Discourse Studies 2

4,231 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • I have just tried to send you a message; however I couldn't.

    Slide 35 and slide 40 are related to fields of knowledge I am looking for. Would you mind making this ppt presentation available for me to download?

    I don't know why most of which I am looking for belong to you. Maybe because you are a student like me.

    Sorry for disturbing you the third time!

    Thanks so much!

    Good luck to you!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,231
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
46
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
272
Comments
1
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Discourse Studies 2

  1. 1. Discourse Studies 2 [email_address]
  2. 2. Spoken and Written Language <ul><li>Written language is not simply speech written down. </li></ul><ul><li>They are different because they evolve to serve different functions. </li></ul><ul><li>Early writing tended to be oriented towards goods and services: law, codes of behaviour, transaction. </li></ul><ul><li>Artistic functions originated in the spoken language, and were only later written down </li></ul><ul><li>Spoken language is more context dependent; writen language tends to be more independent of its immediate context. </li></ul>
  3. 3. SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE CONTINUUM Most Spoken Most Written Spoken Language Written Language Language accompanying action Language as reflection
  4. 4. The Continuum <ul><li>Most Spoken </li></ul><ul><li>Context dependent </li></ul><ul><li>Language in action </li></ul><ul><li>Language as process (dynamic) </li></ul><ul><li>Most Written </li></ul><ul><li>Context independent </li></ul><ul><li>Language as reflection </li></ul><ul><li>Language as product (synoptic) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Different Features <ul><li>Turn taking organisation </li></ul><ul><li>Context dependent </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic structure </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive staging </li></ul><ul><li>Open ended </li></ul><ul><li>Spontaneity phenomena (false start, hesitation etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Monologic organization </li></ul><ul><li>Context independent </li></ul><ul><li>Synoptic structure </li></ul><ul><li>Rhetorical staging </li></ul><ul><li>Closed / Finite </li></ul><ul><li>Final draft/polished </li></ul><ul><li>(indication of earlier draft removed) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Different Features <ul><li>Everyday lexis </li></ul><ul><li>Non-standard grammar </li></ul><ul><li>Grammatical complexity </li></ul><ul><li>Lexically sparse </li></ul><ul><li>Prestige lexis </li></ul><ul><li>Standard grammar </li></ul><ul><li>Grammatical simplicity </li></ul><ul><li>Lexically dense </li></ul>
  7. 7. Context Dependent <ul><li>Meanings are recovered by context </li></ul><ul><li>Not everything should be explicitly stated </li></ul><ul><li>Stating everything may result in “overexplicitness”, thus, unnatural </li></ul><ul><li>Language choice depends on context of situation (tenor, field, mode) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Context Independent <ul><li>Meanings and context are created and presented by writers. </li></ul><ul><li>Everything should be presented for clarity. </li></ul><ul><li>Completeness is necessary. </li></ul><ul><li>Language choice is based on the imagined readers </li></ul>
  9. 9. Dynamic Structure <ul><li>Structures are repeated </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive staging </li></ul><ul><li>Open-ended </li></ul><ul><li>A lot of opening and re-opening </li></ul><ul><li>A lot of topics </li></ul>
  10. 10. Synoptic Structure <ul><li>Generic structure potential: recount, procedure, report etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Rhetorical staging </li></ul><ul><li>Closed / finite / fixed </li></ul>
  11. 11. Spontaneity Phenomena <ul><li>Incomplete clauses </li></ul><ul><li>Gambits </li></ul><ul><li>False start </li></ul><ul><li>Topic termination </li></ul><ul><li>Overlap </li></ul><ul><li>Interruption </li></ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Final Draft <ul><li>Well structured </li></ul><ul><li>Complete sentences </li></ul><ul><li>Well punctuated </li></ul><ul><li>Free from spelling mistakes </li></ul><ul><li>Undergoes several editing processes </li></ul><ul><li>Polished language </li></ul>
  13. 13. Everyday vs. prestige lexis <ul><li>Start </li></ul><ul><li>Lively </li></ul><ul><li>Fun </li></ul><ul><li>Guys </li></ul><ul><li>Commence </li></ul><ul><li>Vivacious </li></ul><ul><li>Joyful </li></ul><ul><li>Ladies and gentlemen </li></ul><ul><li>Etc. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Standard vs. Non-standard grammar <ul><li>There’s a lot of people. </li></ul><ul><li>It’s me! </li></ul><ul><li>I wanna go </li></ul><ul><li>I ain’t going </li></ul><ul><li>There are many people. </li></ul><ul><li>It is I. </li></ul><ul><li>I want to go </li></ul><ul><li>I am not going </li></ul>
