My Expert in CDA

Good day viewers…

I want to tell the history of a person's life who is an expert in the field of critical discourse analysis, he is theo van Leeuwen. Theo van Leeuwen (born 1947) is an expert social semiotics is widely recognized as the co-founder, along with Gunther Kress, of multimodality area of ​​research related to meaning-making potential and use different resources semiotic, including both modes communicative as language and visual design and media (ie physical materials and technology) of communication.Van Leeuwen is a Professor at the Center for Multimodal Communication and Language Department (SG) and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Professor Emeritus in media and Communication at the University of technology, Sydney, where he was Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences from 2005 to 2013. Prior to that, he held a professor at Cardiff University (1999-2005) and the London College of Printing (1996-1999), where he started as a principal lecturer in 1993 began his academic career at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, where in the period from 1974 to 1993 he designed and taught courses in screenwriting and film and television production and film and media theory (of European cinema; documentary film; news and current affairs; Media sociology; Visual communication; language, music and media), and worked for the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. This work built on previous Van Leeuwen and practice together as a jazz pianist and film / TV editor, screenwriter and producer in the Netherlands and Australia.

Focus van van Leeuwen on the relationship between importance / significance maker institutions and the ways in which particular social context and broader institutional regulate the use of the people of semiotic resources inspired by Hodge & Kress's (1988) Social Semiotics. Build (1978) idea Halliday language only "one semiotic system which is the culture" (p. 2) and on the model of the dynamic relationship between the text (ie the social exchange of meaning) and the context, this seminal publication charted principles to develop a social theory semiotic could encourage dialogue, interdisciplinary communication in all its forms and in different institutional contexts, the theory that "the text and context, agents and objects of meaning, social structure and the strength and the complex relationships they together constitute the object minimal and is reduced from semiotic analysis" (Hodge & Kress, 1988, p. viii). This goal has motivated the study of discourse multimodal and critical in the tradition of social semiotic and efforts are newer to combine the two and explore the role that non-verbal sources of semiotic and their interaction with the language and with each other to play in establishing and perpetuating or challenging social divisions, norms and stereotypes.

As Norman Fairclough and many other critical discourse analysts, Van Leeuwen hire SFL to analyze the role of language in recontextualizing social practices. A distinguishing feature of the approach to CDA, however, is that it also explores the role of non-verbal representation and multimodal play in (re) building the dominant ideology. To expose this role, Van Leeuwen (2008a) argues, CDA needs to consider not only what is or is not represented by a non-verbal or multimodally (eg whether ethnic minorities are represented in the media), but also how such representations are built.

This knowledge may be useful and can be given to the peoples and do not forget to always visit my page. Thanks.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Theo van Leeuwen (born 1947) is a social semiotician widely recognized as a co-founder, alongside Gunther Kress, of multimodality an area of research concerned with the meaning-making potential and use of different semiotic resources, including both communicative modes such as language and visual design and media (i.e. physical materials and technologies) of communication. He is also a well known critical discourse theorist and analyst. His work in both these areas is transdisciplinary with foundations in social semiotics while also drawing on diverse theoretical and practice-based perspectives. Van Leeuwen’s work has extended the influence of multimodality, social semiotics and critical discourse analysis beyond semiotics, communication studies and applied linguistics, to fields such as education, the arts, and media, culture and business studies. This influence can be attributed to the strong connection it maintains between semiotic theory and semiotic practice as well as to its socio-political orientation.

Van Leeuwen is a Professor at the Centre for Multimodal Communication and Department of Languages (SG) and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and Emeritus Professor in Media and Communication at the University of Technology, Sydney, where he was Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences from 2005 to 2013. Prior to that, he held professorships at Cardiff University (1999-2005) and the London College of Printing (1996-1999), where he commenced as principal lecturer in 1993. His academic career began at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, where in the period 1974-1993 he designed and taught courses in scriptwriting and film and television production and film and media theory (European cinema; documentary film; news and current affairs; media sociology; visual communication; language, music and media), and worked for the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. This work built on Van Leeuwen’s earlier and concurrent practice as jazz pianist and film/TV editor, scriptwriter and producer in the Netherlands and Australia.

