Kontrastivna analiza diskursa španjolske gripe i bolesti covid

Rad najprije donosi prikaz povijesnog razvoja diskursa počevši od antičkih vremena, preko srednjega vijeka pa sve do suvremenog doba. U prikazu razvoja diskursa spomenuli smo imena kao što su Platon, Toma Akvinski, Michel de Montaigne, Zellig Harris i tako dalje. Sukladno tome, dalje se prikazala i objasnila razlika između nekritičkih i kritičkih pristupa analizi diskursa vodeći se postavkama Normana Fairclougha (1993). Osim toga, poseban se naglasak stavio na razvoj analize medijskog diskursa te na to kakva su se istraživanja radila po pitanju analize medijskog diskursa španjolske gripe te bolesti COVID-19. Istraživački dio rada odnosi se na analizu medijskog diskursa o španjolskoj gripi i bolesti COVID-19 s ciljem prikaza i identificiranja različitih sredstava legitimacije čiji je mehanizam funkcioniranja iznio Theo van Leeuwen (2008) te sredstava delegitimacije koje je prikazao Teun van Dijk (1998). Na samome kraju provela se diskusija o provedenom istraživanju, prikazala se tablica s podacima o zastupljenosti sredstava legitimacije i delegitimacije te zaključak rada.The work first provides an overview of the historical development of discourse, starting from ancient times, through the Middle Ages, and up to the contemporary era. In the presentation of the discourse's development, names such as Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Michel de Montaigne, Zellig Harris, and so on were mentioned. Accordingly, it further displayed and explained the difference between uncritical and critical approaches to discourse analysis based on the postulates of Norman Fairclough (1993). In addition, special emphasis was placed on the development of media discourse analysis and the research conducted on the analysis of media discourse related to the Spanish flu and COVID-19. The research part of the work relates to the analysis of media discourse on the Spanish flu and COVID-19 with the aim of presenting and identifying various means of legitimation, the functioning mechanism of which was outlined by Theo van Leeuwen (2008), as well as means of delegitimation presented by Teun van Dijk (1998). Finally, a discussion was conducted on the conducted research, a table with data on the prevalence of means of legitimation and delegitimation was presented, and the conclusion of the work was provided