WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS?

Discourse analysis examines patterns of language across texts and considers the relationships

between language and the social and cultural contexts in which it is used. Discourse analysis also

considers the ways that the use of language presents different views of the world and different

understandings. It examines how the use of language is influenced by relationships between

participants as well as the effects the use of language has upon social identities and relations. It also

considers how views of the world, and identities, are constructed using discourse.

The term discourse analysis was first introduced by Zellig Harris (1952) as a way of analysing

connected speech and writing. Harris had two main interests: the examination of language beyond

the level of the sentence and the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour. By

“the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour” Harris means how people know

from the situation that they are in how to interpret what someone says.

Van Dijk argues that context is a subjective construct that accounts not only for the uniqueness of

each text but also for the common ground and shared representations that language users draw on

to communicate with each other. He says, “it is not the social situation that influences discourse,

but the way the participants define the situation in which the discourse occurs”.

Halliday (1971) takes the discussion further by linking context of situation with actual texts and

context of culture with potential texts and the range of possibilities that are open to language users

for the creation of texts.

The work of Firth focuses on the study of language within authentic instances of use (as opposed to

made-up examples).

Sinclair argues that language should be studied in naturally occurring contexts and that the analysis

of meaning should be its key focus.

Discourse analysts are also interested in how people organize what they say in the sense of what

they typically say first, and what they say next and so on in a conversation or in a piece of writing.

This is something that varies across cultures.

Mitchell (1957) was one of the first researchers to examine the discourse structure of texts. He

looked at the ways in which people order what they say in interactions. He looked at the overall

structure of these kinds of texts, introducing the notion of stages into discourse analysis; that is the

steps that language users go through as they carry out interactions.

Hasan (1989) has continued this work into the analysis of service encounters, as has Ventola (1984,

1987). They aim to capture obligatory and optional stages that are typical of service encounters.

They point out that there are many possible ways in which the stages in a service encounter can be

realized in terms of language. The way in which these elements are expressed will vary, depending

on where the service encounter is taking place; that is whether it is in a supermarket, at the post

office or at a travel agent etc. It will also vary according to variables such as the age of the people

involved in the interaction and whether the service encounter is face-to-face or on the phone etc.

Different cultures often have different ways of doing things through language. This is something

that was explored by Hymes (1964) through the notion of the ethnography of communication. In

particular, he considered aspects of speech events such as who is speaking to whom, about what,

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Riassunto libro Discourse Analysis di Crystal e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!

WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS?

Discourse analysis examines patterns of language across texts and considers the relationships between language and the social and cultural contexts in which it is used. Discourse analysis also considers the ways that the use of language presents different views of the world and different understandings. It examines how the use of language is influenced by relationships between participants as well as the effects the use of language has upon social identities and relations. It also considers how views of the world, and identities, are constructed using discourse. The term discourse analysis was first introduced by Zellig Harris (1952) as a way of analysing connected speech and writing. Harris had two main interests: the examination of language beyond the level of the sentence and the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour. By “the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour” Harris means how people know from the situation that they are in how to interpret what someone says. Van Dijk argues that context is a subjective construct that accounts not only for the uniqueness of each text but also for the common ground and shared representations that language users draw on to communicate with each other. He says, “it is not the social situation that influences discourse, but the way the participants define the situation in which the discourse occurs”. Halliday (1971) takes the discussion further by linking context of situation with actual texts and context of culture with potential texts and the range of possibilities that are open to language users for the creation of texts. The work of Firth focuses on the study of language within authentic instances of use (as opposed to made-up examples). Sinclair argues that language should be studied in naturally occurring contexts and that the analysis of meaning should be its key focus. Discourse analysts are also interested in how people organize what they say in the sense of what they typically say first, and what they say next and so on in a conversation or in a piece of writing. This is something that varies across cultures. Mitchell (1957) was one of the first researchers to examine the discourse structure of texts. He looked at the ways in which people order what they say in interactions. He looked at the overall structure of these kinds of texts, introducing the notion of stages into discourse analysis; that is the steps that language users go through as they carry out interactions. Hasan (1989) has continued this work into the analysis of service encounters, as has Ventola (1984, 1987). They aim to capture obligatory and optional stages that are typical of service encounters. They point out that there are many possible ways in which the stages in a service encounter can be realized in terms of language. The way in which these elements are expressed will vary, depending on where the service encounter is taking place; that is whether it is in a supermarket, at the post office or at a travel agent etc. It will also vary according to variables such as the age of the people involved in the interaction and whether the service encounter is face-to-face or on the phone etc. Different cultures often have different ways of doing things through language. This is something that was explored by Hymes (1964) through the notion of the ethnography of communication. In particular, he considered aspects of speech events such as who is speaking to whom, about what,

for what purpose, where and when, and how these impact on how we say and do things in culture- specific settings. There are, for example, particular cultural ways of buying and selling things in different cultures. How I buy my lunch at a takeaway shop in an English-speaking country is different from how I might do this in Japan. In an English-speaking country there is greater ritual use of Please and Thanks on the part of the customer in this kind of interaction than there is in Japan. It simply means that there are culturally different ways of doing things with language in different cultures. Fairclough (2003) contrasts what he calls “ textually oriented discourse analysis ” with approaches to discourse analysis that have more of a social theoretical orientation. He does not see these two views as mutually exclusive, arguing for an analysis of discourse that is both linguistic and social in its orientation. David crystal’s (2008) analysis of Barack Obama’s victory speech when he won the US presidential election is an example of textually oriented discourse analysis. One of the features Crystal notes in Obama’s speech is the use of parallelism , where he repeats certain grammatical structures for rhetorical effect. Higgins’ (2008) analysis of Obama’s speech is an example of more socially oriented discourse analysis. He traces Obama’s speech back to the oratory of the ancient Greeks and Romans showing how the use of certain structures was ones of Cicero’s, as well as Julius Caesar’s, rhetorical techniques. Williams (2009) discusses Obama’s speech within the context of the political (and economic) moment of his victory, highlighting the central message of optimism in his speech captured in the repetition of the refrain “Yes, we can”. The view of discourse as the social construction of reality sees texts as communicative units which are embedded in social and cultural practices. The texts we write and speak both shape and are shaped by these practices. Discourse is both shaped by the world as well as shaping the world. Discourse is shaped by language as well as shaping language. It is shaped by the people who use the language as well as shaping the language that people use. The purpose of the text also influences the discourse. Wetherell’s (2001) analysis of the BBC Panorama interview with the late Diana provides an example of the role of language in the construction of the social world. She shows how, using language, Diana “construes” her social world, presenting herself as a sharing person and Prince Charles as “a proud man who felt low about the attention his wife was getting”. The Princess creates a view of herself and the world in which she lives in a way that she wishes people to see. When we speak or write we use more than just language to display who we are, and how we want people to see us. The way we dress, the gestures we use and the way/s we act and interact also influence how we display social identity. Other factors which influence this include the ways we think, the attitudes we display and the things we value, feel, and believe. The notion of performativity derives from speech act theory and the work of the linguistic philosopher Austin. It is based on the view that in saying something, we do it. That is, we bring states of affairs into being because of what we say and what we do. Examples of this are I promise,

There are several key aspects of context that are crucial to the production and interpretation of discourse. These are the situational context in terms of what people “know about what they can see around them”, the background knowledge context in terms of what people “know about each other and the world” and the co-textual context in terms of what people “know about what they have been saying”. Background knowledge context includes cultural knowledge and interpersonal knowledge. It includes what people know about the world, what they know about various areas of life, what they know about each other and what they know about the norms and expectations of the discourse community in which the communication is taking place. Contextual knowledge also includes social, political, and cultural understandings that are relevant to the communication. Meaning is produced in interaction. It involves social, psychological, and cognitive factors that are relevant to the production and interpretation of what a speaker says, and what a hearer understands by what is said. Two influential works in pragmatics relevant to discourse analysis are Austin’s and Searle’s. They argued that language is used to “do things” other than just refer to the truth or falseness of statements. They observed that there are many things that we say which cannot meet these kinds of truth conditions, but which are valid, and which do things that go beyond their literal meaning. They argued that in the same way that we perform physical acts, we also perform acts by using language. That is, we use language to give orders, to make requests, to give warnings or to give advice; in other words, to do things that go beyond the literal meaning of what we say. Austin argued that there are three kinds of acts which occur with everything we say. These are:

