Discourse Analysis PDF

Neelain University Faculty of Arts English Language Department DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Semester Five Dr. Ali Altaaishy 1 In linguistics, discourse refers to a unit of language longer than a single sentence. The word discourse is derived from the latin prefix dis- meaning "away" and the root word currere meaning "to run". Discourse, therefore, translates to "run away" and refers to the way that conversations flow. To study discourse is to analyze the use of spoken or written language in a social context. What is discourse analysis? In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence. Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term ―language‖ can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context. ―Context‖ here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language. A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal Discourse studies look at the form and function of language in conversation beyond its small grammatical pieces such as phonemes and morphemes. This field of study, which Dutch linguist Teun van Dijk is largely responsible for developing, is interested in how larger units of language—including lexemes, syntax, and context—contribute meaning to conversations. Definitions and Examples of Discourse "Discourse in context may consist of only one or two words as in stop or no smoking. Alternatively, a piece of discourse can be hundreds of thousands of words in length, as some novels are. A typical piece of discourse is somewhere between these two extremes," (Hinkel and Fotos 2001). "Discourse is the way in which language is used socially to convey broad historical meanings. It is language identified by the social conditions of its use, by who is using it and under what conditions. Language can never be 'neutral' because it bridges our personal and social worlds," (Henry and Tator 2002). Contexts and Topics of Discourse The study of discourse is entirely context-dependent because conversation involves situational knowledge beyond just the words spoken. Often times, meaning cannot be extrapolated from an exchange merely from its verbal utterances because there are many semantic factors involved in authentic communication. "The study of discourse...can involve matters like context, background information or knowledge shared between a speaker and hearer," (Bloor and Bloor 2013). 2 Subcategories of Discourse "Discourse can...be used to refer to particular contexts of language use, and in this sense, it becomes similar to concepts like genre or text type. For example, we can conceptualize political discourse (the sort of language used in political contexts) or media discourse (language used in the media). In addition, some writers have conceived of discourse as related to particular topics, such as an environmental discourse or colonial discourse...Such labels sometimes suggest a particular attitude towards a topic (e.g. people engaging in environmental discourse would generally be expected to be concerned with protecting the environment rather than wasting resources). Related to this, Foucault...defines discourse more ideologically as 'practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak'," (Baker and Ellece 2013). Discourse in Social Sciences "Within social science...discourse is mainly used to describe verbal reports of individuals. In particular, discourse is analyzed by those who are interested in language and talk and what people are doing with their speech. This approach [studies] the language used to describe aspects of the world and has tended to be taken by those using a sociological perspective," (Ogden 2002). Common Ground Discourse is a joint activity requiring active participation from two or more people, and as such is dependent on the lives and knowledge of two or more people as well as the situation of the communication itself. Herbert Clark applied the concept of common ground to his discourse studies as a way of accounting for the various agreements that take place in successful communication. "Discourse is more than a message between sender and receiver. In fact, sender and receiver are metaphors that obfuscate what is really going on in communication. Specific illocutions have to be linked to the message depending on the situation in which discourse takes place...Clark compares language in use with a business transaction, paddling together in a canoe, playing cards or performing music in an orchestra. A central notion in Clark's study is common ground. The joint activity is undertaken to accumulate the common ground of the participants. With common ground is meant the sum of the joint and mutual knowledge, beliefs and suppositions of the participants," (Renkema 2004). 3  What Is Discourse?  Discourse is a coherently-arranged, serious and systematic treatment of a topic in spoken or written language.  It constitutes the categories of academic writing aimed at teaching students the method of organizing, narrating and giving detailed description of events in expository paragraphs.  Classes of Discourse  Discourse may be classified into descriptive, narrative, expository, and argumentative.  1. Descriptive Discourse  A descriptive discourse often takes two forms; it can be in static form, or the form called process description.  The static description draws a verbal picture using words that appeal to the senses, while the process description tends to explain the various degrees or levels of advancement involved in carrying out a task.  Again, static description may either be the technical or the imaginative form.  The technical form gives a lucid description and objective delineation of details; whereas, the imaginative uses suggestive to create a dominant effect about the subject being described.  Thus, we may have an equipment being described technically by thoroughly giving details of its parts and the functions of such parts, or imaginatively — where figures of speech and associated connotations are used to describe it.  2. Narrative Discourse  A narrative discourse is that which in its description, portrays causally related incidents; here the occurred incidents are often arranged one after another in an order of chronology.  The narrative discourse in its typical form is often referred to as fiction; this is because it both provides a highly detailed and structured conception of anecdote  3. Expository Discourse  An expository discourse consists in giving definitive explanation and clarification by means of examples and illustrations, details, comparison and contrast , definition, and other rhetorical devices of like nature.  4. Argumentative Discourse  The argumentative discourse is used with the sole purpose of persuading the audience (hearers or readers) to either accept or reject opinions. As a primary prerequisite, argumentative discourse only takes effect where there is a contentious or controversial topic. 4  A topic is said to be controversial if there are at least two sides of analyzing or resolving it, and if both sides are logical as well as equally debatable and defensible. It is unnecessary writing an argumentative discourse if the resolution to the issue is obvious.  Credibility of sources and logic of presentation are important factors in writing an argumentative essay. Also important is combining a number of rhetorical devices to add rhetorical nuances.  The most common of such devices are definition , comparison and contrast Opens in new window, classification, example and illustration (exemplum), and similar other devices. What Is the Role of Discourse in Linguistics? Discourse is generally any form of verbal communication, whether spoken or written. The role of discourse in linguistics is to provide a body of text for various types of analysis. These may include research into grammar, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics and discourse analysis. Corpus linguistics is the area where discourse is most commonly used in linguistics. The word corpus means "body," so a linguistic corpus is a body of text or speech occurring in the real world. Whereas much linguistic research can be done on texts created for the purpose of linguistic research, such as most research related to computer-generated language, corpus linguistics relies exclusively on naturally occurring language. Discourses of various types can provide language for this type of research, which may seek to analyze, for instance, levels of competence among language learners Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning. This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. Discourse Analysis: The main approaches There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis). Let‘s take a look at each of these. Approach #1: Language-in-use Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics. Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context. For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, ―un‖ in ―unbelievable‖) and suffixes (―able‖ in ―unbelievable‖) but doesn‘t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, ―that‘s un-flipping-believable‖. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix ―flipping‖ could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then 5 answering questions such as, ―What role does the infix play?‖ or ―What is the goal of using such an infix?‖ Approach #2: Socio-political Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context, and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis, which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault‘s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power. Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It‘s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power, which is power that is actively asserted. Sounds a bit fluffy? Let‘s look at an example. Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don‘t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted). Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class. It‘s the subtle clues we‘re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don‘t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it. In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics. While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture, customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts). On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you‘re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision. How to “do” discourse analysis As every study is different, it‘s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research. Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions. 6 Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data Once you‘ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of ―talk‖ and ―text‖, which means that it can consist of interviews, ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts. The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you‘re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the ―what‖, ―who‖ and ―why‖ of your study, so that you don‘t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Step 3: Investigate the context A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:  What is the discourse?  Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?  When did the discourse take place?  Where did it happen?  Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?  What does the discourse say about society in general?  How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse? Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible. Once you‘ve investigated the context of your data, you‘ll have a much better idea of what you‘re working with, and you‘ll be far more familiar with your content. It‘s then time to begin your analysis. Step 4: Analyze your data When performing a discourse analysis, you‘ll need to look for themes and patterns. To do this, you‘ll start by looking at codes, which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here. Next, you‘ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something 7 about the discourse. For example, if you‘re wanting to know about women‘s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be ―safety‖ or ―convenience‖. In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation. This refers to when you‘ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it‘s essential. Once you‘ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you‘re ready to move onto the next step – final review. Step 5: Review your work Hey, you‘re nearly there. Good job! Now it‘s time to review your work. This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data. Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it‘s easier for them to assess your work. When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives, and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic. Sentence and utterance Although there might appear little difference in the kind of information which is presented in these alternative formulations, there is considerable difference in the purpose for which these formulations are made. A sentence is an exemplificatory device and that its function is simply to give concrete realization to the abstract features of the system of language. Sentences are an exemplification of linguistic rules while utterances are a direct realization of linguistic rules. 8 It is an important point to make clear the relationship between them: utterances being 'derived' from sentences, or sentences 'underlying' utterances. Sentences are simply construct devised by linguists to exemplify the rules of the language system and that a speaker therefore may have no knowledge of the sentences as such at all. An illiterate speaker has an innate knowledge of the rules of the language system acquired through his natural linguistic development and he composes his utterances by direct reference to them and not by reference to sentences. One might say that sentences exemplify the rules which the speaker realizes in the making of utterances. The knowledge one has of one's language can be expressed in the form of sentences since a grammar is defined as a description of the sentences of language. What the speaker of a language knows is sentences. This comes out clearly when Chomsky speaks of language acquisition; 'Clearly, a child who has learned a language has developed an internal representation of a system of rules that determine how sentences are formed, used, and understood.' (Chomsky 1965:25) Cohesion and coherence A piece of discourse must have a certain structure which depends on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single sentence. The way sentences link up with each other to form discourse is cohesion. Cohesion makes the items hang together. Cohesion comes about as a result of the combination of both lexical and grammatical structures. It should be considered in terms of the two basic dimensions of linguistic organization – paradigmatic and syntagmatic. In this way it is meaningful to extend the principles of linguistic description beyond the limit of the sentence. One can study the structure of discourse paradigmatically by tracing the manner in which the constituent linguistic elements are related along the axis of equivalence, or one can study it syntagmatically by tracing the manner in which the linguistic elements are related along the axis of combination. By taking the former, one recognizes pronouns and other pro-forms as cohesive devises, and by taking the latter, it is such forms as sentence connectors and the thematic arrangements of sentence constituents which emerge the principal features of cohesion. Cohesion through combination and cohesion through equivalence are discussed by Halliday as cohesion through grammar and cohesion through lexis. In grammatical 9 scheme, he talks about subordination, co-ordination, pronouns etc. and in lexical scheme, he deals with repetition or occurrence of item in the same lexical set. Analysis of cohesive links within a discourse gives one some insight into how writers structure what they want to say. Many devices are used to create cohesion such as recurrence, use of pro-forms, connectors, thematic arrangements etc. Connections between other words and sentences, which is the field of cohesion, would not be sufficient to enable one to make sense of what we read and hear. It is quite easy to create a highly cohesive piece of discourse which has a lot of connections between the sentences, but which remain difficult to interpret. It is people who make sense of what they read and hear. They try to arrive at on interpretation which is in line with their experience of the way the world is. So, the 'connectedness' which people experience in their interpretation of what is being heard or read is coherence. Cohesion is connectivity of the surface, whereas coherence deals with connectivity of underlying content. Coherence, in other words, is related to the mutual accessibility and relevance of concepts and relations that underlie the surface level. A reader or listener would have to create meaningful connections which are not always expressed by the words and sentences, taking into account the surface phenomena. People often take part in conversational interactions where a great deal of what is meant is not actually present in what is said and they ordinarily anticipate each other's intentions, which makes this whole complex process easy going. The following example given by Widdowson can be taken into account: Her: That's the telephone. Him: I'm in the both. Her: O.K. Here one finds no cohesive ties within this fragment of discourse. It is due to coherence that each of these people manages to make sense of what the other says. This brief conversation can be understood in the following way: She requested him to perform action. He gives reason why he is unable to comply with request. She undertakes to perform action. It is possible to produce language which is cohesive without being coherent as discourse 10 and vice-versa. This is not to say that there is no correspondence between them: very often, and particularly in written discourse, there might be a very close correspondence between cohesion and coherence. But they remain two different aspects of linguistic organization: cohesion is the link between sentences, and coherence the link between the communicative acts which the sentence perform. Discourse and mode When one views manifestations of discourse, one immediately finds that the term discourse applies to both spoken and written language. The mode of discourse is related to the distinction between speech and writing. Mode 'has to do with the effects of the medium in which the language is transmitted' (Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad 1993:9). It is distinction between the auditory and visual medium. Although written discourse is no worse than spoken discourse, yet the latter is always considered much more important and much emphasis is laid on it. 'Some linguists go so far as to say that speech is language, and that writing is simply a reflection of speech in a different medium' (Allen and Pit Corder 1980:26). Others can give less importance to speech, but most linguists accept the fact that speech is the primary medium as it is older and more widespread than writing, and a child always learns to speak before s/he learns to write. Spoken discourse is a vast phenomenon, and all can not be anticipated in hard statistical terms of the distribution of different types of speech in people's everyday lives. If one lists at random a number of different types of speech and consider how much of each day or week people spend engaged in each one, one can only roughly guess at some sort of frequency ranking, other than to say that casual conversation is almost certainly the most frequent for most people. Some types of spoken discourse It is not an easy job to predict all types of spoken discourse because a person encounters different types of speech even within a single day. Conversations vary in their settings and degree of structuredness. Some types of speech are as follows: Telephone calls (Business and private) Classroom (Classes, lectures, tutorials, seminars) Interviews (Jobs, journalistic, in official settings) 11 Service encounters (Hotels, ticket offices, shops, etc.) Rituals (Prayers, sermons, weddings) Language-in-action (Talk accompanying doing: fixing, cooking, demonstrating, assembling, etc.) Monologues (Strangers, relatives, friends) Organizing and directing people (Work, home, in the street) One should look closely at the forms and patterns of different types of spoken discourse. Different roles and settings generate different forms and structures, and discourse analysts try to observe in natural data just what patterns occur in particular settings. Some types of written discourse Everyday people come into contact with written texts and interpret their meanings so as to get what they intend. We can never think of a literate man who never writes or tries to write something. Like spoken discourse, written discourse is also of many kinds as: Newspaper Poem Letter to/from