Van Leeuwen has published widely on multimodality and social semiotics and critical discourse analysis. His books include: Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design (2006 [1996]) and Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication (2001), both co-authored with Gunther Kress; Speech, Music, Sound (1999); Introducing Social Semiotics (2005); Global Media Discourse (2007, with David Machin); Discourse and Social Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis (2008); The Language of New Media Design (2009, with Radan Martinec); and The Language of Colour (2011). In 1991, he co-founded the journal Social Semiotics and is a founding co-editor of the journal Visual Communication established in 2001 (with Carey Jewitt). He is also on the editorial boards of several other international peer-reviewed journals that provide publication platforms for research on multimodality and critical discourse analysis.

Van Leeuwen’s focus on the relationship between the interests/agency of meaning-makers and the ways in which specific institutional and broader social contexts govern people’s use of semiotic resources is inspired by Hodge & Kress’s (1988) Social Semiotics. Building on Halliday’s (1978) idea that language is only “one of the semiotic systems that constitute a culture” (p. 2) and on his model of the dynamic relationship between text (i.e. a social exchange of meaning) and context, this seminal publication charted principles for developing a social semiotic theory that could foster interdisciplinary dialogue on communication in all its forms and across different institutional contexts, a theory for which “texts and contexts, agents and objects of meaning, social structures and forces and their complex interrelationships together constitute the minimal and irreducible object of semiotic analysis” (Hodge & Kress, 1988, p. viii). This goal has motivated multimodal and critical discourse studies in the social semiotic tradition as well as more recent efforts to combine the two and explore the role that non-verbal semiotic resources and their interaction with language and with each other play in establishing and perpetuating or challenging social divisions, norms and stereotypes. These efforts have been spearheaded by Van Leeuwen’s independent and collaborative investigations of visual racism in history and society textbooks, stereotypes materialized in the visual and kinetic design of children’s toys, and global media discourse (Machin & Van Leeuwen, 2007; Van Leeuwen, 2000, 2009b; Van Leeuwen & Caldas-Coulthard, 2004; Van Leeuwen & Kress, 1995), to name just a few.

Like Norman Fairclough and many other critical discourse analysts, Van Leeuwen employs SFL for analysing the role of language in recontextualizing social practices. A distinguishing feature of his approach to CDA, however, is that it also explores the role non-verbal and multimodal representations play in (re)establishing dominant ideologies. To expose this role, Van Leeuwen (2008a) argues, CDA needs to consider not only what is or is not represented non-verbally or multimodally (e.g. whether ethnic minorities are represented in the media) but also how such representations are constructed. Van Leeuwen (2008a) presents many examples from his earlier research, including the use of oblique horizontal angle to depict a group of people as ‘other’, and create detachment between depicted social actors and image viewers, and ways that the visual and kinetic construction of toys can conform to racial and gender stereotypes. Focusing on women’s magazines and electronic war games, Machin and Van Leeuwen (2007) demonstrate that multimodal genres impose western values and homogenise the formats used to present local content, and Van Leeuwen (2005) reveals how advertising discourses employ combinations of signifiers such as dress, colour, smell and so on to construct and sell lifestyle identities that mask mass consumerism. Such work also highlights popular culture and discourses as a fertile ground for developing tools for productively uniting the agendas of critical and multimodal discourse analysis. Van Leeuwen (2013), for example, argues both that “the discourses that need the scrutiny of a critical eye are now overwhelmingly multimodal and mediated by digital systems that take multimodality entirely for granted” (p. 5) and that “racist stereotypes persist in visual rather than verbal texts, and in comic strips, advertisements and other forms of popular culture rather than in more factual and “highbrow” texts” (p. 2).

Critical discourse analysis and political discourse analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis & Political Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis

Since the late 1980s, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has become a well-established field in the social sciences. However, in contrast with some branches of linguistics, CDA is not a discrete academic discipline in the traditional sense, with a fixed set of research methods. The manifold roots of CDA lie in a myriad of disciplines including rhetoric, anthropology, philosophy and cognitive science, to name a few. This four-volume set brings together seminal articles on the subject from varied sources, creating an invaluable roadmap for scholars seeking to consolidate their knowledge of CDA, and of its continued development. Sculpted and edited by a leading voice in the field, this work covers the interdisciplinary roots, the most important approaches and methodologies of CDA, as well as applications in other disciplines in an updated and comprehensive way.