The Locutionary act – the literal meaning of the actual words
The Illocutionary act – the speaker’s intention in uttering the words
The Perlocutionary act – the effect an utterance has on the thoughts or actions of the other person Example: Bus driver: This bus won’t move until you boys move in out of the doorway. The locutionary act, in this case, is the driver saying he won’t start the bus with people standing in the doorway; the illocutionary act is an order and the perlocutionary act is the boys moving inside the bus. Sometimes when we speak, we do mean exactly what we say. Often, we do, however, say things indirectly. That is, we often intend something that is quite different from the literal meaning of what we say. For example, a common expression on an invitation to a party is “to bring a plate”. This may, to someone who is not familiar with this kind of cultural convention, be interpreted as a request to bring an empty plate to the party. In fact, it is asking someone to bring food to the party, not necessarily on a plate. An important notion in speech act theory is the concept of felicity conditions. For a speech act to “work”, Austin argued that there are a number of conditions that must be met: there must be a generally accepted procedure for successfully carrying out the speech act, such as inviting someone to a wedding through the use of a formal written wedding invitation, rather than an informal email message, the circumstances must be appropriate for the use of the speech act, that is, someone must be getting married, the person who uses the speech act must be the appropriate person to

use it in the particular context, such as the bride or groom’s family, or in some cases the bride or groom, inviting the person to the wedding. For the speech act to be “ felicitous ”, the communication must be carried out by the right person, in the right place, at the right time and, normally, with a certain intention or it will not “work”. If the first two of these conditions are not satisfied, the act will not be achieved and will “misfire”. If the third of these conditions does not hold, then the procedure will be “abused”. Searle argued that the felicity conditions of an utterance are “ constitutive rules ”. That is, they are not just something that can “go right” (or wrong) or be “abused”, but something which makes up and defines the act itself. That is, they are rules that need to be followed for the utterance to work. A further important notion in speech act theory and pragmatics is presupposition. It refers to the common ground that is assumed to exist between language users such as assumed knowledge of a situation and/or of the world. This may come from sources such as books, television, and the internet, or through personal experiences with the world. A speaker says something based on their assumption (or presupposition) of what the hearer is likely to “know”, and what they will infer from what they say. Two main kinds of presupposition:

Conventional presupposition – less context-dependent, typically linked to particular linguistic forms; for example, “Would you like some coffee?” suggests the coffee is already prepared, whereas “Would you like anything to drink?” does not suggest a drink has already been prepared
Pragmatic presupposition – context-dependent, arise from the use of an utterance in a particular context; for example, we’re in a delicatessen section of a supermarket, the customers know they need to take a ticket from the ticket machine and wait their turn to be served, the person with the ticket with “2” on it is the next person to be served Presuppositions are crucial to an understanding of what people mean by what they say in spoken and written discourse. H. P. Grice (1975) argued that for a person to interpret what someone else says, some Cooperative Principle must be assumed to be in operation. There is a set of principles which direct us to a particular interpretation of what someone says, unless we receive some indication to the contrary. The cooperative principle says we should aim to make our conversational contribution “such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction” of the exchange in which we are engaged. When someone is speaking to us, we base our understanding of what they are saying on the assumption that they are saying what needs to be said rather than more than needs to be said, they are saying it at an appropriate point in the interaction and they have a reason for saying what they say. Grice based his cooperative principle on four maxims :
The maxim of quality – people should only say what they believe to be true and what they have evidence for

of Japanese, however, “a debt not yet repaid calls for an apology from the debtor”. Apologizing for a Japanese speaker is one way of expressing indebtedness and thanking someone. Conversational implicature refers to the inference a hearer makes about a speaker’s intended meaning that arises from their use of the literal meaning of what the speaker said, the conversational principle and its maxims. For example, if I say, “There’s nothing on at the movies” I do not mean “nothing at all”, but rather “nothing that I’m interested in seeing”. The person I am speaking to will assume this and “implicate” my meaning. Implicature is not the same as inference. An implicature “is generated intentionally by the speaker and may (or may not) be understood “by the hearer”. An inference, on the other hand, is produced by a hearer based on certain evidence and may not, in fact, be the same as what a speaker intends. Grice describes two kinds of conversational implicature:

Conventional conversational implicature – no particular context is required in order to derive the implicature; for example, the use of “well” can conventionally implicate that what the speaker is about to say is not what the hearer is hoping to hear; similarly, the use of “anyway” implicates a return to the original topic of a conversation; the use of “but” and “on the other hand” to express contrast, “even” to suggest something is contrary to expectation and “yet” to suggest something will be different at a later time
Particularized conversational implicature – derived from a particular context, rather than from the use of the words alone; this result from the maxim of relation. That is, the speaker assumes the hearer will search for the relevance of what is said and derive an intended meaning Two further notions in pragmatics and discourse are politeness and face. The term “face” refers to the respect one has for oneself; it is related to notions of being embarrassed, humiliated and “losing face”. Politeness and face are important for understanding why people choose to say things in a particular way in spoken and written discourse. Politeness principles and cooperative principles are often in conflict with each other. There are also situations in which one principle might become more important than another. In an emergency, for example, there is less need to be polite than in a normal situation. Two further issues in discussions of face and politeness are the notions of involvement and independence. People often maintain a balance between these two:
Involvement (positive face) – a person’s right and need to be considered a “normal”, contributing, supporting member of society, evidenced by showing interest in someone, agreeing with others, approving what others are doing, using in-group identity markers (first names or nicknames)
Independence (negative face) – a person’s right not to be dominated by others, not to be imposed on by others, and to be able to act with individuality, evidenced by respecting other people’s needs or interest, giving people options, not imposing on other people, apologizing for interruptions There are four politeness strategies to choose in a certain context:

Off-record (least direct, most polite) – ex. “ Our vacuum cleaner just broke down. The floors are very dusty ”, the need for your neighbour’s vacuum cleaner is only hinted, not explicitly mentioned – the speaker is not that familiar with the hearer, there is social distance between them
Negative politeness (less direct, very polite) – ex. “ Could I, please, borrow your vacuum cleaner for just an hour? ”, the act is mentioned explicitly, you give an option to the hearer with a yes-no question, using “please” to be polite, using “could” to express a remote possibility, using “your” and “for just an hour” not to impose anything on anyone – the speaker still wants to maintain distance from the hearer, the speaker may be more familiar with the hearer but still not that close
Positive politeness (more direct, less polite) – ex. “ Susy, dear, I need the vacuum cleaner right away ”, the act is mentioned explicitly and directly, “Susy”, “dear”, “right away” to show closeness and familiarity – the speaker and the hearer are close friends
On-record baldly (most direct, least polite) – ex. “ Bring me the vacuum cleaner ”, the act is mentioned explicitly and bluntly, using the imperative to express a command, no time specified – the speaker has authority over the hearer either by being higher in status or has a more dominant role, the speaker is in a hurry, it is an emergency situation Lakoff (1973) proposed three maxims of politeness:

Don’t impose – ex. I’m sorry to bother you but…
Give options – ex. Do you think you could possibly…?
Make your hearer feel good – ex. You’re better at this than me The specific nature of face and politeness varies from society to society and from culture to culture. In some societies, parents have more right to interfere in the domestic affairs of adult children. In some cultures, a bedroom is private and cannot be entered and in others it is not. In some cultures, refusal of an offer may be merely polite and in others the opposite may be true. There are acts that infringe on the hearer’s need to maintain her/his self-esteem and to be respected, that is acts that threaten either the negative or the positive face of the hearer. These are called Face threatening acts. These are sometimes unavoidable, but speakers usually redress them through the various politeness strategies. Examples of Face threatening acts to the Negative face:
A demand for an action
A request to borrow from the hearer, take something from the hearer, occupy the hearer’s time (invitations)
Personal questions Examples of Face threatening acts to the Positive face:
Rejecting an invitation
Disagreeing with the hearer
Refusing a proposal
Criticising the hearer We use mitigation devices in conversations to take the edge off Face threatening acts:

Lexical cohesion refers to relationships in meaning between lexical items in a text and content words and the relationship between them. The main kinds of lexical cohesion are:

Reiteration – words that are repeated in a text. This includes words which are inflected for tense or number and words which are derived from other items
Synonymy – words which are similar in meaning such as “date” and “go out” or “blokes” and “men”
Antonymy – words which show opposite or contrastive meanings such as “shy” and “forward” or “women” and “men”
Hyponymy and meronymy – Halliday (1990) describes two kinds of lexical taxonomies that typically occur in texts: superordination and composition. These are words which are in a “kind of” relationship with each other (superordination) and words that are in a “whole- part” relationship with each other (composition). Hyponymy refers to classes of lexical items where the relationship between them is one of “general-specific”, “an example of” or in a “class to member” type relationship ( ex. Field grown crops > wheat, corn… ); meronymy is where lexical items are in a “whole to part” relationship with each other ( ex. Couple > Jen and Stuart )
Collocation – associations between vocabulary items which tend to co-occur; there are 6 types: o Verb + noun – take a vacation o Adjective + noun – light rain o Adverb + verb – completely forget o Adverb + adjective – totally awesome o Adjective + preposition – tired of o Noun + noun – a business deal Lexical bundles are multi-word combinations such as as a result of , on the other hand , if you look at and as can be seen that occur in genres such as university textbooks, academic essays, theses and dissertations and research articles as well as spoken genres such as academic lectures and conversation. In linguistics, a discourse marker is a word or phrase that is relatively syntax-independent and does not change the meaning of the sentence, and has somewhat empty meaning (oh, well, now, then, you know, I mean). Some of the words or phrases that were considered discourse markers were treated as “fillers” or “expletives”: words or phrases that had no function at all. Discourse markers (however, although, nevertheless) are referred to more commonly as “linking words” and “linking phrases” or “sentence connectors”. They may be described as the “glue” that binds together a piece of writing, making the different parts of the text “stick together”. They are used less frequently in speech unless the speech is very formal. Conjunction refers to words, such as “and”, “however”, “finally” and “in conclusion” that join phrases, clauses, or sections of a text in such a way that they express the “logical-semantic” relationship between them. They can be:
Additive (and, or, moreover, in addition, alternatively) – relation + meaning > addition
Comparative (whereas, but, on the other hand, likewise, equally) – relation > comparison, meaning > similarity, contrast

Temporal (while, then, when, after, meanwhile, finally, at the same time) – relation > time, meaning > successive
Consequential (so that, because, since, thus, if, therefore, in conclusion, in this way) – relation > consequence, meaning > cause, means, condition A further way in which texture is achieved in a text is using:
Substitution – a substitute form is used for another language item, phrase, or group. It can involve substituting an item for a noun or a verb or a clause ( ex. Try reading this book. That one’s not very good (nominal) - Has he had dinner yet? He must have done. There’s no food in the fridge (verbal) – Everyone thinks he’s guilty. If so, no doubt he’ll resign (clausal) )
Ellipsis – some essential elements are omitted from the text and can be recovered by referring to a preceding element in the text. It may involve the omission of a noun or noun group, a verb or verbal group or a clause ( ex. Those were your dream. Kim’s was a nightmare (nominal) – Are you laughing? Yes, I am (verbal) – Leave those alone. Why? (clausal) ) There are differences between reference and ellipsis-substitution:
Reference can reach a long way back in the text whereas ellipsis and substitution are largely limited to the immediately preceding clause
With reference there is a typical meaning of co-reference; that is, both items typically refer to the same thing. With ellipsis and substitution, this is not the case
If a speaker or writer wants to refer to the same thing, they use reference; if they want to refer to something different, they use ellipsis-substitution Theme is “the element which serves as the point of departure of the message”. It also introduces “information prominence” into the clause. The rheme is what the clause has to say about the theme. Interpersonal theme refers to an item that comes before the rheme which indicates the relationship between participants in the text, or the position or point of view that is being taken in the clause. It can express:
Probability (perhaps)
Usuality (sometimes)
Typicality (generally)
Obviousness (surely)
Opinion (to my mind)
Admission (frankly)
Persuasion (believe me)
Entreaty (kindly)
Presumption (no doubt)
Desirability (hopefully)
Prediction (as expected) Multiple themes occur when there is more than a single thematic element in the Theme component of the clause.

Riassunto libro Discourse Analysis di Crystal, Sintesi del corso di Lingua Inglese

Spesso scaricati insieme

Documenti correlati

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Riassunto libro Discourse Analysis di Crystal e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!

WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS?