Talk:Discourse

message: Take a look at the German Page on this topic. If someone would translate it...
---  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.199.118 (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: As with so many other philosophical terms, there is no clear-cut definition of discourse - only various author's reference to the word. I'd dare say that, in most contexts, it is very similar to 'language' though, except broader in scope. The article does hint this, mentioning Habermas' "rules upon which speakers could agree on a groundworks consensus". Discourse can also refer to more abstract things like conventions and norms. Generally, discourse is the stuff that defines what can be said about a matter, as far as I understand. --213.237.94.61 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: "Habermas trying to find the transcendent rules upon which speakers could agree"
Are the rules, he is trying to find transcendent or transcendental?  --Lynxmb 11:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: There is a well established use of the term discourse in the Marxist tradition, notably in Antonio Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony, which tries to explain the capitalist phenomenon as being the product of a dominant cultural discourse. ADM (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural hegemony

message: Was this article perhaps written from a too scholarly perspective? I'm not exactly sure how Wikipedia is supposed to sound, but for the uninitiated, this could be nonsensical. What do others think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads more like a manifesto about moral relativism than a clear description of 'discourse'.LegendLength (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hard to understand?

message: If yes, it just shouldn't write about this notion itself. If no, it should be more critical about psychiatry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.110.87.13 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is wikipedia a part of the ruling discourse? 

message: I believe that in linguistic analysis "discourse" is a generalization of the concept of "conversation" to all modalities (e.g., writing, signing, braille, Morse code) and contexts. This article seems to focus on the postmodern / sociological definition of discourse as a set of communication styles, assumptions, and beliefs common to a culture or community.
I would like to see the distinction between those two senses of "discourse" more clearly drawn in this article, instead of being linked to other articles that touch on the issue. As the article currently stands, it misrepresents the 'social sciences' by focusing on one view of discourse within humanities departments. The emphasis on Foucault is especially disproportionate. 
A good initial fix might be to make the links to the "conversation" and "discourse analysis" pages more clear.
Sisyphustkd (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic definition of discourse 

message: Foucault seems to be struggling to find a definition that means more or less the same as 'all the things produced in speech or writing making coherent sense that relate to a field around which some sort of demarcation line can be drawn'. If English is to be saddled with 'enouncement', the French word 'énoncer' has to be explained: is it the same as 'enunciation' ? I doubt it. 
So what on earth does it or is it supposed to mean ?Pamour (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to be a way to use words with imprecise meanings to sound smarter than the reader. For someone who has been reading academic texts for years, isn't that obvious? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  enouncement 

message: I propose deleting "debate" from the lead sentence, as debate is clearly included in communication.  If I hear no objections, I'll do it myself in a few day.  Piratejosh85 (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, hearing no objections, I changed it Piratejosh85 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: In the last paragraph of the article, in the section on Feminism, there is a reference to performativity that gives no hint of the meaning of this term, which does require some explanation to maintain the overall non-speciaist tone of the article, and there is no link to the Wikipedia article on Performativity. The link, at least, should be added.88.120.130.106 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link/explanation needed for Performativity 

message: Discursive practice is not an independent concept from Discourse, and there is room to add the information to that article SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Discursive practice]] 

message: This was in the lede for some reason:
In China, the general term for discourse is Lun.
That sort of cross-linguistic comparison would be more relevant in Wiktionary I think, than Wikipedia! Arided (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed reference to Chinese term 

message: The current page on treatises isn't much more than a list, which can be done by tags. They're just written discourse. Perhaps a section could be dedicated to the use of "Treatises" in scientific/philosophical contexts. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose on the grounds that the treatise is an independently notable form of discourse; and that the list is sufficiently long that it would unbalance the [[Discourse] page. The current format seems reasonable, just adding Treatise to the 'See also' list (as I have just done). Klbrain (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[Treatise]]