Discourse analysis

The discourse analysis can be defined as a study of language and other meaningful activities that analyze in detail how the social reality is produced in various practices.⁸² The framework of the discourse analysis is built with following theoretical presumptions:

1. the presumption of the constructive nature of the social reality of language use 2. the presumption of various parallel and competition of existence among with rival

meaning systems

3. the presumption of meaningful context-relatedness

4. the presumption of the involvement of actors in the meaning system 5. the presumption of the consequences of language use⁸³

The importance of presumptions is dependent on the research problem and configuration.

Language is a practice that not only to describe the world but also it gives meanings and at

79 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 14

80 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 201

81 Hirtle 1996, p. 91

82 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 14

83 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 26

the same time organizes, rebuilds, and changes the social reality where we live in. When using the language, we give more significance to the targets that we are talking and writing.

The constructive idea links closely to the classification of the socially divided system of meanings. Meanings are thought to be formulated in the relationship with each other. We constantly use classifications based on differences in meaning in our everyday use of language, for example we discuss the higher and lower social class i.e. bosses and workers because hierarchic dichotomies are rooted in our habits of structuring social reality. The systems of meanings do not come out randomly from individuals, but they are built as part of the social practice.⁸⁴

An objective of the study is to find out how the social reality builds in the discussion about asbestos mining and to describe matters, phenomena, actions and activities. In this study, it is possible to find the competing systems of meanings because the asbestos mining awakes diverse opinions which people attempt to promote. As in the discourse analysis, the potential interactivity of the material is considered in the analysis as a contextualizing factor.

Generally speaking, contextual consideration in the analysis means that the activity being analyzed is considered at a particular time and in a specific place to be targeted. As in this study, analysis proceeds in a chronological order where the time and place are divided into events.⁸⁵

In the discourse analysis, the central position of the study is not individuals, but social practices. In this case, the review focuses on the linguistic use of individuals in different situations and the broader systems of meaning they produce. Based on this, the study examines what kind of self-images the social practices have developed, e.g. bosses, engineers, and underprivileged. The presumption of the consequences of language use is about focusing on what the linguist does with his expression at any given time and what it has produced. From this perspective, the objective is to track down the contradictory meanings that people use in their language. ⁸⁶

Normally, the use of language is organized in some way because it does not form from separated statements. Discourses are created when these statements are connected with each

84 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 21-22

85 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 26-39

86 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 43-49

other’s for example in discussions or written texts. In an interview, the use of language is variable and occasionally, contradictory. During interviews, we continuously utilize categorization based on differences in meaning. Therefore, discourses not only illustrate the reality, but discourses also categorize different phenomenon and their perspectives of scrutiny. In a way, the interest is not in itself the language but the different way of speaking and the practice of speech of the target. In a discourse, the interest concentrates how these different ways of speaking and the practices of speech are produced and sustained with the help of the social meanings of language.⁸⁷

The language of our everyday life is differing, multivocal and, occasionally contradicting.

The interest in the discourse analysis focuses on this variety of language. The changes in the use of language are not kept as inconsistent but how the language can produce different matters and functions. Functions mean all the possible consequences that the language might have. The concept covers the deliberated and unintentional consequences as well as the context-sensitive and far-reaching consequences. Therefore, it is about acting by using the language in a broad sense about all the possibilities that language opens. The variability of language is interpretable in relation to the different systems of meanings that actors lean on at a given time as well as continuously chancing interaction situations where the functions of language are created. When studying these systems of meanings and context sensitive functions, the researcher doing discourse analysis leans strongly on the research data and its detailed inspection. Various sources of data are suitable for discourse analysis: interviews, everyday discussions, video and meeting recordings, newspaper articles, news, scientific researches, public documents and letters. A rich research data may differ from perspectives, different pieces of systems of meanings as well as data that has interactive nature.⁸⁸ In my research, I will analyze the expressions of asbestos in the newspaper articles, documentaries, and interviews by discourse analysis. I focus on what meanings asbestos is given to different times chronologically and what are the motives, purposes, and meanings behind the discussion and given sense.

87 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 51

88 Jokinen et al. 2016, p. 43