At the time, it worked in a Laboratory of Social Psychology and its idea was to produce a reflection space that placed in elitizada and isolated practical question of Sciences the Human beings of the time. For in such a way, it suggests that sciences if collate, particularly History, the Psychoanalysis and the Lingustica. This space of quarrel and understanding is called lards and the object that is studied there is ' ' discurso' '. Thus, it is I lard in it of you discipline that we can consider the discursiva reflection. (As opposed to Kroger Health). Contemporary the Pcheux is Michel Foucault, also in France, and also bothered for similar questions, but considering one another one understanding way, that it also calls ' ' discurso' ' , for example in ' ' Archeologie du Savoir' '.
The speech of Pcheux is not the speech of Foucault. E, if to think about the tradition anglfone, in the distance increases, because the speech of Norman Fairclough also is not come close to the French questions. What we have are ways, different possibilities of understanding of a problem rank differently for each author. What it means that does not have one ' ' teoria' ' more accepted currently, but yes theoretical ways that answer and correspond in part to the reflection necessities that if they present. The Analysis of the Speech is one disciplines that if it has developed sufficiently in last the twenty years. Its theory follows two lines: the American and the Frenchman.
The French line, as already said, was established by the linguista Michel Pcheux and works with the citizen notion: nobody is agent of what it says, that is, we live the illusion of that we can make, say, criticize or produce sensible. It works with four basic points: the language, the ideology, History and the citizen. It defines speech as the felt effect of between speakers.