The analysis of public opinion has a relatively complete classification of staging and definition of types of events, which is very interesting for discourse analysis.
“The analysis of public opinion must specify the stage of the event or the subject itself. It is usually divided into different phases, such as the triggering period, the gestation period, the occurrence period, the development period, the high tide period, the treatment period, the calm period and the feedback period.” We believe that the emphasis here is on the historical dimension of discourse, which is not sufficiently taken into account in discourse analysis. Some analysts analyse the characteristics of language from a set of corpus, without looking back, examining the changes and evolution of discourses, in what particular context these discourses are, whether their further evolution is predictable, etc.
It is common to type an opinion hot spot before analyzing it. Hot events are usually divided into “loops”
Natural disasters, production safety incidents, mass incidents, public health incidents, public power image, judicial incidents, economic events of people’s lives, currents of social thought, emergencies in China abroad, etc.” These types of boundaries also provide references for the choice of subjects for discourse analysis. We have seen that discourse analysis articles in foreign language journals do not pay much attention to these current events, but more and more, which shows the interest of authors who no longer confine themselves to the familiar educational field and try to intervene in the analysis of certain social problems through discourse analysis.
But there is no generalization at a higher level of these burning events. Public opinion analysis does not clearly define the types of discourse production and narrative patterns of new media events. The processing of massive data is also not representative of all these speeches.
Grasp, here, the question of grasp in general in the perspective that gives rise to discourse analysis. The analysis of public opinion has its own specific requirements regarding the basic framework and analytical comparison, for example: “As soon as research is to describe and analyze research, criminal intelligence analysts, research for these individuals, groups, organizations, community, social, social or institutional phenomena, has been conducted on a horizontal research sample, or descriptive analysis for general policy recommendations of applied research. In addition, given the temporal dimension, it is possible to conduct longitudinal studies on the different characters, organizations and groups for the evolution of events and subjects of public opinion.”
What we call here horizontality and verticality can also do much in discourse analysis.
Nominalization analysis, thematic analysis, grammatical metaphors analysis, etc. can be performed, while for the time dimension, as we have seen above, discourse analysis often does not collect enough samples of changing discourse. Comparisons in the time dimension are more homogeneous, which is the advantage of analyzing public opinion analysis data.
The functional linguistic evaluation theory in discourse analysis distinguishes evaluative attitudes in a more systematic and nuanced way, can analyze attitudes and different voices in the same discourse in more detail and depth, which can obviously greatly improve the analysis of public opinion. Objective analysis and the discourse of the new discourse as they emerge from the new media, functions and semantics, the theory of the linguistic system, language and context are the framework to quantify), which is a unique discourse of representation or little to carry out an in-depth analysis of the characteristics of new media and complementary, and examine the migration of the discourse of new media on the daily discourse, etc. At the same time, it offers a linguistic perspective in the fields of journalism and communication and the analysis of public opinion.
If I’m being honest, whether I understand the topic or not, this post is hard to understand. An explanation of exactly what discourse analysis is would be good to start off to help readers know what you’re talking about. Then you would delve into examples and such and I see that you’ve done that already here, it just feels out of place and confusing. Maybe removing the pictures that just has the word ‘media discourse’ and an actual example of what you’re trying to say would help out a lot.