Political Discourse Analysis

We have seen that political discourse analysis first of all should be able to define its proper object of study: What exactly is 'political discourse'? The easiest, and not altogether misguided, answer is that political discourse is identified by its actors or authors, viz., politicians. Indeed, the vast bulk of studies of political discourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidenta and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and
international levels.

Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture

contributions that investigate political, social and cultural processes from a linguistic/discourse-analytic point of view. The aim is to publish monographs and edited volumes which combine language-based approaches with disciplines concerned essentially with human interaction — disciplines such as political science, international relations, social psychology, social anthropology, sociology, economics, and gender studies.

METAPHOR

          A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers to something as being the same as another thing for rhetorical effect. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas. Where a simile compares two items, a metaphor directly equates them, and does not use "like" or "as" as does a simile. One of the most commonly cited examples of a metaphor in English literature is the "All the world's a stage" monologue from As You Like It.
Metaphors, according to Aristotle, have "qualities of the exotic and the fascinating; but at the same time we recognize that strangers do not have the same rights as our fellow citizens."

    Metaphors are most frequently compared with similes. The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th edition) explains the difference as:

A simile states that A is like B, a metaphor states that A is B or substitutes B for A.

Where a metaphor asserts the two objects in the comparison are identical on the point of comparison, a simile merely asserts a similarity. For this reason a metaphor is generally considered more forceful than a simile.

The metaphor category also contains these specialised types:

• Allegory: An extended metaphor wherein a story illustrates an important attribute of the subject.
• Catachresis: A mixed metaphor used by design and accident (a rhetorical fault).
• Parable: An extended metaphor narrated as an anecdote illustrating and teaching such as in Aesop's fables, or Jesus' teaching method as told in the Bible.
• Pun: Similar to a metaphor, a pun alludes to another term. However the main difference is that a pun is a frivolous allusion between two different things whereas a metaphor is a purposeful allusion between two different things.

Metaphor, like other types of analogy, can usefully be distinguished from metonymy as one of two fundamental modes of thought. Metaphor and analogy both work by bringing together two concepts from different conceptual domains, whereas metonymy works by using one element from a given domain to refer to another closely related element. Thus, a metaphor creates new links between otherwise distinct conceptual domains, whereas a metonymy relies on the existing links within them.

The term metaphor is also used to describe more basic or general aspects of experience and cognition:

• A cognitive metaphor is the association of object to an experience outside the object's environment
• A conceptual metaphor is an underlying association that is systematic in both language and thought
• A root metaphor is the underlying worldview that shapes an individual's understanding of a situation
• A nonlinguistic metaphor is an association between two nonlinguistic realms of experience
• A visual metaphor uses an image to create the link between different ideas

Metaphors can also be implied and extended throughout pieces of literature.

Simple metaphors

A simple metaphor has a single link between the subject and the metaphoric vehicle. The vehicle thus has a single meaning which is transferred directly to the subject.

Examples

• Cool down! [Cool = temperature]
• He was mad. [mad = anger]
• I'll chew on it. [chew = think]
• It was raining cats and dogs. [cats and dogs = rain]
• Max was an angel. [angel = lovely person]

In the simple metaphor, the effort to understand what the author or speaker intends is relatively low, and hence it may easily be used with a wider and less sophisticated audience.

Complex metaphors

A complex metaphor happens where a simple metaphor is based on a secondary metaphoric element. For example using a metaphor of 'light' for 'understanding' may be complexified by saying 'throwing light' rather than 'shining light'. 'Throwing' is an extra metaphor for how light arrives.

Examples

• That lends weight to the argument.
• They stood alone, frozen statues on the plain.
• The ball happily danced into the net.

Compound metaphors

A compound metaphor is one where there are multiple parts in the metaphor that are used to snag the listener. These parts may be enhancement words such as adverbs, adjectives, etc.

Each part in the compound metaphor may be used to signify an additional item of meaning.

Examples

• Thick, primal, blind fog descended before his eyes.
• The car screeched in hated anguish, its flesh laid bare in the raucous collision.

Compound metaphors are like a multiple punch, hitting the listener repeatedly with metaphoric elements. Where the complex metaphor uses stacked layers to enhance the metaphor, the compound metaphor uses sequential words. The compound metaphor is also known as a loose metaphor.