friend Business letter Instruction leaflet Literary publication Public notice Academic article Small ads It is certain that most people will read more of the text types mentioned above than actually write them. Both spoken and written discourse perform different functions in society, use different forms, and exhibit different linguistic characteristics. Functions of written spoken discourse Spoken and written discourse make somewhat different demands related to functions that they perform. Writing has the advantage of relative permanence, which allows for record- keeping (storage function) in a form independent of the memories of those who keep the records. Written discourse can communicate over a great distance (by letters, newspapers, etc.), and to large numbers simultaneously (by publications of all kinds). The invention of 12 the tape-recorder, the telephone, the radio and television have helped to overcome the limitations of the spoken language regarding time, distance and numbers. Written discourse is not only permanent but also visible. An important consequence of this is that the writer may look over what he has already written, pause between each word with no fear of his interlocutor interrupting him. He may take his time in choosing a particular word, even looking it up in the dictionary if necessary. Written language makes possible the creation of literary works of art in ways comparable with the creation of paintings or sculpture. Speech, of course, retains functions which writing will never be able to fulfil, such as quick, direct communication with immediate feedback from the addressee. The speaker must monitor what it is that he has just said, and determine whether it matches his intentions, while he is uttering his current phrase and monitoring that, and simultaneously planning his next utterance and fitting that into the overall pattern of what he wants to say and monitoring, moreover, not only his own performance but its reception by his hearer. The view that written discourse and spoken discourse serve, in general, quite different functions in society has been forcefully propounded by scholars whose main interest lies in anthropology and sociology. Goody suggests that analytic thinking followed the acquisition of written language 'since it was the setting down of speech that enabled man clearly to separate words, to manipulate their order and to develop syllogistic forms of reasoning' (Goody 1977:11). But we can not deny the fact that speech is an everyday activity for almost everyone, whereas written discourse may not be. Nor can we state that spoken and written discourse are not complementary in function and one is more important than the other.  The form of spoken and written discourse As well as being different in function, spoken and written discourse differ in forms as a result of the difference of medium. Features of spoken discourse such as rhythm, intonation and non-linguistic noises such as sighs and laughter are absent in written discourse. Spoken discourse can also be accompanied by non-verbal communication such as gestures and facial expressions because speech is typically used in a face-to-face situation. These features can not easily be conveyed by written discourse. Written discourse also has several features which spoken discourse lacks. We can include 13 punctuation, paragraphing and the capitalization of letters. In written discourse, intonation can to some extent be conveyed by punctuation, but not completely. The intonation of the sentence 'I'll buy a shirt for you from High Street' will differ according to whether the action or object or person or place is the most important idea. The different meanings, thus, implied by differences of intonation would be difficult to convey in written discourse without changing the structure of the sentence.  Linguistic characteristics of spoken and written discourse There are different linguistic characteristics of both of these discourses. Just as the differences of the function and forms of spoken and written discourse overlap one another in the same way the characteristics of these two discourses, as will be discussed, have actually some overlap between the two.  Inexplicitness In speech, people have both the auditory and visual media available, as speech is generally used in face-to-face situations. In spoken discourse, one encounters inexplicitness because of many facts such as shared knowledge of the participants, which makes explicitness unnecessary; extra information is conveyed by 'body language' (e.g. gestures, facial expressions); the immediate and intended physical environment can be referred to (e.g. by pointing to people or objects); and one has advantage of feedback from the hearer so as to make intended message clear. Pronouns such as this, that, it, are used frequently in speech, which leads to inexplicitness. In written discourse, a writer does not have the advantage of the addressee's presence, so he must be much more explicit in his process. Avoiding the above mentioned inexplicitness, written discourse also acquires explicitness with the help of clear sentence boundaries but in speech sentences may be unfinished, because the knowledge of the addressee makes completion unnecessary. Simplicity of structure Simplicity and complexity of structures are marked by the subordination of clauses and noun and adjectival phrases. How many elements the clauses or phrases contain or how many levels of subordination there are tend to mark simplicity or complexity. In written discourse, rather heavily pre-modified noun phrases are quite common – it is rare in spoken discourse. Nesting and embedding of clauses is much more found in written 14 discourse. Spoken discourse is less complex than written because of the short time available to produce and process it. Written discourse, on the other hand, can be re- drafted and re-read. Repetitiveness Since spoken discourse is less permanent, it requires more repetition than written discourse. In spoken discourse, the addressee can not easily refer back to what has gone before, so important information has to be repeated. This can be noticed, for example, in normal conversation. The category of mode with reference to spoken and written discourse, as has been discussed, has peculiar linguistic characteristics, but there can be some overlap in these characteristics, depending on what they are used for, and in what situation.  Discourse and tenor Discourse varies, as has been viewed, according to whether it is spoken or written, now discussions will be about how it varies according to factors such as who it is for, in what situation, and what kind of activity the language is being used for. Tenor 'has to do with the relationship between a speaker and the addressee(s) in a given situation, and is often characterized by greater or lesser formality' (Leech, Deuchar and Hoogenraad 1993:9). Tenor can be formal or informal, polite or familiar and impersonal or personal. If the relationship between the speaker and addressee is official and distant, for example in a legal document, the tenor will be formal, and if it is close and intimate, for example a conversation between friends, the tenor will be informal. A formal discourse will have complex sentences and polysyllabic vocabulary while in an informal discourse there will be simple sentences and monosyllabic vocabulary. The tenor of discourse will be polite if the speaker and addressee are not well known to one another, whereas it will be familiar if the speaker and the addressee are well known and intimate to one another. Politeness is of more relevance when the addressee are physically present, or when the function of the discourse is to have an effect on the addressee, as in advertising. To create politeness, one uses respectful terms of address, e.g. sir, indirect requests, e.g. would you mind…, would you be so kind as to…, etc. We use intimate terms of addressee, e.g. my love, Mary, direct imperatives, e.g. close the door, Give me…, etc. to make discourse familiar. 15 There will be impersonality if the roles of the speaker and addressee are in the background, as in written documents with no specific author or addressee, or in news broadcasts wherein neither the role of the speaker nor that of addressee is prominent. Passivisation, third person noun phrases, e.g. passengers, the reader etc. create impersonality, whereas first and second person pronouns, e.g. I, you etc. deal with personal tenor.  What Is the Connection between Pragmatics and Discourse?  In language, pragmatics and discourse are closely connected. Discourse is the method, either written or verbal, by which an idea is communicated in an orderly, understandable fashion. Used as a verb, discourse refers to the exchange of ideas or information through conversation. Comparatively, pragmatics involve the use of language to meet specific needs or for a predetermined purpose. As such, pragmatics and discourse are related in that pragmatics are the means by which the purpose of discourse is achieved.  Both pragmatics and discourse involve concepts far deeper than mere word definitions and sentence structure. Unlike grammar, which involves the rules governing proper language structure, pragmatics and discourse focus on the meaningfulness of spoken or written language. Whether storytelling, explaining, instructing, or requesting, a speaker or writer has an intended purpose for communicating. How a speaker or writer constructs sentences to meet his intended purpose involves both pragmatics and discourse.  Most adults use pragmatics in everyday conversation without thinking about it consciously.  For example, there are several ways to warn a person about the risk of burns associated with a hot surface. The process of explaining the concept must follow a logical order to be understood by listeners. A speaker might change the wording of such explanations, depending on the age and developmental ability of listeners. Determining the order of the explanation is discourse, whereas determining how to word the explanation for different audiences is pragmatics.  Pragmatics and discourse go hand-in-hand with context. Changing the language used for an audience is an integral part of pragmatics, but can easily affect context clues and thus, affect discourse. Sentences changed too much or taken out of context lose the ability to further a conversation. Without the necessary information preceding or following a particular sentence, its meaning can easily be lost. Such omissions affect the cohesiveness of a conversation or text, thus making it difficult to maintain common understandings. 16  Likewise, failure to follow the social rules of pragmatics can drastically affect discourse. Although not necessarily rules in the same sense as grammar, the rules of pragmatics include such concepts as allowing both speaker and listener time to express ideas, expanding on or rephrasing ideas to increase understanding, or choosing words to best fit the speaker's purpose. If a speaker is requesting something, for example, a poor choice of words can make the request sound more like a demand. Alternatively, complex sentence structure or an overly long explanation can undermine the purpose of discourse by making it impossible for listeners or readers to follow along.  Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation  Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow together.  Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. For example, Charles Fillmore points out that two sentences taken together as a single discourse can have meanings different from each one taken separately. To illustrate, he asks you to imagine two independent signs at a swimming pool: "Please use the toilet, not the pool," says one. The other announces, "Pool for members only." If you regard each sign independently, they seem quite reasonable. But taking them together as a single discourse makes you go back and revise your interpretation of the first sentence after you've read the second.  Discourse and Frames  'Reframing' is a way to talk about going back and re-interpreting the meaning of the first sentence. Frame analysis is a type of discourse analysis that asks, What activity are speakers engaged in when they say this? What do they think they are doing by talking in this way at this time? Consider how hard it is to make sense of what you are hearing or reading if you don't know who's talking or what the general topic is. When you read a newspaper, you need to know whether you are reading a news story, an editorial, or an advertisement in order to properly interpret the text you are reading. Years ago, when Orson Welles' radio play "The War of the Worlds" was broadcast, some listeners who tuned in late panicked, thinking they were hearing the actual end of the world. They mistook the frame for news instead of drama  17  Turn-taking  Conversation is an enterprise in which one person speaks, and another listens. Discourse analysts who study conversation note that speakers have systems for determining when one person's turn is over and the next person's turn begins. This exchange of turns or 'floors' is signaled by such linguistic means as intonation, pausing, and phrasing. Some people await a clear pause before beginning to speak, but others assume that 'winding down' is an invitation to someone else to take the floor. When speakers have different assumptions about how turn exchanges are signaled, they may inadvertently interrupt or feel interrupted. On the other hand, speakers also frequently take the floor even though they know the other speaker has not invited them to do so.  Listenership too may be signaled in different ways. Some people expect frequent nodding as well as listener feedback such as 'mhm', 'uhuh', and 'yeah'. Less of this than you expect can create the impression that someone is not listening; more than you expect can give the impression that you are being rushed along. For some, eye contact is expected nearly continually; for others, it should only be intermittent. The type of listener response you get can change how you speak: If someone seems uninterested or uncomprehending (whether or not they truly are), you may slow down, repeat, or overexplain, giving the impression you are 'talking down.' Frederick Erickson has shown that this can occur in conversations between black and white speakers, because of different habits with regard to showing listenership.  Discourse Markers  'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh', 'but', and 'and' that break our speech up into parts and show the relation between parts. 'Oh' prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but' indicates that sentence to follow is in opposition to the one before. However, these markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary says they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some people put 'but' at the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing off gently. Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers is important to prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect every word to have its dictionary meaning every time it's used. Speech Acts  Speech act analysis asks not what form the utterance takes but what it does. Saying "I now pronounce you man and wife" enacts a marriage. Studying speech acts such as complimenting allows discourse analysts to ask what counts as a compliment, who gives compliments to whom, and what other function they can serve. For example, linguists have observed that women are more likely both to give compliments and to get them. 18 There are also cultural differences; in India, politeness requires that if someone compliments one of your possessions, you should offer to give the item as a gift, so complimenting can be a way of asking for things. An Indian woman who had just met her son's American wife was shocked to hear her new daughter-in-law praise her beautiful saris. She commented, "What kind of girl did he marry? She wants everything!" By comparing how people in different cultures use language, discourse analysts hope to make a contribution to improving cross-cultural understanding. Speech Act Theory Speech act theory is a subfield of pragmatics that studies how words are used not only to present information but also to carry out actions. The speech act theory was introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle. It considers the degree to which utterances are said to perform locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and/or perlocutionary acts. Many philosophers and linguists study speech act theory as a way to better understand human communication. "Part of the joy of doing speech act theory, from my strictly first-person point of view, is becoming more and more remindful of how many surprisingly different things we do when we talk to each other," (Kemmerling 2002). Searle's Five Illocutionary Points Philosopher J.R. Searle is responsible for devising a system of speech act categorization. "In the past three decades, speech act theory has become an important branch of the contemporary theory of language thanks mainly to the influence of [J.R.] Searle (1969, 1979) and [H.P.] Grice (1975) whose ideas on meaning and communication have stimulated research in philosophy and in human and cognitive sciences... From Searle's view, there are only five illocutionary points that speakers can achieve on propositions in an utterance, namely: the assertive, commissive, directive, declaratory and expressive illocutionary points. Speakers achieve the assertive point when they represent how things are in the world, the commissive point when they commit themselves to doing something, the directive point when they make an attempt to get hearers to do something, the declaratory point when they do things in the world at the moment of the utterance solely by virtue of saying that they do and the expressive point when they express their attitudes about objects and facts of the world (Vanderkeven and Kubo 2002). Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism "Since 1970 speech act theory has influenced...the practice of literary criticism. When applied to the analysis of direct discourse by a character within a literary work, it provides a 19 systematic...framework for identifying the unspoken presuppositions, implications, and effects of speech acts [that] competent readers and critics have always taken into account, subtly though unsystematically. Speech act theory has also been used in a more radical way, however, as a model on which to recast the theory of literature...and especially...prose narratives. What the author of a fictional work—or else what the author's invented narrator—narrates is held to constitute a 'pretended' set of assertions, which are intended by the author, and understood by the competent reader, to be free from a speaker's ordinary commitment to the truth of what he or she asserts. Within the frame of the fictional world that the narrative thus sets up, however, the utterances of the fictional characters—whether these are assertions or promises or marital vows—are held to be responsible to ordinary illocutionary commitments," (Abrams and Galt Harpham 2005). Criticisms of Speech Act Theory Although Searle's theory of speech acts has had a tremendous influence on functional aspects of pragmatics, it has also received very strong criticism. The Function of Sentences Some argue that Austin and Searle based their work principally on their intuitions, focusing exclusively on sentences isolated from the context where they might be used. In this sense, one of the main contradictions to Searle's suggested typology is the fact that the illocutionary force of a concrete speech act cannot take the form of a sentence as Searle considered it. "Rather, researchers suggest that a sentence is a grammatical unit within the formal system of language, whereas the speech act involves a communicative function separate from this." Interactional Aspects of Conversation "In speech act theory, the hearer is seen as playing a passive role. The illocutionary force of a particular utterance is determined with regard to the linguistic form of the utterance and also introspection as to whether the necessary felicity conditions—not least in relation to the speaker's beliefs and feelings—are fulfilled. Interactional aspects are, thus, neglected. However, [a] conversation is not just a mere chain of independent illocutionary forces—rather, speech acts are related to other speech acts with a wider discourse context. Speech act theory, in that it does not consider the function played by utterances in driving conversation is, therefore, insufficient in accounting for what actually happens in conversation," (Barron 2003). Locutionary, Illocutionary And Perlocutionary Acts Examples The locutionary act is the act of making an expressive meaning, extending the spoken language preceded by silence and then followed by silence or a change of speaker – also known as a locution or utterance act. Locutionary acts can be discussed in two parts: utterance acts and propositional acts. 20 An utterance act is a language that comprises of the verbal employment of units of expression such as words and sentences, where-as Propositional acts are clear and expressive with a specific definable point, as opposed to mere utterance acts, which may be meaningless sounds. Examples of Locutionary Acts 1. I warn you to stop smoking – It constitutes an expressed locutionary act because its propositional content predicates a future act – to stop smoking of the hearer – you 2. The dog is on the floor – Declarative sentence form that denotes a statement 3. Do you want some coffee? – Interrogative sentence form used to ask questions 4. Close the door – Imperative sentence form used to give direction 5. It is cold here What is Illocutionary act? In simple terms an action taken by a speaker for speaking certain words, for example actions that is promising or threatening Illocutionary acts of language in which a person is said to be doing something – such as stating, denying or asking. In an illocutionary act, it is not just the act of saying something but the act of saying something for the purpose of:  Stating an opinion, confirming or denying something  Making a prediction, a promise, request  Issuing an order or a decision  Giving an advice or permission Examples of Illocutionary Acts 1. I will see you later – we could find three different assumptions of its meaning – prediction, promise and a warning 2. I promise you to pay back – is an illocutionary act as it is communicating 3. There is too much homework in this subject – opinion 4. I will do my homework later – promise 5. Go do your homework – order What is Perlocutionary Act? A perlocutionary act of naming an action or state of mind brought about, or as a result, to say something. It is also known as a perlocutionary effect. A perlocutionary act is the result of listening to the hearer when the speaker intends to follow what he is saying. The examples of perlocutionary acts which includes persuading, convincing, scaring, enlightening, inspiring, or otherwise affecting the interlocutor. Examples of Perlocutionary Acts 1. Would you mind closing the window 21 2. Look out for a tiger in a jungle 3. I want you to remain with me 4. I don‘t want to be seen with him anymore 5. I want to convince myself of getting married Conversation Analysis (CA) "A key issue in conversation analysis," says Brian Partridge, "is the view of ordinary conversation as the most basic form of talk. For conversation analysts, conversation is the main way in which people come together, exchange information, negotiate and maintain social relations" (Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, 2012). Jim Purdum/Getty Images In sociolinguistics, conversation analysis—also called talk-in- interaction and ethnomethodology—is the study of talk produced in the course of ordinary human interactions. Sociologist Harvey Sacks (1935-1975) is generally credited with founding the discipline. Adjacency Pairs One of the most common structures to be defined through conversation analysis is the adjacency pair, which is a call and response type of sequential utterances spoken by two different people. Here are some examples: Summons/Answer  Can I please get some help over here?  I'll be right there. Offer/Refusal  Sales clerk: Do you need someone to carry your packages out?  Customer: No thanks. I've got it. Compliment/Acceptance  That's a great tie you've got on.  Thanks. It was an anniversary present from my wife. Observations on Conversation Analysis "[C]onversation analysis (CA) [is] an approach within the social sciences that aims to describe, analyze and understand talk as a basic and constitutive feature of human social life. CA is a well- developed tradition with a distinctive set of methods and analytic procedures as well as a large body of established findings... 22 "At its core, conversation analysis is a set of methods for working with audio and video recordings of talk and social interaction. These methods were worked out in some of the earliest conversation-analytic studies and have remained remarkably consistent over the last 40 years. Their continued use has resulted in a large body of strongly interlocking and mutually supportive findings." From "Conversation Analysis: An Introduction" by Jack Sidnell The Aim of Conversation Analysis "CA is the study of recorded, naturally occurring talk-in-interaction. But what is the aim of studying these interactions? Principally, it is to discover how participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, with a central focus on how sequences of action are generated. To put it another way, the objective of CA is to uncover the often tacit reasoning procedures and sociolinguistic competencies underlying the production and interpretation of talk in organized sequences of interaction." From "Conversation Analysis" by Ian Hutchby and Robin Wooffitt Spoken English: Conversation Analysis Introduction In the lecture I talked briefly about the ethnomethodological roots of conversation analysis, the idea of the design of talk and its joint construction. The following quotation is a reminder of this relationship: Related to the accountability of behaviour in interaction is the ethnomethodological notion of the ‗architecture of intersubjectivity‘, the means by which individuals participating in the same interaction can reach a shared interpretation of its constituent activities and of the rules to which they are designed to conform. Taylor & Cameron 1987:103 I also pointed out that although the link between ethnomethodology and conversation analysis is a strong one, subsequent developments have seen differences emerge between conversation analysis and applied conversation analysis (usually synonymous with the analysis of institutional talk). Our interest is likely to be in the area of the latter, usefully summed up in Heritage‘s list of ‗six basic places to probe the ‗institutionality‘ of interaction‘: 1. Turn-taking organization. 2. Overall structural organization of the interaction. 3. Sequence organization. 4. Turn design. 5. Lexical choice. 6. Epistemological and other forms of asymmetry. 23 (Heritage1997:164) Even if you are not interested in CA as such, there seem to me to be two good reasons why you should at least familiarise yourself with its approach to analysis: 1. Many of the descriptive concepts used by CA (e.g. turn-taking, repair) have now entered the mainstream. 2. Its approach to analysis is the most painstaking and fine-grained of any available, so it provides an excellent means of developing and honing your analytical skills Four basic rules for CA As we‘ll see in the Friday workshop, CA analysis is a painstaking business and it‘s not easy to sum up the process in a few well chosen points. However, the following four basic rules should always be adhered to: 1. Use naturally occurring data This is the most basic condition of research: invented data is never used, even for the purposes of illustration. Sacks emphasises the point repeatedly: ‗the kind of phenomena I deal with are always transcriptions of actual occurrences in their actual sequence‘ (1984:25; see also 1985:13). Atkinson and Heritage (1984:2) are more emphatic: ‗Within conversation analysis there is an insistence on the use of materials collected from naturally occurring occasions of everyday interaction by means of audio- and video-recording equipment or film.‘ 2. Move from observation to hypothesis Conversation analysis is not hypothesis testing. The analyst‘s aim is to treat the talk as something fresh, something to be approached in its own terms. Sacks argued that ‗using observation for theorizing‘ has certain advantages: Treating some actual conversation in an unmotivated way, that is, giving some consideration to whatever can be found in any particular conversation we happen to have our hands on, subjecting it to investigation in any direction that can be produced from it, can have strong payoffs … Recurrently, what stands as a solution to some problem emerges from unmotivated examination of some piece of data, where, had we started out with a specific interest in the problem, it would not have been supposed in the first instance that this piece of data was a resource with which to consider, and come up with a solution for, that particular problem. Sacks 1984:27 3. Rule nothing out This derives directly from the first two points and might therefore be subsumed under them. Atkinson and Heritage (1984:4) make the point well: ‗nothing that occurs in interaction can be ruled out, a priori, as random, insignificant, or irrelevant.‘ 4. Focus on sequences Conversation is jointly constructed, and if we are to understand the ‗architecture of intersubjectivity‘ we must treat each utterance in the context of its response to what has gone 24 before and its relevance to what follows. ‗For conversation analysts, therefore, it is sequences and turns within sequences, rather than isolated sentences or utterances, that have become the primary units of analysis.‘ (Atkinson and Heritage 1984:5) Critical discourse analysis Level of What is analyzed? communication Vocabulary Words and phrases can be analyzed for ideological associations, formality, and euphemistic and metaphorical content. Grammar The way that sentences are constructed (e.g., verb tenses, active or passive construction, and the use of imperatives and questions) can reveal aspects of intended meaning. Structure The structure of a text can be analyzed for how it creates emphasis or builds a narrative. Genre Texts can be analyzed in relation to the conventions and communicative aims of their genre (e.g., political speeches or tabloid newspaper articles). Non-verbal Non-verbal aspects of speech, such as tone of voice, pauses, gestures, and sounds like communication ―um‖, can reveal aspects of a speaker‘s intentions, attitudes, and emotions. Conversational The interaction between people in a conversation, such as turn-taking, interruptions and codes listener response, can reveal aspects of cultural conventions and social roles. How to do a discourse analysis Here are ten work steps that will help you conduct a systematic and professional discourse analysis. 1) Establish the context Before you start chiselling away at your source material, jot down where the material comes from and how it fits into the big picture. You should ask yourself what the social and historical context is in which each of your sources was produced. Write down what language your source is written in, what country and place it is from, who wrote it (and when), and who published it (and when). Also try to have a record of when and how you got your hands on your sources, and to explain where others might find copies. Finally, find out whether your sources 25 are responses to any major event, whether they tie into broader debates, and how they were received at the time of publication. 2) Explore the production process You have already recorded who wrote and published your sources, but you still need to do a more thorough background check. Try to find additional information on the producer of your source material, as well as their institutional and personal background. For example, if you are analysing news articles, take a look at the kind of newspaper that the articles are from (Jäger 2004: 175): Who are the author and the editorial staff, what is the general political position of the paper, and what is its affiliation with other organizations? Are any of the people who are involved in the production process known for their journalistic style or their political views? Once you have established the institutional background, take notes on the medium and the genre you are working with. Some scholars go as far to argue that ―the medium is the message‖ (McLuhan 1964/2001), or in other words that the medium in which information is presented is the crucial element that shapes meaning. While I am skeptical of such extreme technological determinism, I do agree that the medium matters: reading an article online is not the same as reading it in a printed newspaper, or in a hardcover collection of essays. Make sure to identify the different media types in which your source appeared, and to also be clear about the version that you yourself are analysing. For instance, the layout of a newspaper article and its position on the page will be different in a print edition than in an online edition. The latter will also offer comments, links, multi-media content, etc. All of these factors frame the meaning of the actual text and should be considered in an analysis. This may also mean that you should think about the technical quality and readability of your source, for instance by looking at paper quality (or resolution for online sources), type set, etc. You should also take notes on the length of your source (number of pages and/or words) and any additional features of the medium that might contribute to or shape meaning (such as images). Finally, ask yourself what genre your source belongs to. Are you analysing an editorial comment, and op-ed, a reader‘s letter, a commentary, a news item, a report, an interview, or something else? Establishing this background information will later help you assess what genre- specific mechanism your source deploys (or ignores) to get its message across. 3) Prepare your material for analysis In order to analyse the actual text, it is wise to prepare it in a way that will allow you to work with the source, home in on specific details, and make precise references later. If you are working with a hard copy I would recommend making a number of additional copies of your source material, so that you can write on these versions and mark important features. If you haven‘t already, try to digitize your source or get a digital copy. Then add references that 26 others can use to follow your work later: add numbers for lines, headers, paragraphs, figures, or any other features that will help you keep your bearings. 4) Code your material When you code data, it means that you are assigning attributes to specific units of analysis, such as paragraphs, sentences, or individual words. Think of how many of us tag online information like pictures, links, or articles. Coding is simply an academic version of this tagging process. For instance, you might be analysing a presidential speech to see what globalization discourse it draws from. It makes sense to mark all statements in the speech that deal with globalization and its related themes (or discourse strands). Before you start with this process, you need to come up with your coding categories. The first step is to outline a few such categories theoretically: based on the kind of question you are asking, and your knowledge of the subject matter, you will already have a few key themes in mind that you expect to find, for instance ―trade‖, ―migration‖, ―transportation‖, ―communication‖, and so on. A thorough review of the secondary literature on your topic will likely offer inspiration. Write down your first considerations, and also write down topics that you think might be related to these key themes. These are your starting categories. You then go over the text to see if it contains any of these themes. Take notes on the ones that are not included, since you may have to delete these categories later. Other categories might be too broad, so try breaking them down into sub-categories. Also, the text may include interesting themes that you did not expect to find, so jot down any such additional discourse strands. At the end of this first review, revise your list of coding categories to reflect your findings. If you are working with several documents, repeat the process for each of them, until you have your final list of coding categories. This is what Mayring (2002: 120) calls evolutionary coding, since your categories evolve from theoretical considerations into a full-fledged operational list based on empirical data. 5) Examine the structure of the text Now that you have prepared your materials and have coded the discourse strands, it is time to look at the structural features of the texts. Are there sections that overwhelmingly deal with one discourse? Are there ways in which different discourse strands overlap in the text? See if you can identify how the argument is structured: does the text go through several issues one by one? Does it first make a counter-factual case, only to then refute that case and make the main argument? You should at this point also consider how the headers and other layout features guide the argument, and what role the introduction and conclusion play in the overall scheme of things. 27 6) Collect and examine discursive statements Once you have a good idea of the macro-features of your text, you can zoom in on the individual statements, or discourse fragments. A good way to do this is to collect all statements with a specific code, and to examine what they have to say on the respective discourse strand. This collection of statements will allow you to map out what ―truths‖ the text establishes on each major topic. 7) Identify cultural references You have already established what the context of your source material is. Now think about how the context informs the argument. Does your material contain references to other sources, or imply knowledge of another subject matter? What meaning does the text attribute to such other sources? Exploring these questions will help you figure out what function intertextuality serves in light of the overall argument. 8) Identify linguistic and rhetorical mechanisms The next step in your analysis is likely going to be the most laborious, but also the most enlightening when it comes to exploring how a discourse works in detail. You will need to identify how the various statements function at the level of language. In order to do this, you may have to use additional copies of your text for each work-step, or you may need to create separate coding categories for your digital files. Here are some of the things you should be on the lookout for:  Word groups: does the text deploy words that have a common contextual background? For instance, the vocabulary may be drawn directly from military language, or business language, or highly colloquial youth language. Take a closer look at nouns, verbs, and adjectives in your text and see if you find any common features. Such regularities can shed light on the sort of logic that the text implies. For example, talking about a natural disaster in the language of war creates a very different reasoning than talking about the same event in religious terms.  Grammar features: check who or what the subjects and objects in the various statements are. Are there any regularities, for instance frequently used pronouns like ―we‖ and ―they‖? If so, can you identify who the protagonists and antagonists are? A look at adjectives and adverbs might tell you more about judgements that the text passes on these groups. Also, take a closer look at the main and auxiliary verbs that the text uses, and check what tense they appear in. Particularly interesting are active versus passive phrases – does the text delete actors from its arguments by using passive phrases? A statement like ―we are under economic pressure‖ is very different from ―X puts us under economic pressure‖… particularly if ―X‖ is self-inflicted. Passive phrases and impersonal chains of nouns are a common way to obscure relationships behind the text and shirk responsibility. Make such strategies visible through your analysis.  Rhetorical and literary figures: see if you can identify and mark any of the following five elements in your text: allegories, metaphors, similes, idioms, and proverbs. Take a look at 28 how they are deployed in the service of the overall argument. Inviting the reader to entertain certain associations, for instance in the form of an allegory, helps construct certain kinds of categories and relations, which in turn shape the argument. For instance, if I use a simile that equates the state with a parent, and the citizens with children, then I am not only significantly simplifying what is actually a very complex relationship, I am also conjuring up categories and relationships that legitimize certain kinds of politics, for instance strict government intervention in the social sphere. Once you have checked for the five elements listed above, follow up by examining additional rhetorical figures to see how these frame the meaning of specific statements. Things to look for include parallelisms, hyperboles, tri-colons, synecdoches, rhetorical questions, and anaphora, to name only the most common.  Direct and indirect speech: does the text include quotes? If so, are they paraphrased or are they cited as direct speech? In either case, you should track down the original phrases to see what their context was, and what function they now play in your source material.  Modalities: see if the text includes any statements on what ―should‖ or ―could‖ be. Such phrases may create a sense of urgency, serve as a call to action, or imply hypothetical scenarios.  