DISCOURSE, DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AND C.D.A

1. 2.10.1 Speech Act Theory

1.1. Speech act theory focuses on the fact that by saying something one is also doing something.

1.1.1. Labov and Fanshel (1977) explain communication in terms of hearers accurately identifying the intended meaning of the speaker’s utterance and responding to it accordingly.

1.1.2. Language can do things-it can perform acts-because people share constitutive rules that create the acts and that enable them to label utterances as particular kinds of acts.

1.1.2.1. Speech act theory is basically concerned with what people do with language and with the functions of language.

1.1.3. Although their prime concern was with the identification of speech acts and specifying the rules governing their successful realization, they broadened the view that an utterance may only perform one type of speech act at a time.

2. 2.10.2 Pragmatics

2.1. Pragmatics deals primarily with the detailed study of meaning in language.

2.1.1. Morris (1938: 30) defines pragmatics as “the science of the relation of signs to their interpreters”.

2.1.1.1. Morris identifies three ways of studying signs

2.1.1.1.1. syntax’ is the study of formal relations of signs to one another

2.1.1.1.2. ‘semantics’ is the study of how signs are related to the object to which they are applicable

2.1.1.1.3. pragmatics is the study of the relation signs to interpreter

2.2. Grice’s ideas (1957) about the relationship between logic and conversation lead to Gricean pragmatics

2.2.1. Gricean pragmatics offers to discourse analysis is a view of how participant assumptions about what comprises a co- operative context for communication

2.2.1.1. contribute to meaning and how these assumptions help to create sequential patterns in talk (see Schiffrin (1994: 191-227).

2.3. Thomas (1995) distinguishes three types of meaning:

2.3.1. abstract meaning (the meaning of words and sentences in isolation, e.g., the various meanings of the word grass)

2.3.2. contextual or utterance meaning (e.g., when two intimate persons hold their faces very near each other and one says ‘I hate you’ while smiling, the utterance really means I love you’)

2.3.3. utterance force (i.e., how the speaker intends his/her utterance to be understood)

2.4. Modern approaches to pragmatics recognize that human communication largely exploits a code (a natural language)

2.4.1. but also attempt to do justice to the fact that human communicative behavior depends to a large extent on people's ability to reason about the intentions of others

2.4.1.1. such as perception and general knowledge of the world.

3. 2.10.3 Interactional Sociolinguistics

3.1. Gumperz views language as “a socially and culturally constructed symbol system that both reflects and creates macro-level social meaning and micro- level interpersonal meanings.

3.1.1. For example, all interactive activity is socially organized on multiple levels: "occasions," "situations," or "encounters" that not only provide structure and meaning, but may be organized by what is said

3.2. Goffman provides a sociological framework for describing and understanding the form and meaning of the social and interpersonal contexts that provide presuppositions for the interpretation of meaning

3.2.1. Goffman forces structural attention to the contexts in which language is used

3.3. Speakers use language to provide continual indices of who they are and what they want to communicate” Schiffrin (1994: 133).

3.3.1. Schiffrin (1994: 134) states that, “interactional socioloinguistics views discourse as a social interaction in which the emergent construction and negotiation of meaning is facilitated by the use of language”

4. 2.10.4 Ethnography of Communication

4.1. Is an approach to discourse based on anthropology and linguistics.

4.2. According to Hymes On the contrary, it is an approach that aims to open up new analytical possibilities.

4.2.1. Knowledge of abstract linguistic rules is included in communicative competence.

4.2.1.1. But the ability to use language in concrete situations of everyday life is also included.

4.3. Hymes' definition of the ethnography of communication consists of four elements:

4.3.1. Whether and to what extent something is grammatical (linguistic competence)

4.3.2. Whether and to what extent something is appropriate (social appropriateness)

4.3.3. whether something is feasible and to what extent (psycholinguistic constraints)

4.3.4. whether something is done and to what extent (observation of actual language use)

4.4. For Hymes, the object of investigation is no longer the structure of isolated sentences, but the "rules of speech" within a community.