Live and dead metaphors

A live metaphor is one which a reader notices. A dead metaphor is one no-one notices because it has become so common in the language.

Examples

Two people walk off a tennis court. Someone asks the loser: "What happened?".

• "He won". Literal truth.
• "He beat me". Obviously a dead metaphor.
• "He thrashed me". This one is slightly alive.

• The river runs. Dead, and many variations on this theme.
• Electricity is a fluid. Nearly dead.
• All our efforts are running into the sand. Live.

references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

                  https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

AMBIGUITY

What is the picture? a saxophone player or a woman?

It is an ambiguous picture.

         Ambiguity is a type of uncertainty of meaning in which several interpretations are plausible. It is thus an attribute of any idea or statement whose intended meaning cannot be definitively resolved according to a rule or process with a finite number of steps. (The ambi- part of the name reflects an idea of "two" as in two meanings.)        The concept of ambiguity is generally contrasted with vagueness. In ambiguity, specific and distinct interpretations are permitted (although some may not be immediately apparent), whereas with information that is vague, it is difficult to form any interpretation at the desired level of specificity. Context may play a role in resolving ambiguity. For example, the same piece of information may be ambiguous in one context and unambiguous in another.

There are three types of ambiguity:1. Semantic Ambiguity (Usually an Idiom)
       The notions of `meaning' and `sense' just discussed are the starting point for the semantic account of the notion of ambiguity and its relation with vagueness developed by Pinkal ((1985), translated as (Pinkal , 1995)). Pinkal introduces the notion of indefiniteness to subsume both ambiguity and vagueness. 

De nition 2.1 A sentence is semantically indefinite if and only if in certain situations, despite su cient knowledge of the relevant facts, neither \true" nor \false" can be clearly assigned as its truth value 

De nition 2.2 Expression in context c can be precisified to s if and only if (i) s is a sense that can assume according to its meaning; and (ii) s is more precise than the sense of inc.   

for example: 

Even after the syntax and the meanings of the individual words have been resolved, there are two ways of reading the sentence. "Lucy owns a parrot that is larger than a cat", "a parrot" is extenstensionally quantified, "a cat" is either universally quantified or means "typical cats." Other examples: "The dog is chasing the cat." vs. "The dog has been domesticated for 10,000 years." In the first sentence, "The dog" means to a particular dog; in the second, it means the species "dog". 

"John and Mary are married." (To each other? or separately?) Compare "John and Mary got engaged last month. Now, John and Mary are married." vs. "Which of the men at this party are single? John and Jim are married; the rest are all available."

"John kissed his wife, and so did Sam". (Sam kissed John's wife or his own?)

Compare "Amy's car", "Amy's husband", "Amy's greatest fear", "Michaelangelo's David" etc. 

2. Structural or Syntactic ambiguity (When a headline may have more than one alternative structure and ambivalent structure)  

         Although the number of logical form permutations that one can obtain for a particular sentence by, e.g., considering all the permutations of its operators may be rather large, constraints of a syntactic and/or semantic nature drastically reduce this number.  for example:

This ambiguous sentence represented two alternative ambivalent structures:
- After 18 years they didn’t meet, and finally they meet in the check in counter. or
- After 18 years in the check in counter, they just reunited.

3. Lexical Ambiguity (A word or  phrase that has more than one meaning while it stands in a sentence). 

        Lexical ambiguity is the one case of ambiguity for which a `generate and test' strategy may well be compatible with the psychological results, therefore the one for which the need for underspeci ed representations is less clear. for example: 

This sentence use homonym and homophone to create a complex sentence structure. It is very ambiguous in the class of word. Rose can be a noun (the name of person and a name of flower). Meanwhile rose can be a verb (the past form of rise (grow or stood). 

The analyzing of the sentence is: 

Rose (a girl name) rose (the past form of rise “stood”) to put a rose (The name of flower) rose (grown) on her rows of roses (Rose Flowers)

          It can be read in another way:

         The girl named Rose stood to put a grown rose flower on her rows of roses. 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity

            http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/poesio/publications/vandeemter_book.pdf

EUPHEMISM

Praise is be due to Allah SWT because only with his mercy and his guidance, so writer can finish to write this paper with the title "Euphemism". 

Language is a power used to make one’s statement stronger. Someone uses language to influence people. Moreover, it can hide the fact to avoid misunderstanding between the speaker and the hearer or the writer and the reader. This is the same things with euphemism that implying the use of polite expression.

Euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant. Some euphemisms are intended to amuse; while others use bland, inoffensive terms for things the user wishes to downplay. Euphemisms are used to refer to taboo topics (such as disability, sex, excretion, and death) in a polite way, or to mask profanity

Euphemisms, words or phrases that substitute for provocative or emotionally charged terms, are employed for various reasons:

1. Abstraction: Some euphemisms serve to distance people from unpleasant or embarrassing truths, as when we say that a dead person passed away or a celebrity who has canceled an appearance is suffering from exhaustion.

2. Indirection: A euphemism may replace an explicit description of an action, as when people speak of going to the bathroom or of others sleeping together.

3. Litotes: Sometimes, euphemism occurs in the form of this rhetorical device in which the gravity or force of an idea is softened or minimized by a double negative, as in the reference to someone as being not unattractive.

4. Mispronunciation: Alteration of pronunciation is a form of euphemism, as when we say frigging orshoot, or jeez or cripes, so as not to offend people by using profanity (figurative or literal). These types of euphemisms, involving rhyme, alliteration, or shortening, are also called minced oaths.

5. Modification: A bluntly offensive noun can be transformed into a euphemism by converting it to an adjective, as in saying someone has socialist leanings rather than labeling them a socialist outright.

6. Personification: One form of euphemism is when things that some people prefer not to mention candidly, such as genitals, are assigned personal names. (I will go beyond euphemism and let readers think of examples on their own.)

7. Slang: Much of slang, derived to produce a vocabulary exclusive to a social group, is euphemism, as in the use of joint for marijuana (itself a slang term, derived from the Spanish names Mary and Juana — closely related to “Mary Jane,” yet another euphemism).

For example:

1. Between Jobs. Meaning: unemployed. Example: He’s not doing anything. He’s between jobs.
2. Passed away. Meaning: died. Example: He’s an orphan - His parents passed away in a car accident.
3. Perspire. Meaning: sweat. Example: He was perspiring in the heat.
4. Thick-boned. Meaning: fat. Example: I’m not fat - I’m just thick-boned.
5. Chemical dependency. Meaning: drug addiction. Example: He’s been free of chemical dependency for 5 years now.
6. Bend the truth. Meaning: lie. Example: Don’t bend the truth! I saw you at the mall last night! You weren’t studying!
7. Pre-owned. Meaning: second hand. Example: For sale pre-owned branded shoes! Good condition and come with a box.
8. Let you go. Meaning: sack/fire you. Example: I’m so sorry but I have decided to let you go. I wish you well.
9. Character lines. Meaning: wrinkles. Example: He looks much older now. He’s got character lines on his face.
10. Bun in the oven. Meaning: pregnant. Example: You shouldn’t be lifting heavy boxes. You’ve got a bun in the oven.

Source: wikipedia.com/euphemism

SYMBOL AND REFERENT (LAMBANG DAN RUJUKAN)

Halo, disini saya ingin membahas sedikit tentang lambang dan rujukan.

semoga membantu kawan-kawan :)

A.  Pengertian Simbol

     Simbol adalah gambar, bentuk, atau benda yang mewakili suatu gagasan, benda, ataupun jumlah sesuatu. Simbol dapat digunakan untuk keperluan apa saja. Semisal ilmu pengetahuan, kehidupan sosial, juga keagamaan. Bentuk simbol tak hanya berupa benda kasat mata, namun juga melalui gerakan dan ucapan. Simbol juga dijadikan sebagai salah satu infrastruktur bahasa, yang dikenal dengan bahasa simbol.

    Lambang atau simbol merupakan tanda yang bersifat konvensional yang dihasilkan manusia melalui alat ucapnya. Menurut Plato dalam Prawirasumantri (1998: 24) bahwa lambang atau simbol adalah kata dalam suatu bahasa, sedangkan makna adalah objek yang kita hayati di dunia yang berupa rujukan oleh lambang tersebut. Seperti kata Odgen dan Ridchard (1972: 9) dalam Chaer (2013: 38) bahwa lambang ini bersifat konvensional , perjanjian; tetapi ia dapat diorganisasi, direkam dan dikomunikasikan.

