Discourse language, text and so on, are used by

analysis focusing on the significance of text, language, conversation, the
media and academic research role in the creation and developing of institutions
and behaviours. Howarth (2000) argues that discourse analysis theory is based
on the assumption that the actions of key actors and wider participants are
meaningful and their aims are product of historically specific conditions
(Howarth, 2000). Fairclough (2000) human emancipation should be discourse
analysis motif. Discourse analysis should demonstrate how language, text and so
on, are used by the powerful in society to manipulate the target audience
(Fairclough, 2000). The dominant in society uses discourse to spread confusion,
undermine negative dialects and pursue their own interests. Discourse analysis
contributes towards understanding social processes by showing the victors and
the defeated, exposing how discourse allows the continuation of oppressing and
exploiting the weak (Peters et al., 2008. p.251).

development of discourse analysis theory has led to a diversion of different
theoretical approaches towards, goals, assumptions, and focus. Scholars are
however in agreement on the bases that they’re not restricted by strict
theoretical frameworks of how to carry out their analysis. As a result of this
scholars are free to explore in-depth and considered qualitative research. This
has also led to the demand for the research to be carried rigorously so that it
is accepted by the wider academic community. Howarth (2000) proposes five
approaches. Firstly, the Positivists and empiricist approach (Howarth, 2000.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Pp.2-5). Described as ‘the conscious strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion
shared understanding of the world and of themselves that legitimate and
motivate collective action’ (McAdam, McCarthy and Zald, 1996, p.6). This
approach promotes exploration into the motives behind the creation of shared
understandings and offers a means of explaining contributing factors to the
success of groups in achieving their goals. Politically focused, this approach
attempts to expose the means the interest group pursues imposing values,
assumptions, and goals on to other in order to promote their own motivations.

This approach compliments critical discourse. The second approach is, positive
perspective contrasted by realist approach. This assumes that the social world
independently holds pre-existing object that influences and lead to events and
processes and discourses exist separately, contributing towards the birth of
social processes and events. The aim of discourse analysis with this approach
is to expose and provide an explanation for discourses and how they influence
to lead to events and social processes, exposing how powerful they are
(Howarth, 1995). The Marxist approach focuses on the relationship between
discourse and its contradictory role of economic production and reproduction in
capitalist societies. The fourth approach, critical discourse is similar to the
Marxist approach but rather than focusing on economic frameworks, it shines a
light on sociological frameworks. By focusing on the sociological aspects of
society, human meaning and understanding given to discourse are essential in
explaining the social world. Finally, post-structuralist and post-Marxist. This
approach assumes the inherent ambiguity, incomplete and unplanned nature of
social structures. Howarth identifies that the role of discourse analysis
within this approach is to examine the historical and political construction
and function, discourses are symbolic social systems.

(2002) argues that discourse analysis considers what the policy actors say to
both other policymakers and the public in order to generate and legitimise a
policy program. As a result, ‘discourse encompasses both a set of policy ideas
and values and interactive process of policy construction and communication’
(Schmidt, 2002. p.210).  a benefit when
using discourse analysis is that due to the focus on the dominant ideas and
those who legitimise ideas is relatively straightforward. This is because
within political arenas the influential spokesperson is likely to be
politicians, pressure group leaders, experts such as journalist and academics. As
a result, the researcher can gather relevant sources to identify the main
features of the discourse within the arena.

the other hand, a drawback of discourse analysis is that the researcher’s bias
can often influence the outcome of the research. This is because they’re able
to discount, exclude and suppress the discourse of what they deem lesser or
unimportant viewpoints. This can be challenging as this contributes towards
counteracting the aims of discourse analysis to identify both dominant and suppressed
views and therefore misrepresenting the construction of social reality. (Peters
et al., 2008. Pp.248-258)

 Discourse analysis within this report will
provide a means of investigating how Donald Trump controlled the discourse
through the use of language and symbolic logos and objects in order to develop
his brand and compete with competing bands. Discourse analysis provides a means
of focusing on how discourses present the political agenda and suppress
opposition that may impact the progress of their own intentions and disrupt the
set narrative norms. Discourse analysis thus explains how norms are formed and