4.4.1. Consequently, the sentence is replaced as the basic unit of analysis by a threefold classification of oral communication

4.4.1.1. Speech situations, such as ceremonies, evenings out, etc.; these are not purely communicative, but provide a broader context for speaking.

4.4.1.2. Speech acts are communicative activities "par excellence" and are governed by the rules of speech: conversations, lectures, etc.

4.4.1.3. Speech acts are the smallest units of the set, e.g., commands, jokes, etc.

4.4.1.4. A speech act may involve more than one movement by a single person, e.g., greetings often involve a sequence of two "moves."

5. 2.10.5 Variation Analysis

5.1. The variationist approach is largely derived from studies of variation and change in language

5.1.1. Thus, variationists attempt to discover patterns in the distribution of alternative ways of saying the same thing

5.2. Labov resists the term sociolinguistics "since it implies that there can be a successful linguistic theory or practice which is not social"

5.3. Although the linguistics on which this approach is based is "social realist" (a term used by Hymes (1974c: 196)

5.3.1. Labov argued that a fully formed narrative (as summarized by Mesthrie et al. 2000: 193) may include the following.

5.3.1.1. Summary: which summarizes forthcoming events or offers a preliminary assessment of the significance of those events

5.3.1.2. Orientation: which identifies the setting, characters, and other background and contextual details relevant to the narrative.

5.3.1.3. Complicated action: a series of narrative clauses, the basic details of the plot.

5.3.1.4. Evaluation: which indicates the point of the story or why the speaker believes it is worth telling.

5.3.1.5. Outcome or resolution: which resolves the story.

5.3.1.6. Coda: which signals the end of the narrative and can bridge the gap between the narrative and current events

5.4. A variationist approach to discourse is thus a linguistic approach that takes into account the social context under certain methodological and analytical circumstances.

6. 2.10.6 Conversation Analysis

6.1. Approach to discourse that has been extensively articulated by sociologists

6.1.1. begin

6.1.1.1. Harold Garfinkel

6.1.1.1.1. develop "ethnomethodology"

6.2. Discover the methods by which members of a society produce a sense of social order.

6.2.1. CONVERSATION

6.2.1.1. Source of our sense of social order

6.2.1.2. Exhibits its own order and manifests its own sense of structure.

6.3. It's similar

6.3.1. Interactional sociolinguistics

6.3.1.1. Social order and how language both creates and is created by social context

6.3.2. Ethnography of communication

6.3.2.1. Human knowledge and its belief that no detail of conversation

7. 2.11 Critical Discourse Analysis

7.1. Lie in

7.1.1. Classical rhetoric

7.1.2. Text linguistics

7.1.3. Sociolonguistics

7.2. Relation between language and power

7.3. Understand

7.3.1. how discourse is implicated in relations of power

7.4. Focuses

7.4.1. how language as a cultural tool mediates relationships of power and privilege

7.4.1.1. Social Interactions

7.4.1.2. Institutions

7.4.1.3. Bodies of knowledge

7.5. Interdisciplinary Approach

7.5.1. Language

7.5.2. Social study

7.5.3. Explores the social interaction which is manifested in linguistic forms

8. 2.11.1 Fairclough’s Approach to C.D.A.

8.1. Fairclough (1989) sets out the social theories underpinning C.D.A.

8.2. Discourse as a form of social practice

8.2.1. Language is a part of society

8.2.2. Language is a social process

8.2.3. Language is a socially conditioned process

8.3. Three - Dimensional Model

8.3.1. Three dimensions of critical discourse analysis

8.3.1.1. Description

8.3.1.1.1. Formal properties of the text

8.3.1.2. Interpretation

8.3.1.2.1. Relationship between text and interaction

8.3.1.3. Explanation

8.3.1.3.1. Relationship between interaction and social context

9. 2.1. Discourse in linguistics 2.2.Foucauldian discourse

9.1. It is the study of speech patterns and how language is used.

9.1.1. Basic language functions

9.1.1.1. The ideational

9.1.1.2. Interpersonal

9.1.1.3. Textual functions of systemic linguistics

9.2. They are constituted in the construction and interpretation that one has of knowledge.

9.2.1. The way in which institutions create order in institutions is by maintaining a discourse about the definition of their own objects and social subjects.

10. 2.3 Discourse formations 2.4 Discourse as Social Practice (Fairclough)

10.1. It is defined as the site of the constitution of meaning and also the site of the constitution of the subject and it is implemented with the mechanism of interpellation.

10.1.1. It is everything that can and should be said taking into account the argument of a speech, pamphlet, sermon, etc.

10.1.1.1. It has a lot to do with Foucault's “discursive formation”.

10.2. Fairclough divided in two definitions

10.2.1. The social identities of interactants

10.2.2. Their social relationships

11. 2.5 Resources for production and interpretation

11.1. Interpretation is achieved in the dialectical interaction of signals and MR.

11.1.1. They are different processes in which MRI is helpful as an interpretive procedure for both the language user and the analyst.

12. 2.6 Intertextual context

12.1. The interpretation of the intertextual context implies the historical series to which a text belongs.

12.1.1. Common presuppositions are created for the readers so that they arrive at common interpretations.

12.1.1.1. Fairclough (1989: 152)

12.1.1.1.1. Mentions that

12.2. Intertextual Context adds a historical dimension to “discourse as social practice by placing a single text, a product of discourse, in a historical series with other texts.

13. 2.7 Tendencies in discourse change

13.1. There is a high degree of integration between social institutions in modern capitalist society and these institutions are responsible for legitimizing certain types of social identity.

13.1.1. They construct the object of their scrutiny, giving life to the social subjects

13.1.1.1. Fairclough mentions that the capitalist economic domain has been progressively extended to include aspects of life that were previously considered quite separate from production.

13.1.1.1.1. This synthetic personalization is very common in the media:

13.2. Discourse technologies are types of discourse that spread across institutional orders of discourse, 'colonizing' new areas (key examples are interviewing and counselling).

13.2.1. advertising firmly embeds the mass of the population into the capitalist market system by assigning them the legitimate and even desirable role of consumers.

14. 2.8 Discourse Analysis

14.1. The term discourse analysis has come to be used with a wide range of meanings covering a wide range of activities.

14.1.1. For Gee (1999: 92), a discourse analysis essentially consists of asking questions about how language is used, at a given time and place.

14.2. Fairclough (1992b) used the term ‘textually orienteddiscourse analysis’

14.2.1. To

14.2.1.1. Distinguish the former from the latter

14.3. Van Dijk (1985b: 2) argues

14.3.1. That

14.3.1.1. “what we can do with discourse analysis is more than providing adequate descriptions of text and context.

14.4. The tasks through which language is used to build and/or build the network of situations

14.4.1. Semiotic building

14.4.1.1. Uses cues or clues to assemble situated meanings over which semiotic systems, knowledge systems, and ways of knowing

14.4.2. Word building

14.4.2.1. Using signals or clues to assemble meanings situated on what is here and now

14.4.3. Activity building

14.4.3.1. Using cues or clues to assemble situated meanings about what activity or activities are taking place.

14.4.4. Socioculturally-situated identity and relationship building

14.4.4.1. The use of cues or clues to assemble situated meanings about which identities and relationships are relevant to the interaction

14.4.5. Political building

14.4.5.1. The use of cues or cues to construct the nature and relevance of various "social goods"

14.4.6. Connection building

14.4.6.1. Uses cues or cues to make assumptions about how the past and future of an interaction, verbal and nonverbal,

15. 2.9 A Historical Overview

15.1. Discourse analysts study language in use:

15.1.1. Written texts of all kinds and spoken data.

15.1.2. conversations to highly institutionalized forms of speech.

15.2. British discourse analysis has been greatly influenced by M.A.K. Halliday’functional approach to language, which in turn has connections with the Prague School of linguists.

15.2.1. American discourse analysis has been within the ethnomethodological tradition, emphasizing the research method of close observation of groups of people communicating in natural settings.

15.2.1.1. Takes into account the different linguistic value systems that exist in a single language

15.2.1.1.1. Text grammarians perceive texts as language elements linked together in definable relationships.

15.2.1.1.2. The work of text grammarians, who work mainly with written language, is also relevant.

16. 2.10 Approaches to Discourse Analysis

16.1. Discourse analysis has become increasingly popular in recent years, across a variety of disciplines.

16.2. Eggins and Slade (1997: 24) classified the different approaches to discourseaccording to their disciplinary origins:

16.2.1. Sociology

16.2.1.1. Conversational analysis

16.2.2. Sociolinguistics

16.2.2.1. Ethnography

16.2.2.2. Interactional sociolinguistics

16.2.2.3. Variation theory

16.2.3. Philosophy

16.2.3.1. Speech act theory

16.2.3.2. Pragmatics

16.2.4. Linguistics

16.2.4.1. Structural-functional

16.2.4.1.1. Birmangham School

16.2.4.1.2. Systemic functional linguistics

16.2.4.2. Social semiotic

16.2.4.2.1. Systemic functional linguistics

16.2.4.2.2. Critical discourse analysis

16.2.5. Artificial intelligence

16.3. The present study will review only those that currently play an important role in various contexts of applied linguistics.

17. 2.11.2 The Model of the Present Study

17.1. Guideline for doing discourse analysis

17.1.1. Discourse Practice

17.1.1.1. Interdiscursivity

17.1.1.1.1. The general term of discourse type can be used

17.1.1.2. Intertextual Chains

17.1.1.2.1. Specify the distribution of a discourse sample

17.1.1.3. Coherence

17.1.1.3.1. Look into the interpretative implications of the intertextual and interdiscursive properties

17.1.1.4. Conditions of Discourse Practice

17.1.1.4.1. Specify the social practices of text production and consumption

17.1.1.5. Manifest Intertextuality

17.1.1.5.1. Grey area between discourse practice and text

17.1.1.6. Discourse Representation

17.1.1.7. Presupposition

17.1.2. Text

17.1.2.1. Interactional Control

17.1.2.1.1. Describe larger-scale organizational properties of interactions

17.1.2.2. Cohesion

17.1.2.2.1. How clauses and sentences are connected together in the text

17.1.2.3. Politeness

17.1.2.3.1. Which politeness strategies are most used in the sample

17.1.2.4. Ethos

17.1.2.4.1. Pull together the diverse features that go towards constructive selves, or social identities, in the sample

17.1.2.5. Grammar

17.1.2.5.1. Transitivity

17.1.2.5.2. Theme

17.1.2.5.3. Modality

17.1.2.6. Word meaning

17.1.2.6.1. ‘Key words’ which are of general or more local cultural significance

17.1.2.7. Wording

17.1.2.7.1. Contrast the ways meanings are worded with the ways they are worded in other text

17.1.2.8. Metaphor

17.1.2.8.1. Characterize the metaphors used in the discourse sample, in contrast to metaphors used for similar meanings

17.1.3. Social Practice

17.1.3.1. Social Matrix of Discourse

17.1.3.1.1. Specify the social and hegemonic relations and structures which constitute the matrix of this particular instance of social and discursive practice

17.1.3.2. Orders of Discourse

17.1.3.2.1. Specify the relationship of the instance of social and discursive practice to the orders of discourse

17.1.3.3. Ideological and Political Effects of Discourse

17.1.3.3.1. Focus upon the following particular ideological and hegemonic effects