     Kesalahan terbesar manusia dalam memahami simbol adalah menganggap bahwa simbol adalah substansi. Sehingga mereka kerap kali terjebak pada pembenaran terhadap semua hal yang hanya bersifat kasat mata sebagai kebenaran hakiki. Muara dari kesalahan itu adalah fanatisme.

Contoh kasus: Agama X menyebut kata Tuhan dengan sebutan X1, sedangkan agama Y menyebutnya dengan Y1. Masing-masing agama mengklaim bahwa penyebutan yang benar adalah menurut cara mereka masing-masing. Di luar penyebutan itu, dianggap sebagai ajaran sesat.

B. Pengertian Referent (Rujukan)

  Makna referansial adalah makna yang berhubungan langsung dengan kenyataan atau referent (rujuakan), makna referensial disebut juga makna kognitif, karena memiliki acuan. Misalnya :

1) orang itu menampar orang

2) orang itu menampar dirinya

Pada (1) orang 1 dibedakan maknanya dari orang 2 karena orang 1 sebagai pelaku dan orang 2 sebagai pengalam, sedangkan pada (2) orang memiliki makna referensial yang sama dengan orang 1 dan orang 2 karena mengacu kepada konsep yang sama.

Tidak cukup jika hanya membahas tentang simbol dan rujukan saja, karena konsep merupakan salah satu acuan yang juga menjelaskan tentang simbol dan rujukan tersebut.

C. Pengertian Konsep

  ‘Konsep’ merupakan istilah yang diajukan Lyons sebagai pengganti istilah ‘thought’ atau ‘reference’. Istilah ‘konsep’ sebenarnya sama dengan istilah ‘makna’. Jika kita berbicara tentang konsep atau makna, kita tidak bisa mengabaikan keberadaan dua unsure dasar dalam sistem tanda yang secara langsung memiliki hubungan dengan konsepatau makna, yaitu:

1) Signifiant: unsur abstrak yang terwujud dalam lambang atau simbol,

2) Signifikantor: yang dengan adanya makna dalam lambang atau simbol itu mampu mengadakan penjulukan, melakukan proses berfikir, dan mengadkan konseptualisasi.

   Lambang atau simbol adalah satuan bahasa yang berupa kata atau kalimat; acuan atau referent adalah objek, peristiwa, fakta atau proses di dalam dunia pengalaman manusia, sedangkan konsep atau pikiran atau reference adalah apa yang ada dalam benak kita tentang objek yang ditunjukan oleh lambang atau simbol.

  

  Antara konsep dan lambang terdapat hubungan timbale balik. Misalnya, kata ‘’rokok’ yang diujarkan oleh seorang penutur dapat menyebabkan penanggap tutur memikirkan kata tersebut. Demikian pula si penutur. Dengan konsepnya dia memakai lambang “r-o-k-o-k’ untuk mengacu pada objek yang sama. Dengan kata lain, sebelum seseorang mengatakan suatu lambang, di dalam benaknya sudah ada konsep (makna). Kemudian lambang itu dimaknai oleh si penanggap tutur.

Setiap lambang atau simbol yang berupa kata mempunyai konsep.

    Konsep dapat dikenali dalam keberadaanya sendiri (lepas atau bebas konteks) atau melalui relasi dengan satuan bahasa lainnya (terikat konteks). Kata berkonsep yang bebas konteks terbagi menjadi dua bagian, yaitu yang acuannya dapat dihindari dan yang acuannya tidak dapat dihindari. Dengan demikian, ada tiga kelompok kata yang dimanfaatkan untuk kegiatan komunikasi, yaitu:

1) kata yang berkonsep, bebas konteks, acuannya dapat dihindari; ‘kursi’, ‘anggur’, ‘lemari’, ‘kuda’;

2) kata yang berkonsep, bebas konteks, acuannya tidak dapat dihindari: ‘demokrasi’, ‘sakit’, ‘panjang’;

3) kata yang berkonsep, tetapi harus terikat konteks: ‘yang’, ‘tetapi’, ‘dan’, ‘karena’.

----- semoga bisa membantu. thankyou ;)

Sumber: https://id.wikipedia.org