Özet:

In the context of the unity of theory and practice, this study aims to discuss whether purely linguistic signs can be analyzed with semiotic method, or which analysis method can be more consistent, based on the similarities and differences between semiotic analysis and discourse analysis methods. For this purpose, a literature review was conducted and prominent definitions and ten articles related to the fields of discourse analysis and semiotic analysis were examined. It has been found that, in some respects, the concepts of the discourse analysis approach and the semiotic analysis method shown similarities with each other and have been used interchangeably. In some discourse analysis studies, it has been determined that there are serious differences between the theoretical definitions\explanations –which form the basis of the analysis– and their application to the analysis activity. In order to suggest an answer to the question of which analysis method can be adopted for what reason(s), an analysis method was tried on the usages of the euphemism examples –taken from second hand vehicle sales advertisements– such as “palm-sized local paint” for a vehicle that has been painted after an accident, or “our vehicle has dimples” for a vehicle that has dents on its body after hail damage, etc. This attempt at analysis showed that it is also possible to use discourse analysis and semiotic analysis methods interchangeably. Finally, in order to minimize differences between the method and its practice in the field, and to ensure a unity of attitude; there is a need for consistent definitional approaches of semiotic and discursive analyzes. Hence definitions should be made in detail, and differences in methodological approaches between semiotic analysis and discourse analysis must be fully determined with their respective limitations.

Anahtar Kelimeler: