Discourse analysis

Why formal links are not enough?

 Formal links reinforce the unity of discourse, but they cannot create them alone.
 It would be a mistake to suppose that formal links, and nothing else, create the
unity between these sentences. We can see this clearly if we replace the third
sentence with another, so that the sequence reads:

A. It’s a mystery to me, how the conjuror sawed that woman in half.
B. Well, Jane was the woman he did it to. So presumably she must be
Japanese.

Here, there are also formal links (so, she, etc.) but the sequence makes no sense.
Of course, they might form part of a discourse, and if we stretch our imaginations
we could come up with a situation in which they do ; but this will not be by virtue
of the words “so” and “she”, but of some other information about the context.

 So this show that Formal links between sentences are not enough to account for
our feeling that a stretch of language is discourse.
 In spoken language formal links are not important even some sentences are
completely lack of them but still they make complete sense
 Let’s see another example:

The speaker A says: “the window is open.”

Speaker B may answer with different responses depending on the situational
context, four possible answer of the example below:

1. Go back to sleep, will you?

2. Don’t worry.
3. My job’s staking boxes, mate.
4. by love, Holmes! It was the gardener!
On the bases of contexts these response make complete sense even without using
cohesive devices.
This shows that in real life, context is more important than cohesive devices.
One way of doing this is to look behind the literal, formal meaning of what is said
or written, and to consider what the sender of a message intends to achieve with
it, to try to understand its function.
How meaning is created and understood?
Pragmatics, the science concerned with the study of meaning looks behind the literal, formal
meaning of what is said or written, and considers what the sender of a message intends to
achieve with it.
It tries to understand its function. It has, consequently, more to do with the analysis of what
people mean by their utterances than with what those words or phrases might mean by
themselves.
In order to discover how such inferences are made, we will need
• firstly to examine the range of possible functions of language, and
• secondly to try to understand how people correctly interpret them. Understanding this
connection between the form and the function of the language, will help us to explain
how stretches of language, can be coherent without being cohesive

A sentence conveys a complete meaning through a combination of clauses, an utterance conveys

a meaning through a few words that may not even compile a clause.
The function of language is
 to send information
 to tell other people your thoughts
 to convey your feelings
 others
According to Cook language has more function than simply conveying information. People are
not as simplistic as this; even a moment of reflection leads to the conclusion that language has
many more functions.
The referential function: corresponds to the factor of Context and describes a situation, object or
mental state.
How people understand each other depends upon referential function of language:
How people perceive the language
How they understand the different functions of language
 In order to understand the language in a culture its referential function are also need to be
learn.
 Every language has its own referential functions.
The classification of macro-functions
Macro-functions

Elements of communication
The addresser: The person who originates the message. This is usually the same as the person
who is sending the message, but not always, as in the case of messengers, spokespeople, and
town criers.
The addressee: The person to whom the message is addressed. This is usually the person who
receives the message, but not necessarily so, as in the case of intercepted letters, bugged
telephone calls, and eaves dropping.
The channel: The medium through which the message travels: sound waves, marks on paper,
telephone wires, word processor screens.
The message form: The particular grammatical and lexical choices of the message.
The topic: The information carried in the message. Basically, what the message is about.
The code: The language or dialect, for example, Swedish, Yorkshire, English, Semaphore,
British Sign Language, Japanese.
The setting: The social or physical context.

Macro-functions
After decoding the elements of communication, Macro-functions are then established, each
focusing attention upon one element:

1. The motive function: communicating inner states and emotions of the addresser.
2. The directive function: seeking to affect the behavior of the addressee.
3. The phatic function: opening the channel or checking that it is working. The use of such
phrases as ‘nice day today’, or ‘how do you do’ is characterized by lack of any
informative content and is intended to link people and make the coexistence peaceful and
pleasant. The phatic use of language is characteristic mainly of speech, however, in
certain types of writing it can also be noticed, as in letters for example, where the
beginning Dear Sir/Madam and ending Yours faithfully also serve that purpose.
4. The poetic function: in which the particular form chosen is the essence of the message.
Here, the word poetic does not refer to the ability to write poetry, but the ability to
manipulate language in a creative way. With the use of jokes and metaphors we can play
with words and meanings simply for joy.
5. The referential function: carrying information.
 6. The metalinguistic function: focusing attention upon the code itself, to clarify it or
renegotiated it. All we are reading right now has a largely metalinguistic function.
7. The contextual function: creating a particular kind of communication.

Micro functions and functional language teaching

Macro-functions are subdivide into more delicate categories called micro-functions. Micro
function has following types
1. Physiological function (releasing physical and nervous energy)’ curse words are used to
serve this purpose, as they rarely convey any meaning and are only to make the speaker feel
better. E.g. Fans of sport
2. Phatic function (for sociability)
The phatic use of language is characteristic mainly of speech, however, in certain types of
writing it can also be noticed, as in letters for example, where the beginning Dear Sir/Madam and
ending Yours faithfully also serve that purpose
3. Recording function
Recording function denotes using language to make a durable record of things that ought to be
remembered
4. Identifying function
Language is used also to identify the objects and events in the world we live in. We use names to
classify different types of things, whether we call a car an automobile, a lorry, a van or a truck
makes a big difference
5. Reasoning function (instrument of thought)
Before we say something we think and to do that we necessarily use language.
6. Communicating function
'This function would probably be pointed at by most language users without major consideration.
Requesting, apologizing, informing, ordering as well as promising and refusing are all reasons
for communicating our ideas.
7. Pleasure functions
Language often gives pleasure both to the speakers and listeners is not only supported by the
frequent use of assonance, alliteration and onomatopoeia in poetry. Depending on the sounds of
languages some are perceived as being mild as English.
Functions of utterances
• Types of meaning
 • Time free
• Place free
• Types of meaning are distinguished by
• Semantic meaning (fixed context free meaning)
• Pragmatic meaning (particular context with particular people)
• Divergence of function and form of semantics and pragmatics
• How? And why?
• What is meant from what is said

Cooperative principle of conversation

A cooperative principle of conversation is subdivided into four sub-principles, called maxims by
the English language philosopher Paul Grice (1975). According to Grice speakers and hearers
share the cooperative principle. Speakers shape their utterances to be understood by hearers.
Grice analyzes cooperation as involving four maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
Speakers give enough and not too much information: quantity. They are genuine and sincere,
speaking "truth" or facts: quality. Utterances are relative to the context of the speech: relation.
Speakers try to present meaning clearly and concisely, avoiding ambiguity: manner.
MAXIMS DEFINITIONS
Quality response is relevant to topic of discussion
Quantity speaker's avoids ambiguity or obscurity, is direct and straightforward
Relation speaker tells the truth or provable by adequate evidence
Manner speaker is as informative as required

Following the Rules/Maxims

When the rules are followed it is very easy for people to understand each other. What people say
is explicit, direct, and to the point. People say what they mean.

Noticeably Breaking the Rules/Maxims

These rules, however, are useful even when they are broken.
If a speaker breaks the rules in a way that is noticeable (called "flouting"),
We try to figure out why it happened - "...why did she say that?"
The following examples show how this works:
If someone asks you, “How much did your house cost?” and you respond by saying “Enough” -
well, hopefully they will get the point ("It's none of your business.")

This is how we imply meaning – we say things without actually having to say them by breaking
Grice’s rules overtly (out in the open).

Politeness principle
• Don’t impose
• Give options
• Make your receiver feel good

The social basis of conversational principle

• To act differently together
• Create and maintain social relationship

The Speech Act

Doing things with language
Action performed by an utterance called speech acts
John Austin in his book “how to do things with words” is the first to introduce the idea of speech
acts, analyzing the relationship between utterance and performance.
Getting a glass of water is an action, and asking someone else to get you one is also an act.
This concept underlies the Speech Act Theory. The implication is that when we speak, our words
do not have meaning in themselves. They are very much affected by the situation, the speaker
and the listener. Thus, words alone do not have a simple fixed meaning.

Three related acts of speech:

Locutionary act: saying something (the locution) with a certain meaning in traditional sense.
This may not constitute a speech act. If a person has difficulties in producing sounds and words
to create a meaningful expression, in a foreign language, for instance, because of insufficient
knowledge of this language, then the person might fail to produce a locutionary act.
Illocutionary act: the performance of an act in saying something (vs. the general act of saying
something). The illocutionary force is the speaker's intent. A true 'speech act'. E.g. informing,
ordering, warning, undertaking.
Perlocutionary acts: Speech acts that have an effect on the feelings, thoughts or actions of either
the speaker or the listener. In other words, they seek to change minds.
Searle (1969) identified five illocutionary/Perlocutionary points:

1. Assertive: statements may be judged true or false because they aim to describe a state of
affairs in the world.
2. Directives: statements attempt to make the other person's actions fit the propositional content.
3. Commissives: statements which commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the
propositional content.
4. Expressive: statements that express the “sincerity condition of the speech act”.
5. Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world by “representing it as having been
changed”.

The meaning of an utterance is defined more by convention than the initiative of the reader.
When we speak, we are following learned rules.
Felicity conditions
• The sender believes the action should be done
• The receiver has the ability to do the action
• The receiver has the obligation to do the action
• The sender has the right to tell the receiver to do the action

Pragmatics and discourse analysis

The importance of pragmatic theories in language learning is really twofold.
Firstly the divergence of function and form means that we cannot rely upon teaching only form.
In production, learners need to choose the words which most suitable realize their intention, and
this does not always entail the most closely related form; in reception of language, given the
human penchant for indirection, they also need to be able to move from the form to the function.
There are times when making the language function effectively is more important than producing
perfectly pronounced, grammatically correct sentences.
Secondly, the linking of form to function may help learners to originate themselves within a
discourse. All learners of a foreign language are familiar with the disturbing sensation of
understanding every word, and the literal meaning, but somehow missing the point. The
underlying Linguistics structure of the discourse may be a progression of functional units, and a
breakdown in pragmatic interpretation may easily lead to a learner losing his or her way. We
shall need to go further in examining how functional units interact to create discourse, and how
the learner may be guided through them.