Any given form of writing is usually meant to convey a given information theme or even to evoke a certain feeling. Virtually every writing can be subjected to a discourse analysis whose findings can be reported in the form a reflective essay, having analyzed how information in the given piece of writing has been presented to the reader, the feelings that the writing evoke and most importantly, the use of language in the given piece of writing. Writings in music, are not exempted, and can also be subjected to discourse analysis; a pragmatic presupposition of language which aims at discussing the regularities in language use. This paper revolves around all the approaches to discourse analysis with particular attention to critical and socio-cognitive discourse studies, all of which are not differentiated in the paper. Discourse analysis is form analysis that all writing and spoken forms of communication can be subjected to in terms of language use.
Firstly, it is worth noting that the four works presented for this analysis are in written form. This implies that all the writers had ample time to pause through single words they were writing without being interrupted by an interlocutor. Such an environment is no prevalent to a person who is passing information by word of mouth. Again the writers could easily access what they said earlier; a provision that is not available to people who pass information verbally.
With reference to the first paper titled ‘Literature Review: Music Industry Changing Business Model’ (Unit 4), I find affixes being used by the writer as a means of proper expression all through the paper. In words like represents, undeniably, discovery and providers, I can vividly identify the base and the suffix. Taking the word ‘providers’ as an example, the base is ‘provide’ while the suffix (an affix that come after a base) is ‘-ers’ which signifies the doer of a task. Prefixes- affixes that precede the base- have also been used by the writer; retailer, pre-internet among others and just like in prefixes I could identify the base and the prefix itself.
It was not exceptionally clear to me whether the writer of this article used an interactional view or a transactional view though decidedly I can clearly note that the paper was written in a formal perspective since the writer did not refer to him/herself by use of words such as ‘I’ and ‘me’. Undoubtedly, the audiences of this paper are people in the music industry, to whose attention writer tries to bring the changes that are taking place in the music industry, since the writer has used technical musical terms.
Turning to the second writing titled ‘Digital Disk Jockey Takeover’ (Unit 3), the most striking feature about this writing is that it is written in an informal perspective since the writer used such words as ‘gig’ and ‘DJing’, words that can only be found in informal writings. Technical terms that are only specific to the Disk jockeying career have also been used as means of maximum expression. The technical terms include; 4-deck controller, M -Audio updating Torq and Audiophiles, just tom mention but a few. Therefore, any reader who wants to understand this writing must first be acquainted to these terms and other terms that are always used in the music industry. Just like the preceding writing, this article is meant for audiences in the music industry as it tends to reveal the underlying causes as to why disk jockeying is constantly rising in prominence. Morphemes have also been used in this writing, for instance the words like ‘globally’ and ‘infinite’ which are used in the text both have affixes; a suffix and a prefix respectively. The writing fall in the interracial view of writing considering that the writer tries extremely hard to portray his feeling about Disk Jockeying as a career.
The third writing is about the central role that music publishers play as far as music publishing is concerned. The paper is title ‘Music Publishing’ (Unit 2), and at a glance, any reader of the paper will realize that the paper is written in point form as opposed to the other paper previously discussed which were written in prose form. I think that the underlying reason as to why the writer might have decided to write the paper in point form could be; because he was summarizing another paper, or, he was constructing an outline of paper that he/she purposes to write. Just like the two preceding papers, the paper is meant for the audience in the music industry with an intention of explaining the role of music publishers in music publication.
Technical terms that are particular to music production have been used in the paper and hence the paper is unsuitable for anyone who does not belong to the music industry. The technical terms used are terms like Song Plugging, which the according to the writer is term used to refer to music executives that are served with the role of promoting music that has been composed by others. Other technical terms that have been used in this paper are Translations License and Print License imply the authorization by the publisher translations of a song and the printing of song lyrics in print like books and magazines respectively.
This writer also uses morphemes in the paper. For instance, I am able to identify some morphemes in words like ‘publisher’ and ‘responsible’ in which the affixes can be differentiated from the bases; all with the aim of enabling the writer transmit the information to the target audience effectively. Further, the writing style is formal; I find no use of personal pronounce referring to the writer nor the use of a word that are only permissible for use in informal writing. Indentifying whether the writing falls in the interactional or transactional view is huddled due to lack of suggestive words that are would have me to make such informed decisions.
Lastly, the fourth paper is paper that showcases a discourse analysis of paper titled “The Adaptive Behavior of Music Firms: A Music Industry Feedback Model” (Unit 1). By reading through the paper, I first notice that that paper is done in past tense; the conventional way of writing most academic and formal papers. The writer has also refrained from using first-person pronouns with further justifies my earlier assertion that this is a formal paper. This paper draws some similarities to the writings I previously discussed in the sense that it employs the use of morphemes for appropriation of tenses, and for effective communication. Examples of morphemes in this paper include; barely, and authoritative, among others. This paper has a interactional view considering that it is an analysis in which the writer expresses his/her views regarding a different writing. No complicated technical terms have been used in the paper which renders this paper open to readership by a general audience.
According to me, the four writings were done in accordance to the conventional Introduction- Body- Conclusion way of writing except for the third writing- Digital Disk Jockey Takeover- which does not have a conclusion. However, the four writings jointly do not have theses statement- perhaps, according to me, the major setback of these four wonderful writings.
To take a break, I must admit that written communications, as opposed to oral communications, do not allow analysts like me to easily unravel the view in which they were written. This was the major difficulty that I faced while analyzing these four writings. Also, worth noting is the fact that discourse analysis, which is multifaceted in nature due to the different approaches that can be used, cannot be easily exhausted. I carefully not these because there are a plethora of facets that can be analyzed in discourse analysis, all of which I could not exhaust in this single analysis. In most cases, analysts like me only decide on some specific information that they want to discuss with regard to language use. For this paper, though, I used no particular approach- I did the analysis based on the presence of morphemes, the target audience, whether the writing was formal or informal and above all the view of the writing; whether interactional or transactional.