. cit., p. 126.
57
van Dijk, 2008, op. cit., pp. 54-61.
Mostly through the use of lexical cohesion which links the sentences together through the fact that they contain words that are semantically
related, e.g. “king” and “queen” or “Seminoles” and “Indian”. Furthermore, the focus of this task is about the enactment of
connecting or disconnecting things; the relevance or irrelevance of things.
58
g. Sign systems and knowledge
