Discourse analysis examines language use beyond the sentence level, especially dialogue and interaction between speakers in social contexts. It analyzes how context influences meaning. Pragmatics studies how context allows inferences about meaning during interactions. Politeness theory examines how social factors like status and relationships influence language use through maxims like being polite, giving options, and not imposing. Conversation analysis looks at turn-taking patterns and how interruptions and overlaps provide meaning. Ethnography of speaking analyzes communicative events and speech communities through frameworks considering topics, participants, and cultural norms.
Discourse analysis examines language use beyond the sentence level, especially dialogue and interaction between speakers in social contexts. It analyzes how context influences meaning. Pragmatics studies how context allows inferences about meaning during interactions. Politeness theory examines how social factors like status and relationships influence language use through maxims like being polite, giving options, and not imposing. Conversation analysis looks at turn-taking patterns and how interruptions and overlaps provide meaning. Ethnography of speaking analyzes communicative events and speech communities through frameworks considering topics, participants, and cultural norms.
Discourse analysis examines language use beyond the sentence level, especially dialogue and interaction between speakers in social contexts. It analyzes how context influences meaning. Pragmatics studies how context allows inferences about meaning during interactions. Politeness theory examines how social factors like status and relationships influence language use through maxims like being polite, giving options, and not imposing. Conversation analysis looks at turn-taking patterns and how interruptions and overlaps provide meaning. Ethnography of speaking analyzes communicative events and speech communities through frameworks considering topics, participants, and cultural norms.
Discourse analysis examines language use beyond the sentence level, especially dialogue and interaction between speakers in social contexts. It analyzes how context influences meaning. Pragmatics studies how context allows inferences about meaning during interactions. Politeness theory examines how social factors like status and relationships influence language use through maxims like being polite, giving options, and not imposing. Conversation analysis looks at turn-taking patterns and how interruptions and overlaps provide meaning. Ethnography of speaking analyzes communicative events and speech communities through frameworks considering topics, participants, and cultural norms.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 14
Discourse Analysis
GROUP 10
HABIBATUL AMRI 18018096
HANIFATUL HUSNI 18018098 IFANI RAMADHANI 18018099 SANIA TRICAHYATI 18018106 What is discourse Analysis?
Stubbs (1983:1)
• Discourse is language about sentence level.
• Discourse analysis is concerned with language use in
social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers.
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
1. Pragmatics and Politeness Theory
What is Pragmatics?
Context is clearly crucial in interpreting what is meant, and pragmatics
extends the analysis of meaning beyond grammar and word meaning to the relationship between the participants and the background knowledge they bring to a situation. Pragmatics is concerned with the analysis of meaning in interaction.
According to Fasold (1993) pragmatics is a study of the use of context to
make inferences about meaning. It is another broad approach to discourse. Now-days pragmatics has a broader discussion, for example ethnography of communication, some psycholinguistics aspects, moreover discourse analysis included also.
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
Pragmatics and Politeness Theory Conversational maxims and implicatures
Politeness, entails taking account of social factors, such as how well you know somebody, what their social role or relative status is in relation to yours, and the kind of social context in which you are interacting. Robin Lakoff, an American pragmatics researcher who has been called ‘the mother of modern politeness theory’ introduced three rules of politeness :
1. Don’t impose e.g. use modals and hedges: I wonder if I might just open the window a little
2. Give options e.g. use interrogatives including tag questions: do you mind if I open the window? it would be nice to have the window open a little wouldn’t it? Be friendly e.g. use informal expressions, endearments: e.g. Be a honey and open the window darling
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
Pragmatics and Politeness Theory
Conversational implicatures
Conversational implicatures are the assumptions suggested by the speaker
and inferred by the hearer in an exchange situation.
• e.g. A : Are you going to John’s party? B : I have heard Mary is going.
• Conventional Implicatures not based on the cooperative principle or maxim. not depend on special contexts It is associated with specific words
e.g. • “Mary is crying but she is glad”. • The sentence “A but B” will be based on the relationship between A and B and an implicature between the information in A and B. “Mary is crying is contrast to “she is glad” .
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
Sociolinguistics and politeness
Politeness theory has come in for a good deal of criticism in recent
years, especially from sociolinguists. Researchers studying Asian cultures, for instance, point to evidence of Western bias in what is categorized as linguistically polite, as opposed to required conventional behaviour. The use of address forms and honorifics, in languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean, is typically a matter of social convention or linguistic etiquette, rather than strategic choice.
Respect or deference is encoded in certain linguistic forms which are
required when talking to one’s elders or those of higher status, for instance. While such features are typically optional in Western languages, they are entirely predictable on the basis of the social characteristics of the participants in many Asian languages
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
Ethnography of Speaking
Insiders and outsiders
Another distinction which is highlighted by an ethnography of speaking or communication approach is the role of the researcher as an insider or an outsider in a community. There has been a great deal of discussion in sociolinguistics about the relative advantages of researching a culture from the inside, as a member of a community, as opposed to coming into a com- munity as a researcher from outside.
Early sociolinguists and anthropological linguists were typically
outsiders in the cultures they researched and described. This had some advantages since it was often easier to identify ways of speaking and rules of interaction that contrasted with those they were familiar with. Researchers noticed when there was a silence where they expected to hear talk, for example, and vice versa; they noticed restrictions on speaking rights which differed from those in their own societies, and so on.
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
The framework that Hymes developed for the analysis of communicative events involved the following components:
• Genre or type of event: e.g. phone call, conversation, business meeting, lesson, interview, blog • Topic or what people are talking about: e.g. holidays, sport, sociolinguistics, politics • Purpose or function: the reasons for the talk: e.g. to plan an event, to catch up socially, to teach something, to persuade someone to help you • Setting : where the talk takes place: e.g. at home, in classroom, in an office • Key or emotional tone: e.g. serious, jocular, sarcastic • Participants : characteristics of those present and their relationship: sex, age, social status, role and role relationship: e.g. mother–daughter, teacher–pupil, TV interviewer, interviewee and audience • Message form , code and/or channel: e.g. telephone, letter, email, language and language variety, non-verbal • Message content or specific details of what the communication is about: e.g. organizing a time for a football match, describing how a tap works • Act sequence or ordering of speech acts: e.g. greetings, meeting turn-taking rules, ending a telephone conversation • Rules for interaction or prescribed orders of speaking: e.g. who must speak first, who must respond to the celebrant at a wedding, who closes a business meeting • Norms for interpretation of what is going on: : e.g. that how are you does not require a detailed response in most Western English speaking societies, that it is polite to refuse the first offer of more food in some cultures. Ethnography of Speaking
- The speech community
Is any groups of speaker that shares a linguistic code and rules
for interpreting that code. E.g: The Indian community in Methnab, The Egyptian community in Onizah
- Speech Styles
Are the linguistic options available to the specch community.
Saudis, for example have a choice of two major varieties – a local dialect and the standard arabic. By contrast, Americans have a choice not between major varieties but between five different degrees of formality within the one standard language.
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
Interactional Sociolinguistics Contextualization cues Contextualization cues signal con-textual presuppositions, i.e. knowledge that the speaker assumes the listener has already or information that they can work out for themselves by paying attention to features of the context. Contextualization cues thus allow participants to infer the most likely interpretation of an utterance. They may take a range of forms.
Miscommunication When people from different language or even different dialect backgrounds interact, clashes between discourse norms are possible, with a risk of miscommunication. Using an interactional sociolinguistics approach, we can look for clues to help interpret what speakers intended to communicate in the specific context of their talk. Conversation Analysis (CA)
Preferred and dis-preferred second pair parts
. Side sequences appear to challenge the claim that an invitation is followed by an acceptance (preferred response) or a refusal (dis-preferred response), but on closer examination they prove to be simply another regular pattern within what CA researchers call the ‘systematics’ of the organization of turn-taking in everyday conversation. The pattern is still evident; it is just more complex.
Conversational feedback
Adjacency pairs are one aspect of the systematics of turn-taking which is a
focus of CA. Attention to conversational feedback is another. At times in a conversation, one person may hold the floor for a period while recounting a narrative, for instance, or describing an experience, or explaining how something works. Meanwhile the other participant typically provides evidence that they are attending to the speaker, i.e. some kind of feedback which may be verbal ( mm , uh-huh , right ) or non-verbal (head nodding, attentive gaze).
Kelas Berkebun Junior 2020
Interruptions and overlaps In analyzing this interaction, a CA researcher typically begins by comparing it with mundane conversation in which the order, size and type of turns are relatively free. A CA analysis of this episode identifies the ways in which the participants display an orientation to different rules, namely the rules of a meeting where speakers typically expect to complete even relatively long turns without interruption. In this excerpt, then, the overlap disrupts the turn of the person who holds the floor, and in the context of the talk, this deviation from one-at-a-time talk can be interpreted as indicating disagreement.
Keeping just to the text
It is worth emphasizing an important methodological point that has been briefly mentioned several times in the discussion so far: a basic characteristic of a CA approach is that you should not begin the analysis with any preconceived ideas about what will be worth examining. Unlike the ethnography of communication and the interactional sociolinguistics approaches, the analysis should not include any information from your field notes, or interviews or the participants’ reflections on the talk. The data is primary, and all relevant information should be deducible from the data, and relevant categories for analysis should arise out of the data. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
Power and CDA
. Power may also be enacted in more subtle ways in interactions which are apparently very urbane and democratic. Setting the agenda of a discussion, for instance, is one way of exercising influence in even a very democratic interaction. The person who decides what will be discussed and what will be excluded is subtly exercising control over the topics of talk which will be considered relevant. In a formal meeting, this may take the form of a written agenda whose contents are determined by the meeting chair in advance. When there is no written agenda, the meeting chair usually exercises power by determining what topics will be discussed and who may contribute.
Ideology and CDA
CDA researchers aim to expose the hidden messages and especially the taken-for- granted assumptions that underlie much of our everyday discourse. Because advertisers make use of discourse to influence our behavior – typically to persuade us to buy their product – adverts are one of the most obvious targets of CDA. Adverts appeal to their audience’s emotions, their desires and fears, and to their often unexamined attitudes and beliefs.
