Docsity
Docsity

Prepara i tuoi esami
Prepara i tuoi esami

Studia grazie alle numerose risorse presenti su Docsity


Ottieni i punti per scaricare
Ottieni i punti per scaricare

Guadagna punti aiutando altri studenti oppure acquistali con un piano Premium


Guide e consigli
Guide e consigli


appunti discourse analisys, Appunti di Linguistica Inglese

appunti discourse analisys del corso della Federici

Tipologia: Appunti

2020/2021

Caricato il 12/06/2023

giulia-diamanti
giulia-diamanti 🇮🇹

4.5

(6)

7 documenti

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

Questa pagina non è visibile nell’anteprima

Non perderti parti importanti!

bg1
What is discourse? Discourse is a generalization of the notion of a conversation to any
form of communication. Discourse is a major topic in social theory, with work spanning
fields such as sociology, anthropology, continental philosophy, and discourse analysis.
Following pioneering work by Michel Foucault, these fields view discourse as a system of
thought, knowledge, or communication that constructs our experience of the world. Since
control of discourse amounts to control of how the world is perceived, social theory often
studies discourse as a window into power.
Discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created
in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as
well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures
Discourse is understood as a way of perceiving, framing, and viewing the world.
For example: A dominant discourse of gender often positions women as gentle and men as
active heroes. A dominant discourse of race often positions whiteness as the norm an
coloured bodies as 'others'.
In other words, it involves the examination of how the 'ways of speaking about things'
normalizes and privileges some frames of thinking about things while marginalizing others.
As a simple example, if movies consistently frame the ideal female as passive, silent, and
submissive, then society comes to think that this is how women should behave and makes
us think that this is normal, so women who don't fit this mould are abnormal.
We are going to examine three groups of theorists each of which defines discourse slightly
differently: discourse analysis; social psychologists; critical discourse analysists. Each of
these fields of study as approached the question of how to analyse communicative acts in
context, using form of analysis which is rigorous and based on scientific principles.
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Discourse analysis can be seen as a reaction to traditional linguistics which is focused on
the constituent units and structure of the sentence and which does not concern itself with
an analysis of language in use
Since it is rare for anyone to communicate with others through single sentences alone,
discourse analysists critic the tendency for linguistic to concentrate solely on sentence
structure, has Michael Hoey states: Conversation involves an interchange between two or
more people in which each contributor may produce more than one utterance and each
contribution builds upon the previous contributions either directly or indirectly.
This type of discourse analysis has developed out of a desire to analyse these larger units
and structures. These larger structures may be more difficult to analyse, exactly because of
their largely unanalysed and taken for-granted nature. However conversations can be seen
to be structured, and can be analysed in terms of the moves which participants make to
signal that, for example, they are initiating a new topic of conversation or thar they
are reviving an older topic of conversation; these moves are signalled clearly by the use of
discourse markets such as “well”; “OK” and “anyway”.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica appunti discourse analisys e più Appunti in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!

What is discourse? Discourse is a generalization of the notion of a conversation to any form of communication. Discourse is a major topic in social theory, with work spanning fields such as sociology, anthropology, continental philosophy, and discourse analysis. Following pioneering work by Michel Foucault, these fields view discourse as a system of thought, knowledge, or communication that constructs our experience of the world. Since control of discourse amounts to control of how the world is perceived, social theory often studies discourse as a window into power. Discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures Discourse is understood as a way of perceiving, framing, and viewing the world. For example: A dominant discourse of gender often positions women as gentle and men as active heroes. A dominant discourse of race often positions whiteness as the norm an coloured bodies as 'others'. In other words, it involves the examination of how the 'ways of speaking about things' normalizes and privileges some frames of thinking about things while marginalizing others. As a simple example, if movies consistently frame the ideal female as passive, silent, and submissive, then society comes to think that this is how women should behave and makes us think that this is normal, so women who don't fit this mould are abnormal. We are going to examine three groups of theorists each of which defines discourse slightly differently: discourse analysis; social psychologists; critical discourse analysists. Each of these fields of study as approached the question of how to analyse communicative acts in context, using form of analysis which is rigorous and based on scientific principles.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Discourse analysis can be seen as a reaction to traditional linguistics which is focused on the constituent units and structure of the sentence and which does not concern itself with an analysis of language in use Since it is rare for anyone to communicate with others through single sentences alone, discourse analysists critic the tendency for linguistic to concentrate solely on sentence structure, has Michael Hoey states: Conversation involves an interchange between two or more people in which each contributor may produce more than one utterance and each contribution builds upon the previous contributions either directly or indirectly. This type of discourse analysis has developed out of a desire to analyse these larger units and structures. These larger structures may be more difficult to analyse, exactly because of their largely unanalysed and taken for-granted nature. However conversations can be seen to be structured, and can be analysed in terms of the moves which participants make to signal that, for example, they are initiating a new topic of conversation or thar they are reviving an older topic of conversation; these moves are signalled clearly by the use of discourse markets such as “well”; “OK” and “anyway”.

These discourse markers only function at the level of discourse, signalling the end of an exchange or the initiation of a new topic, and they do not have a function at the level of the sentence. “Anyway” signals clearly to participants in a conversation that a transitional moment has been reached and that a change of topic is about to be introduced. Discourse analysists such as Jon Sinclair and Malcom Coulthard explored the phenomenon of classroom discourse and came up with some significant theories. In the 1970s, Sinclair and Coulthard created a model to analyse and explain the discourse that took place in a classroom between the teacher and the student. Their theory was that most interactions followed the same pattern - initiation of discourse by the teacher, a response from the student, and, finally, some form of feedback from the teacher. From this observation, they proposed the IRF model. Sinclair and Coulthard’s model is a hierarchical model used predominantly for discourse analysis in classrooms. Sinclair and Coulthard’s model comprised five ranks: transaction, exchange, move, and act, with act being the lowest unit of analysis: acts combine to form moves, moves combine to form exchanges, and exchanges combine to form transactions. As well as analysing conversations, discourse analysis have also examined written texts. Deirdre Burton has applied the types of descriptive frameworks developed for analysing exchanges in conversational interactions to dialogue in drama, and has produced a model for describing the way that certain types of modernist drama dialogue contain violations of discursive norms. Michael Hoey , Gilian Brown and George Yule have also demonstrated that discourse analysis can be applied to written texts. Brown and Yule state that their interest lies in observing the forms in the context in which they are used. They want to know how speakers, having given quantum of information to impart, identify and package that information. Discourse analysis has been very important in opening up new area of analysis; however, it has been criticised for a number of reasons. First, even though it considers language in use in real language contexts, discourse analysis does not concern itself with questions of the way that social relations impinge upon the production of speech or written texts and on the power relations between participants, nor does it concern itself with questions of interpretation, or whose view of what the function of a particular item is taken by the analyst. More recent work in discourse analysis and in Critical Discourse Analysis has shown that utterances do not only simply mean one thing utterances are in essence ambivalent and are interpreted by participants according to hypotheses and working models that they develop in the course of the conversation.

CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), addresses issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and groups. Investigating the role of power in the social construction of difference, CDA examines how it is created, reproduced, questioned or deconstructed, through language practices and interactions. A major goal is not just description, but providing information for the potential to change. Critical discourse analysts have developed a radically different form of analysis, which defines the term discourse differently. This group of linguists has developed a political analysis of text and, particularly in the case of linguists such as Norman Fairclough , they have integrated Michel Foucault 's definition of discourse with a systematic framework of analysis based on a linguistic analysis of the text. Earlier work in this area is best exemplified in the collection of essays by Fowler, Hodge, Kress and Trew entitled Language and Control especially Tony Trews influential essay; For example, he analysed a series of South African newspaper headlines where the overall message of the text seemed to depend on choices over the use of the passive or active voice. Thus, one newspaper headline read: RIOTING BLACKS SHOT DEAD BY POLICE AS ANC LEADERS MEET Trew argues that choosing the passive voice (Blacks [are] shot by police) has the effect of making the actions of the Black people more salient than the actions of the police. Furthermore, choosing to place the term “rioting Blacks” first has the effect of minimising the actions of the police. He contrasts this with a phrase like 'Police shoot Blacks” where it is clear who is responsible for the unrest. By modifying the term “Blacks” by the word “rioting”, Trew argues, a value judgement is implicit in the headline as to who is responsible for the unrest. Trew is moving towards an analysis of text which is concerned not with individual language itches, but with the effect of repeated grammatical choices on the meaning and force of the text. However, this type of analysis tends to suffer from the same theoretical problems as discourse analysis; for examples, viewing the text as a product, assuming that language items have a single meaning which all analysts can agree on, and so on. Critical Discourse analysts such as Fairclough describe discursive structures, but also [shows] how discourse is shaped by relations of power and ideologies, and the constructive effects discourse has upon social identities, social relations and systems of knowledge and belief, neither of which is normally apparent to discourse participants. People are positioned into roles through discursive structures, certain people's knowledge is disqualified or is not taken seriously in contrast to authorised knowledge. In an analysis of an extract of a conversation between a doctor and patient, Fairclough demonstrates that the patient attempts to foreground her own concerns in her medical

condition, but they are ignored by the doctor who only wishes to address those elements of her condition which relate to his diagnosis. Fairclough is concerned with the way that the doctor focuses only on the things which he feels are relevant. Thus, the patient is clearly trying to inform the doctor that she has a number of problems, with sleeping, for example, which alcohol seems to alleviate; the doctor focuses only on the amount of alcohol and disregards the information which relates to problems of sleeping. What makes this type of analysis different to discourse analysis is that Fairclough is interested just as much in the failed attempts of the patient to assert her speaking rights as he is in the more successful doctor's interventions. Fairclough is concerned with the way in which this type of interaction displays the complexity of the workings of power relations within the society as a whole. The main difference between DA and CDA is that CDA deals with more issues, such as intertextuality (which could be defined as the propensity of texts to refer to others and to be constructed by that reference to other texts), interdiscursivity, and socio-historical context of formation and interpretations of texts/discourses, while DA in general does not go into such aspects of a given text/discourse.