Evidentialities: lastly, are there any phrases in the text that suggest factuality? Sample phrases might include ―of course‖, ―obviously‖, or ―as everyone knows‖. A related question then is what kinds of ―facts‖ the text actually presents in support of its argument. Does the text report factuality, actively demonstrate it, or merely suggested it as self- evident? One of the strongest features of discourse is how it ―naturalizes‖ certain statements as ―common sense‖ or ―fact‖, even if the statements are actually controversial (and in discourse theory, all statements are controversial). Be on the look-out for such discursive moves. 9) Interpret the data You now have all the elements of your analysis together, but the most important question still remains: what does it all mean? In your interpretation, you need to tie all of your results together in order to explain that the discourse is about, and how it works. This means combing your knowledge of structural features and individual statements, and then placing those findings into the broader context that you established at the beginning. Throughout this process, keep the following questions in mind: who created the material you are analysing? What is their position on the topic you examined? How do their arguments draw from and in turn contribute to commonly accepted knowledge of the topic at the time and in the place that this argument was made? And maybe most importantly: who might benefit from the discourse that your sources construct? Conversational Implicature The philosopher HP Grice first suggested that in conversation we often convey information beyond that which we say and that this added meaning is inferred and predictable. He referred to this as 'conversational implicature'. 29 Since Grice's initial proposal and work, conversational implicatures have become one of the major research areas in pragmatics. Conversational Implicature: Examples Conversational Implicature is also known as Implication: this happens when the speaker says something that requires interpretation and is an indirect way of saying something. For instance, a mother says to her daughter who is about to go to the beach: 'Better put some sunscreen on before you go.' From this we understand: 'I t is hot and sunny outside, so you might get sunburned '. A couple of housemates are getting ready to go to a party; one of them asks the other: 'Are you going to be much longer?' To which the other replies: 'You can mix yourself another drink.' In the question, the implied meaning could be: 'It's time to go / We're going to be late / What is taking you so long?' In the answer, the implied meaning could be: 'I don't know, maybe / I will be ready soon, you have time for another drink.' These are indirect exchanges, where the original information or query is 'encoded'; by doing this, we imply something (which means we don't explicitly state it). Exchanges like this rely on context, situation, and inferences to be understood. We use conversational implicature to supplement what we say; it also offers us a discreet way of supplying sensitive information. Have a look at the following two exchanges: A and B are in the sitting room, with the TV on. Neither of them is watching. A asks B: Are you watching this? B responds by changing channels on the TV. In the question 'Are you watching this?' A communicates one or more of the following: 'I am bored with this programme/neither of us is watching, so why not change it? A doesn't explicitly say either of these things - it is implied. 30 Based on the situation and the inferences B can make from A, B deduces that A is in fact asking for the TV to be switched off. So A's question is an example of implicature. When we ask questions, we often are wanting to know something else. Here, the speaker want's to know if he can change the channel. C: I need to get some breakfast. D: There's a baker's just around the corner. C, a newcomer to the area, needs to find something to eat; D's reply at first glance might seem irrelevant or unconnected. We (and C if he wants to get his breakfast) need to use our powers of inference to understand that D is showing us where to get essentials for breakfast. Some more examples: A: Have some cake? B: Thanks, but I'm gluten intolerant. (So I won't have any cake) A: Where can I get fresh fruit here? B: There's a daily market in the square. (You can buy fresh fruit there) A: Do you have a rolling pin I can borrow? B: Sorry, I don't bake. (So I don't have a rolling pin) Gricean Theory Let's look a little closer at Grice's Theory of Conversational Implicature. Grice was the first to properly study how what a speaker says can be different from what they mean. He introduced the terms 'implication' and 'implicature' to illustrate this phenomenon. 31 Conversational maxims Grice's Theory suggests that people in conversation are guided by the Cooperative Principle and Maxims of Conversation. This means that people are expected to communicate in a cooperative, helpful way by following these maxims. There are four Maxims, which are as follows:  The Maxim of Quality, which requires us to aim for truthfulness (i.e. what you believe to be true, or have evidence for).  The Maxim of quantity says we should only be as informative as is necessary/useful for the current exchange, and no more.  The Maxim of Relation tells us to be relevant.  The Maxim of Manner requires us to be brief, clear and orderly. Quality: Zach has a doctorate in archaeology. (I believe Zach has a doctorate in archaeology and I have evidence of this) Quantity: He stayed in a forest cabin. (The cabin was not his own, or the speaker would say: 'He stayed in his forest cabin') Relation: Those cookies look good! (I would like one or more) Manner: The play ended and the audience trailed out to the bar. (By describing the events clearly, in the sequence they happened, the speaker is being clear and orderly) In a conversation, the speaker may  observe the maxims  opt-out by 'hedging', eg: - using cautious or vague language that signals hesitancy  flout a maxim, in full knowledge of the addressee Opting out or flouting the maxims are what cause conversational implicatures to arise in speech; these actions are also signalled to the addressee. A participant may be trying to follow the maxims and discover they cannot, and this can lead to a clash of maxims. Types of conversational implicature - maxim clashes It isn't always possible to follow all the maxims at the same time, which leads to a maxim clash. This is where conversational implicature comes in. Let's say a couple of friends are planning a night out on the town. X suggests a new restaurant that's just opened. Y says: Sounds good. Where is it? X: Somewhere off the high street. (X doesn't have the exact address) X's answer does not contain enough information to plan the occasion; by not having the exact information, X cannot obey either the quantity or quality maxim. By saying 'somewhere' X suggests 'I know sort of where it is - I just don't have the exact address'; this becomes an indirect answer, hence implicature. Flouting maxims can leave someone with either incorrect or not enough information. 32 A: 'Is the sun shining yet?' B: 'It might be.' B wishes to cooperate by offering some information in this exchange (so obeying the maxim of quality, i.e. striving for truthfulness - he believes the sun is out); he isn't certain, however, so he opts out of the maxim of quantity (being informative). These contrasts become a maxim clash. Hedging We might also opt out of the Cooperative Principle by using cautious or vague language; this is to let the other person know that we are not totally certain of the information we are giving. Amy is a journalist asking her colleague (Brent) for information about a famous person she is about to interview; Brent has heard something but does not have evidence, and he doesn't want to suggest something that might prove to be untrue. So Brent opens his answer with 'I'm not sure if this is true, but...'. He could also open with 'I may be wrong, but...' or 'As far as I know...' Brent is being cautious about the information he is about to share; he is hedging. This means that he is signalling to Amy that the information might not be correct and therefore should not be relied on too much. Create Conversational Implicature notes faster than ever before Flouting Conversational implicatures can also happen when a speaker clearly and intentionally violates the Maxims of Conversation, intending for this to be recognized. Let's look at what happens when the maxims of conversation are flouted: Flouted Maxim of Quality: He hit the roof when he heard the news. Saying something that is obviously false can demonstrate figures of speech such as irony, hyperbole and metaphor. In the above example, it is unlikely he was tall enough to hit the roof, or that he was propelled like a rocket to hit the roof; It is also very unlikely that the speaker was intentionally lying or mistaken - the addressee has to infer that the speaker was using a metaphor or figure of speech. Flouted maxim of quantity: It is what it is. You do what you have to do. 33 Either it is or it isn't. Saying something that appears obvious, without being informative (including tautologies), can still suggest information via implicatures. Take a look at the examples in context below: A and B have been talking about work. B ends by saying 'It is what it is.' B means here: There's nothing we can do about it/no point in complaining about it. 'You do what you have to do.' This implies that whatever someone is about to do is unpleasant but necessary. Another way to flout the quantity maxim is by damning with faint price: 'The painting had a very beautiful frame.' This suggests the painting was terrible, but the frame was nice to look at. 'The critic described the play as a good first effort.' Here the critic avoids saying there were problems with the play by focusing on the inexperience of the author. Flouted maxim of relation/relevance: In the exchange below, B's answer seems irrelevant, so A infers that B means something else: A: Glenn's a bit of a bore, isn't he? B: Have you seen Free Guy yet? (i.e. Glenn is standing behind you!) Providing unnecessary information is a form of flouting the maxim of relevance. Flouted maxim of manner: It would be quicker to say 'the food was over-cooked / burnt/inedible' than the following: 'The chef presented us with a plateful of items that might at one point in their existence have been food, but had long since given up that claim.' 34 By over-describing, the speaker avoids saying directly just how terrible the food was. Particularized versus generalized implicatures The most common conversational implicatures only happen in specific contexts and are called particularized. Many of the examples we have looked at so far require some kind of context; this makes them particularized implicatures. Other conversational implicatures can be inferred without reference to a special context and these are called generalized. Usually, the indefinite article 'a' / 'an' will imply that there is no close connection to the speaker or subject. Terry walked through a park and saw a parakeet in a tree. This shows us that Terry is unrelated to the park, the parakeet, and the tree: they could be anywhere, it could be any tree, and any parakeet. Properties Grice attributed various properties to conversational implicatures. Defeasible (cancellable) This means the implicature can be cancelled by further information or context. Take the examples from above: 'Those cookies look good! ' (I would like one or more) Now compare it with: 'Those cookies look good, but I'm on a diet.' (implicature defeated; i.e. 'I won't have any.') 35 And compare this: C: I need to get some breakfast. D: There's a baker's just around the corner. (You can get what you need there) With C: I need to get some breakfast. D: There's a baker's just around the corner. But they won't be open yet. (implicature defeated) They are usually non-detachable: This means they rely on meaning and not the wording. So you can rephrase 'Those cookies look good!' as: Those biscuits look delicious! The chocolate wafers you brought are to die for! And the implicature will remain. Here, "those look yummy" has a non-detachable implicature. They are calculable: This means they can be worked out rationally, as they are inferred and implied (and not encoded/decoded). They are non-conventional: They are not part of the literal meaning of a sentence. 36 They can be context-dependent. Conventional implicature meaning Grice also presented a theory of conventional implicature but never developed it. Conventional implicature does not rely on the cooperative principle and the four maxims; instead, it is directly attached to the literal meaning of the words being said. Let's look at a simple sentence: A) 'Tom is tall and weak.' Both parts of this statement can be true. B) 'Tom is tall but weak.' Both parts of this statement are still true, only now there is a contrast, introduced by the word 'but'. If we replace 'but' with 'and', we lose the sense of contrast. The contrast must be part of the conventional meaning of the word 'but'. At the same time, the contrast is not part of the truth condition. Therefore, statement B is not truth conditional (both statements contain truth conditions but only one contains the contrast). So this kind of conventional, but non-truth conditional, meaning is what Grice called a conventional implicature. Note: Conventional implicature uses other particles and phrases like 'but' such as "although, however, nevertheless, moreover, anyway, whereas, after all, even, yet, still, besides". 'Even Kate knew they were on holiday.' (i.e. Kate is the least likely person to have known) 'Jeremy still isn't at the gallery.' Jeremy is not at the gallery; the use of 'still' hints that he is expected there. 37 Unlike conversational implicatures, conventional implicatures are not defeasible. Certain verbs also introduce conventional implicature: 'Tom managed to get there on time.' The speaker tells us Tom got there. The conventional implicature is: he had some difficulty in getting there. 'He failed to get there.' This means he didn't get there. The conventional implicature is: he attempted to get there, but didn't succeed or, he could have got there but didn't try to. What are the differences between Conversational and Conventional Implicature? Conversational implicatures rely on the cooperative principle and the four maxims. Conventional implicatures do not rely on the cooperative principle and the four maxims; instead, they are directly attached to the literal meaning of the words being said. In conversational implicature, the speaker says one thing but means another. Conventional implicature is directly attached to the literal meaning of the words being said. Conversational implications are defeasible (they can be cancelled out by additional information). Conventional implications are not defeasible. Conversational Implicature - key takeaways 38  In conversational implicature, the speaker says one thing but means another.  Speakers use conversational implicature to convey messages that are often beyond the literal meaning.  Conversational implicature relies on context, situation, and inference.  We also use conversational implicature to supplement what we say; it also offers a discreet way of supplying sensitive information.  Conversational implicatures are also called Implications.  According to Grice, people in a conversation are guided by the Cooperative Principle and Maxims of Conversation.  The four categories of Maxims are Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner. Frequently Asked Questions about Conversational Implicature What are the three types of conversational implicature? Conversational implicature is either particularised or generalised; the third type of implicature is called conventional. What does Paul Grice mean by conversational implicature? Grice suggests we often convey information beyond that which we say and that this additional meaning is inferred and predictable. What is conversational implicature in pragmatics? Conversational implicature is a form of indirect speech: the speaker may mean more than they actually say. What is conversational implicature and its example? 39 In conversational implicature, the speaker says one thing but means another. For example, a speaker may say "it's hot in here" but actually mean 'can you open the window?' What is implication? Implication is another name for conversational implicature Difference Between Text and Discourse The main difference between text and discourse is that the text does not specify an agent whereas the discourse specifies the agent of the information. Thus, a text is necessarily non-interactive while discourse is necessarily interactive. Even though the two terms text and discourse are used interchangeably with concern to literary analytical studies, these two are two diverging subjects. This confusion arises due to the similar nature of the two in their literary analytical studies as textual analysis and discourse analysis. What is a Text A text includes some information, specifically in the written form or printed form. Thus, it is noteworthy that the agent of a text is not crucial: there may or may not be an agent. And the agent has no direct impact of the content to the reader. For example, consider the text in a subject 40 textbook, an essay, or a press release where the information is merely reported with or without an agent or the speaker. The information present in a text is usually non-interactive, or it does not contain an indication of conversational speech. Thus, the reader only reads and becomes aware of the facts presents. As defined by the Linguistic glossary terms, text is ―a sequence of paragraphs that represents an extended unit of speech.‖ Therefore, the grammatical cohesion is a fundamental factor in a text. In order to analyze the content of a text, one should be aware of the linguistic and grammatical categories of the language, and the information provided according to the meaning, grammatical devices used, structure, meaning, etc. Therefore, by analyzing the overall structure of the text, one is able to grasp the meaning of the text. Thus, textual analysis, in brief, is the analysis of these grammatically cohesive sentences, imparting some information. However, in literary studies, there are several text types: narrative texts, descriptive texts, expository texts, etc. in which discourse can be included as well. What is Discourse A discourse is necessarily interactive, which means there is always an agent to the information in discourse. In simple terms, discourse is often conversational communications between people. Therefore, under linguistics and literary theory, discourse is defined as ―a social event of multi- layered communication in a variety of media: verbal, textual, visual and audial, that has an interactive social purpose.‖ Thus, interactive quality is a primary requirement in discourse. In other words, the existence of an agent to the information defines what discourse means. Therefore, unlike a text, a discourse can have cohesive sentences as well as utterances of the communicating agents. In other words, discourse depicts the usage of language in for social purposes. This is the basic difference between text and discourse. Therefore, to analyze a discourse, one should study the persons or the agents involved in the communication (who to whom), the purpose of them (the social purpose), and medium used (verbal, written, audio or visual). Thus, to grasp the meaning of discourse, one should analyze all these three basic elements in the discourse. Similarity Between Text and Discourse  Both text and discourse usually consist of sentences which communication information. Difference Between Text and Discourse Definition Text is usually a written form of communication information, which is a non-interactive nature. In contrast, discourse can be from spoken, written, visual and audial form, communicating information that is interactive in nature. 41 Agent The agent is not crucial for the text. However, the agent is crucial, and it is that what makes up a discourse. This is the main difference between text and discourse. Nature Also, the text is non-interactive in nature; on the contrary, discourse is interactive in nature. Analysis Parts In a text, the grammatical cohesion and the structure of sentences are analyzed whereas, in discourse, the agents involved in the communication, the social purpose and the medium utilized are analyzed to comprehend the meaning of it. This is an important difference between text and discourse. Medium or Form Furthermore, the text is usually in written form whereas discourse can be either in written, verbal, visual or audio form. Examples Examples of texts include press reports, street signs, documents, etc. whereas discourse can be dialogues, conversations, interactions in audio-visual programmes, etc, anything that depicts the social usage of the language. 42

Discourse Analysis PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue