Scarica D. Nunan, introducing discourse analysis e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
DAVID NUNAN
INTRODUCING DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
- Chapter 1 – what is discourse analysis? Indice
- Discourse versus text
- Context
- Spoken versus written language
- Chapter 2 – linguistic elements in discourse
- Cohesion
- Referential cohesion
- Substitution and Ellipsis
- Conjunction
- Lexical cohesion
- Information structure – units of analysis in discourse
- Adjacency pairs
- “Given” and “new” information
- Theme and Rheme
- Genre
- Chapter 3 – making sense of discourse
- Discourse coherence
- Speech acts
- Background knowledge
- Using the background knowledge: propositional level
- Frame theory
- Schema theory
- Using the background knowledge: functional level
- How we process discourse
- Bottom-up model
- Top-down model
- Negotiating meaning
Chapter 1 – what is discourse analysis?
Discourse versus text
In discourse analysis we have two key terms: text and discourse. For some writers the terms are interchangeably, for others discourse refers to language in context. Some people argue that discourse is language in action, while text is a written record of that interaction; according to this view discourse brings together language, the individuals producing the language and the context within which language is used. Yet other linguists tend to avoid using the term discourse altogether, preferring the term text for all recorded instances of language in use.
We shall use the term text to refer a written or taped record of a communicative event which conveys a complete message. The event itself may involves oral language or written language. We shall use the term discourse to refer to the interpretation of the communicative event in context. We have also text analysis that is the study of the formal linguistic devices that distinguishes a text from random sentences and discourse analysis also studies these text-forming devices. Their ultimate aim is to show how linguistic elements enable language users to communicate in context.
Context
Context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse and within which the discourse is embedded. There are two types of context:
- Linguistic context refers to the words and sentences surrounding a piece of discourse under analysis;
- Non linguistic context/experiential context refers to the real-world context in which the text occurs. This context includes the types of communicative event (for example: joke, story), the topic, the purpose of the event, the setting, the participant and the relationship between them. It includes also the background knowledge that is the knowledge of the word which the reader or listener makes use of in interpreting a piece of spoken or written language.
Spoken versus written language
Written language does perform a similar range of broad functions to those performed by spoken language, but the context are very different. For example in the case of information, written language is used to communicate with other who are removed in time and space; while most people in other countries could be communicate with by telephone, certain type of message are more appropriate in written form, for example post-card. Halliday suggests that written language is used for action (public signs, television and radio guides), for information (news-paper), for entertainment (comic strips). In considering the purposes for which language is used, we can distinguishes:
Transactional language: which is language used to obtain good and services; Interpersonal language: which is language used for socializing.
Conjunction
4. Conjunction is a device for marking logical relationships in discourse. According to Halliday and Hasan there are 4 types of logical relationships in English: a) Additive marked by conjunctions such as “ and”; b) Adversative marked by words such as “ but” and “ however” ; c) Causal marked by words such as “ because” ; d) Temporal marked by words such as “ then” and “ next”.
Lexical cohesion
5. Lexical cohesion occurs when two words in a text are semantically related in some way. In Halliday and Hasan the two major categories of lexical cohesion are: Reiteration includes repetition, synonym or near synonym, superordinate and general words; Collocation can cause major problems for discourse analysis because it includes all those items in a text that are semantically related.
An additional problem is the fact that may lexical relationship are text as well as context-bound. This mean that words and phrases that are related in one text may not be related in another. The background knowledge of the reader or listener plays a role in the perception of lexical relationships than in the perception of other type of cohesion. Collocational patterns will only be perceived by someone who knows something about the subject. For example, rose and flower seems more related than rose and plant. Our ability to identify collocational relationships in a text depends on our background knowledge that is on our familiarity with the context of a text.
Information structure – units of analysis in discourse
The teacher initiates the interaction, usually by asking a question to which he knows the answer, one or more of the students respond, and the teacher provides some sort of evaluation of the response. This pattern was first described by Sinclair and Coulthard. They called the structure exchange. The components making up the exchange they called moves , which were made up of speech acts. They found that entire lessons consisted of transaction; each transaction is signaled by a framing move consisting of a phrase such as “ ok ”, “ right ”. The basic building block of the lesson is the speech act, which in an utterance described in terms of its function. Sinclair and Coulthard used this model to draw up rules of discourse which specified the optional and obligatory elements within a given exchange. Their method is similar to that followed by sentence grammarians described earlier.
Adjacency pairs
One response to the difficulty of identifying patterns in discourse has been to abandon the attempt to provide specifications for entire discourses, and instead to isolate regularly recurring patterns within the interaction. This has led to the identification of adjacency pairs , which are pairs of utterances that commonly co-occur. Examples of adjacency pairs include question-reply:
- How much was it?
- Pound fifty!
“Given” and “new” information
In English there is a standard word order of subject + verb + object. For example: the cat ate the rat. However, there are numerous possible constructions:
- _the rat was eaten by the cat;
- the cat, it ate the rat;
- it was the cat that eat the cat_. The choice depends on:
The context ; The status of the information within discourse: old/given information vs new information; The importance that the speaker wants to give to different faces of information: given information is that which the speaker or writer assumes is known by the listener or reader and new information is that which is assumed to be unknown.
Theme and Rheme
Another consideration in the arrangement of information in a sentence will be the prominence or importance that the speaker or writer wishes to give to different pieces of information. Theme is a formal grammatical category which refers to the initial element in a clause. It is the element around which the sentence is organized. Everything that follows the theme is known as the Rheme. For example:
- the cat ate the rat: theme is the cat;
- the rat was eaten by the cat: theme is the rat.
We have 3 types of themes:
- Topical theme concerning the information conveyed in the discourse;
- Interpersonal theme revealing something of the speaker’s attitude. For example: Frankly, the movie was a waste of money. Frankly is the interpersonal theme and the movie is topical theme.
- Textual theme linking a clause to previous parts of discourse. For example: However, you should decide for yourself. However is textual theme and you is topical theme.
When making beyond the sentence to discourse, the issue of Thematization becomes particularly important as the writer has to arrange information in terms of given/new information and also in terms of desired thematic prominence. Thematization: the speaker/writer gives prominence to an element by placing it at the beginning of a sentence, this is a staging device.
Genre
The term genre has been used for many years to refer to different styles of literary discourse such as sonnets, tragedies and romances. In recent times, the term has been adopted to refer to different types of communicative events. Martin and Swales argues that language exists to fulfil certain functions that will determine the overall shape or generic structure of the discourse. This structure emerges as people communicate with one another. The communicative purpose will also be
Background knowledge
The background knowledge is the knowledge of the world which the reader or listener makes use of
in interpreting a piece of spoken or written language. The things we know about the world assist us in the interpretation of discourse. Bransford and Johnson demonstrate the importance of context and
background information for the interpretation of discourse.
Using the background knowledge: propositional level
We have theoretical models that can explain the ways in which our knowledge of the world guides
our effort to comprehend discourse:
Frame theory
This suggests that human memory consists of sets of stereotypical situations, or frames, which are constructed out of our past experiences. These provide a framework which we use to make sense of
new experiences. For example our former experiences of going to the doctor provide us with a
frame that enables us to predict what to occur when we next visit the doctor. Of course, our
expectations are not always fulfilled and we must modify our pre-existing frames to accommodate
the new experience. This theory has a number of problem. The major problem is that it provides no
explanation of why one frame might be selected rather than another.
Schema theory
The term schema was coined in 1932 by the psychologist Barlett in his study of how human
memory works. Like frame theory, schema theory suggests that the knowledge we carry around of our heads is organized into interrelated patterns. These are constructed from all our previous
experiences and there are two levels to any given discourse:
- Systematic level includes the reader or listener’s linguistic knowledge;
- Schematic level relates to background content knowledge.
Widdowson has shown how these interpretive procedures might work in making sense of discourse.
He argues that a major task for someone listening to or reading a piece of discourse is to keep track
of the various things and events that are referred to within the discourse. In doing so, he can makes use of the various cohesive devices.
Using the background knowledge: functional level Background knowledge helps us to interpret discourse on a functional level. For example:
A: I have two tickets to the theatre tonight.
B: My examination is tomorrow!
A: Pity!
According to Widdowson there are implicit assumption on both sides that A’s first statement is an
invitation. B’s response, which on the surface has little to do with A’s statement, is taken as a
refusal of the invitation.
How we process discourse We have two models:
Bottom-up model : decoding the smallest element first, and using these to decode and interpret
words, clauses, sentences and the whole texts;
Top-down model : the use of background knowledge of the text structures to assist in the
interpretation of discourse. We have top-down strategies:
- Using background knowledge to assist in comprehending a particular text;
- Scanning the text for heading, sub-headings, pictures, graphs, diagrams to acquire a broad understanding before more detailed reading;
- Skimming the text and thinking about the context and then writing down a number of question that you would like the text to answer for you;
- Identifying the genre text;
- Searching for key information.
Both models stress the importance of taking into consideration language and background knowledge in comprehending a discourse. The link between our knowledge of language forms and
our knowledge of the world has a number of implications for discourse processing. It suggests that
the more predictable the sequences of language in a text, the more readily it will be understood.
Negotiating meaning
In order to achieve mutual understanding, participants must negotiate meaning to ensure that they
are being understood correctly and that they are correctly interpreting the utterances of the other
participants.