  15. 15. Grammatical Complexity & Lexically sparse <ul><li>Hey, I tell you what! Yesterday I went to… you know this place? They call it Guci. It’s somewhere around this city… what do you call it? The city that people plant those shallots and also lots of salted duck eggs? I think it starts with B or something. From here it’s rather far… I think it’s after Tegal. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Grammatical Simplicity & Lexically Dense <ul><li>Yesterday I went to a little town called Guci. It is a small cool city located at a cool mountain slope not far from Brebes. Usually people come to Guci to enjoy some hot-water springs that are believed to have strong soothing effects to those who suffer from water-born skin diseases caused by badly managed sewage sanitation . </li></ul>
  17. 17. Spoken Language <ul><li>Based on clauses </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects/objects: simple pronouns (you, I) or noun phrase (my father, the house </li></ul><ul><li>Gambits: help clarify interpersonal meanings </li></ul><ul><li>Fillers (well…, uhm…, right…) </li></ul><ul><li>More emphasis on interpersonal meanings </li></ul>
  18. 18. Written Language <ul><li>Based on sentence </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects/Objects are realised in complex noun phrases </li></ul><ul><li>Use of passive patterns (less personal, objectified) </li></ul><ul><li>More emphasis on ideational meanings </li></ul>
  19. 19. Spoken: grammatical intricacy (G&W 1995:162-163) <ul><li>I can’t mind the kids today </li></ul><ul><li>Because I must go to fotball training </li></ul><ul><li>And can’t leave early </li></ul><ul><li>Because we’ve got an important game on Saturday </li></ul><ul><li>And if we win it </li></ul><ul><li>We go into the finals </li></ul><ul><li>Because I don’t have training </li></ul><ul><li>So I can mind them then </li></ul><ul><li>If that’s Ok with you </li></ul>
  20. 20. Written Form: Lexical density (p.164) <ul><li>Due to the importance of a win in Saturday’s football game as a pre-requisite for a final appearance, the necessity of my training attendance diminishes my child minding capacity tonight </li></ul><ul><li>However, the lack of an attendance requirement on Wednesday allows my availability consequent upon your approval. </li></ul>
  21. 21. What has changed? <ul><li>The way the information is distributed, the number of content words per clause has risen dramatically. </li></ul><ul><li>The lexical density has risen. </li></ul><ul><li>Grammatical changes push the lexical density up. </li></ul><ul><li>The key difference in grammar is the amount of grammatical metaphor. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Nominalisation <ul><li>Much information that was spread outbin the spoken language has been condensed by way of nominatisation. </li></ul><ul><li>e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>because I must go to football training (clause) </li></ul><ul><li>The necessity of my training requirement (noun phrase) </li></ul>
  23. 23. Example (Halliday 1989) <ul><li>Spoken : </li></ul><ul><li>This is yer phone bill and you hafta go to the post office to pay it – uh by next Monday, that’s what this bax tells ya – or they’ll cut the phone off. </li></ul><ul><li>Written : </li></ul><ul><li>All phone bills must be paid by the date shown or service will be discontinued. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Approaches to Discourse See D. Schiffrin 2004
  25. 25. Speech Act Theory (Austin 1955, Searle 1969) <ul><ul><li>A logico-philosophic perspective on conversational organization focusing on interpretation rather than the production of utterances in discourse. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>From the basic belief that language is used to perform actions. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Every utterance can be analyzed as the realization of the speaker’s intent ( illocutionary force ) to achieve a particular purpose. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Neither Austin nor Searle were concerned with the analysis of continuous discourse. </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Speech Act Theory <ul><ul><li>Unit of analysis: speech act (SA) or illocutionary force (IF) . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Principal problems: the lack of a one-to-one match up between discourse function (IF) and the grammatical form. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides the insight that the basic unit of conversational analysis must be functionally motivated rather than formally defined one. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Systemic name : speech function (SF) – central issue in discourse structure. </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. Basic speech function / speech act system (G&W, 1995:23) <ul><li>give invite to receive </li></ul><ul><li>role </li></ul><ul><li>demand invite to give </li></ul><ul><li>goods and services objects and actions </li></ul><ul><li>commodity </li></ul><ul><li>information facts and opinion </li></ul><ul><li>(language) </li></ul>
  28. 28. Actional Competence Celce-Murcia et al. (1995:22) <ul><li>INTERPERSONAL EXCHANGE </li></ul><ul><li>Greeting and leave-taking </li></ul><ul><li>Making introductions, identifying oneself </li></ul><ul><li>Extending, accepting and declining invitations </li></ul><ul><li>and offers </li></ul><ul><li>Making and breaking engagements </li></ul><ul><li>Expressing and acknowledging gratitude </li></ul><ul><li>Complementing and congratulating </li></ul><ul><li>Reacting to the interlocutor's speech </li></ul><ul><li>showing attention, interest, surprise, sympathy, happiness, disbelief, disappointment </li></ul>
  29. 29. <ul><li>INFORMATION </li></ul><ul><li>- Asking for and giving information </li></ul><ul><li>- Reporting (describing and narrating) </li></ul><ul><li>- Remembering </li></ul><ul><li>- Explaining and discussing </li></ul><ul><li>OPINIONS </li></ul><ul><li>- Expressing and finding out about opinions and </li></ul><ul><li>attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>- Agreeing and disagreeing </li></ul><ul><li>- Approving and disapproving </li></ul><ul><li>- Showing satisfaction and dissatisfaction </li></ul>
  30. 30. <ul><li>FEELINGS </li></ul><ul><li>Expressing and finding out about feelings </li></ul><ul><li>love, happiness, sadness, pleasure, anxiety, anger, embarrassment, pain, relief, fear, </li></ul><ul><li>annoyance, surprise, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>SUASION </li></ul><ul><li>Suggesting, requesting and instructing </li></ul><ul><li>Giving orders, advising and warning </li></ul><ul><li>Persuading, encouraging and discouraging </li></ul><ul><li>Asking for, granting and witholding permission </li></ul>
  31. 31. <ul><li>PROBLEMS </li></ul><ul><li>- Complaining and criticizing </li></ul><ul><li>- Blaming and accusing </li></ul><ul><li>- Admitting and denying </li></ul><ul><li>- Regretting </li></ul><ul><li>- Apologising and forgiving </li></ul><ul><li>FUTURE SCENARIOS </li></ul><ul><li>- Expressing and finding out about wishes, hopes, and desires </li></ul><ul><li>- Expressing and eliciting plans, goals and intentions </li></ul><ul><li>- Promising </li></ul><ul><li>- Predicting and speculating </li></ul><ul><li>- Discussing possibilities and capabilities of doing something </li></ul><ul><li>KNOWLEDGE OF SPEECH ACT SETS </li></ul>
  32. 32. Interactional Sociolinguistics <ul><li>Interactional Sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982, Goffman 1959-1981) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grows out of the work of anthropologists. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Centrally concerned with the importance of context in the production and interpretation of discourse. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Units of analysis: grammatical and prosodic features in interactions. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gumperz demonstrated that interactants from different socio-cultural backgrounds may “hear” and understand discourse differently according to their interpretation contextualisation cues in discourse. E.g. intonation contours, ‘speaking for another’, alignment, gender. </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Ethnography of Communication <ul><li>Ethnography of Communication (Dell Hymes (1972b, 1974) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concerned with understanding the social context of linguistic interactions: ‘who says what to whom, when, where. Why, and how’. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prime unit of analysis : speech event . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Definition: ‘The speech event is to what analysis of verbal interaction what the sentence is to grammar … It represents an extension in the size of the basic analytical unit from the single utterance to stretches of utterances, as well as a shift in focus from … text to … interaction’. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speech event refers to ‘activities … that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech’ (Hymes 1972:56) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speech event comprises components (Hymes SPEAKING grid). </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. <ul><ul><li>Analysis of these components of a speech event is central to what became known as ethnography of communication or ethnography of speaking, with the ethnographer’s aim being to discover rules of appropriateness in speech events. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Genres often coincides with speech events </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The ethnographic framework has led to broader notions of communicative competence . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem: Lack of explicitness in Hymes’ account on the relationship between genre and other components of the speaking grid and their expression in language and </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recognition of the close relationship between speech events and their social/cultural contexts </li></ul>
  35. 35. Pragmatics (Grice 1975, Leech 1983, Levinson 1983) <ul><ul><li>Formulates conversational behaviour in terms of general “principles” rather than rules. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At the base of pragmatic approach is to conversation analysis is Gricean’s co-operative principle (CP). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This principle seeks to account for not only how participants decide what to DO next in conversation, but also how interlocutors go about interpreting what the previous speaker has just done. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This principle is the broken down into specific maxims: Quantity (say only as much as necessary), Quality (try to make your contribution one that is true), Relation (be relevant), and manner (be brief and avoid ambiguity ). </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36. <ul><ul><li>Provides useful means of characterizing different varieties of conversation, e.g. in interactions, one can deliberately try to be provocative or consensual. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant problem: it implies that conversations occur co-operatively, between equals where power is equally distributed etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In reality: conversations involve levels of disagreement and resistance; power is constantly under contestation . </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. <ul><ul><li>Schiffrin (1987): focused on quantitative interactive sociolinguistic analysis, esp. discourse markers (defined as ‘sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schiffrin’s unit of analysis: turn . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Basic concern: the accomplishment of conversational coherence. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>She argues for the importance of both qualitative and quantitative / distributional analysis in order to determine the function of the different discourse markers in conversation. </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Conversation Analysis (CA) (Harold Garfinkel 1960s-1970s) <ul><ul><li>Garfinkel (sociologist) concern: to understand how social members make sense of everyday life. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sack, Schegloff, Jefferson (1973)tried to explain how conversation can happen at all. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA is a branch of ethnomethodology. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Two grossly apparent facts: a) only one person speaks at a time, and b) speakers change recurs. Thus conversation is a ‘turn taking’ activity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speakers recognize points of potential speekar change – turn constructional unit (TCU). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CA identified TCU as the critical units of conversation, it has not specified exactly how a TCU boundary can be recognized in any situation. </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. <ul><ul><li>Models conversation as infinitely generative turn-taking machine, where interactants try to avoid lapse: the possibility that no one is speaking. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contribution: the identification of ‘adjacency pairs’: conversational relatedness operating between adjacent utterances. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adjacency pair: first and second pair parts. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Major problems: a) lack of systematicity- thus quantitative analysis is impossible; 2) limited I its ability to deal comprehensively with complete, sustained interactions; 3) though offers a powerful interpretation of conversation as dynamic interactive achievement, it is unable to say just what kind of achievement it is </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Variation Analysis (Labov 1972a, Labov and Waletzky 1967) <ul><ul><li>L & W argue that fundamental narrative structures are evident in spoken narratives of personal experience. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The overall structure of fully formed narrative of personal experience involves six stages: 1) Abstract, 2) Orientation, 3) Complication, 4) Evaluation, 5) Resolution, 6) Coda where 1) and 6) are optional. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strength: its clarity and applicability. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problems: data was obtained from interviews. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Variationists’ approach to discourse stems from quantitative of linguistic change and variation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Although typically focused on social and linguistic constraints on semantically equivalent variants, the approach has also been extended to texts. </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Structural-Functional Approaches to Conversation

×