discourse analysis amaliah khairina (2201410077) annis luthfiana (2201410051) shofia desy r...
TRANSCRIPT
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
Amaliah Khairina (2201410077)
Annis Luthfiana (2201410051)
Shofia Desy R (2201410073)
M. Rizqi Adhi P (2201410007)
Junnilalita A.V (2201410148)
INTRODUCTION
Applied linguistics interested in discourse
analysis because it is aware of the
inability the formal linguistics account for
how participants in communication
achieved meaning.
What is discourse?
A strecth of language in use, of any
length, and in any mood which achieves
meaning and coherence for those involved
(Routledge’s book)
What is discourse analysis?
Discourse analysis can be defined as the use and
development of theories and methods which
elucidate how this meaning and coherence is
achieved.
The focus of this chapter is to examine the DA
among other approches in language use.
Early AL DA
In the 1950s DA was seen and understood as a
theoretical and structural linguistics as the
potensial extension in language analysis
beyond the level of single sentences to
discover the distributional principles between
sentences as well as within them (Harris
1952).
Inresponce to theoretical stimuli, the
1970s and the 1980s saw a major works
on DA emerging from AL perspective. The
concern of DA in language teaching is
related to some treatments in language
teaching and learning.
TEXT, CONTEXT, AND DISCOURSE
Much early DA work in AL saw text (the linguistic
element in communication) as essentially distinct
from context (the non linguistic elements) and
discourse as the two in interaction to create
meaning.
TEXT "Text" is written material. We discuss the text
when we study a novel, drama, or short story. You
might even call a letter to someone a text.
CONTEXTContext variously included consideration of such
factors as:
the situation or immediate environment of
communication;
the participants and their intentions, knowledge,
beliefs, and feelings, as well as their roles,
relations, and status;
the cultural and ideological norms and assumptions
against which a given communication occurs;
language which precedes or follows that under
analysis, sometimes referred to as ‘co-text’
other texts evoked for the participants and affecting
their interpretation – sometimes referred to as
‘intertext’
non-linguistic meaningful communicative
behaviour, i.e. paralanguage, such as voice quality,
gestures, and facial expressions
use of other modes of communication
accompanying the use of language, such as music
and pictures;
the physical medium of communication, such as
speech, writing, print, telephone, computer.
The binary opposition of text and context, however,
and the itemisation of contextual components, has
come to be seen as problematic. If context and text are
separate, then the status of text itself becomes
precarious.
As linguistic forms, if text is separated from context
for the purposes of analysis, text ceases to have any
actual existence, and seems at odds with the aim of
DA to deal with the realities of language in use rather
than linguistic abstractions.
There is no use of language which does not have a
situation, participants, co-text, paralanguage, etc.
Early DA, however, often work with this binary
text/context distinction. At that time, DA was indeed
experienced as the addition of a new dimension (i.e.
context) to their existing object of study (i.e. text).
And now, DA turned to a variety of approaches to
communication from outside linguistics.
PRAGMATICS
Interest in the role of context led initially to the classic
texts of pragmatics and attention to how discourse is
structured by what speakers are trying to do with their
words, and how their intentions are recognised by their
interlocutors.
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) used the pragmatic
notion of the act as a fundamental unit of analysis,
showing how acts combine to form higher units
(which they called moves, exchanges and
transactions) in an attempt to formulate rules
analogous to those in structural grammars. It is
known as Birmingham School of Discourse
Analysis (Birch, 1982)
The approach focused upon language in isolation
from other modes of communication, and, working
from transcriptions after the event, tended to treat
discourse as a product rather than a process.
Schema Theory
Schema theory is a powerful tool in DA
as it can help to explain both high level
aspects of understanding such as
coherence, and low level linguistic
phenomena such as article choice.
Both pragmatics and schema theory have remained
salient in many approaches to DA.
But their focus is very much on understanding as a
product, explained after the event, rather than a
process.
Their representations of how communication works
can seem removed from the actual development of
discourse as it appears for participants.
Conversation analysis
Working from the premise, consistently denied in
Chomskyan linguistics:
that talk in interaction,
including casual conversation,
is fundamentally ordered,
CA made use of newly available recording
technology to transcribe and closely analyse
actually occurring conversation,
seeking to understand how participants make
sense of,
find their way about in,
and act on the circumstances in which they find
themselves’ (Heritage 1984: 4) and through this
close analysis to understand the patterns of social
life (Bhatia et al. 2008: 4) as realized in talk.
Ethnography, language ecology, linguistic
ethnography
Like CA, it isfirmly committed to seeking
significance in the details and apparent disorder
of everyday communication, and understanding
participants’ own perspectives on the meaning
and dynamics of what is happening.
It too rejects the idealisations and
generalisations of formal linguistics.
SEMIOTICS, PARALINGUAGE AND MULTIMODALITY
Discourse analysts have long shown awareness of the need to incorporate such phenomena into their analyses, but also of the difficulty of doing so systematically
Every spoken language has a volume,
speed, pitch, and intonation.
Those paralinguistic element convey
key information about the speaker’s
identity, attitude, and commitment.
PARALANGUAGE
In exploitation of paralanguage in
spoken communication is an
instance of multimodality as it
involves visual, non-linguistics
sound, and other sensor stimuli
MULTIMODALITY
GENRE ANALYSIS
Genre analysis was developed by
Swales and colleagues in connection
with the teaching of English for Specific
Purposes and is thus closely linked to
the language learning approach to DA.
Genre analysis seeks to understand any
communicative event as an instance of a genre,
defined as ‘a class of communicative events which
share some set of communicative purposes’ (Swales
1990: 58).
Examples of genres are such events as academic
articles, news bulletins, advertisements, prayers,
operas, menus.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
"Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of
discourse analytical research that primarily
studies the way social power abuse, dominance,
and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and
resisted by text and talk in the social and
political context."
(Teun van Dijk, The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis)
CDA is concerned with ideology, power
relations and social injustices, and how
these are represented and reproduced
through language.
They may focus primarily upon discourse
practices and ideologies, or seek to link
discourse and social structures, or to situate
specific discourses such as those of racism
within a broader historical perspective.
Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
investigates how language use may
be affirming and indeed reproducing
the perspectives, values and ways
of talking of the powerful, which
may not be in the interests of the
less powerful.
Back to Detail and Forward to
Generalization: Corpus Linguistics
The advent of corpus analysis, however
has enabled DA partially to redress
these shortcomings, and to add a
quantitative dimension to research.
Corpus linguistics, like other forms of linguistic
analysis before it, is an invaluable tool for DA.
Yet in its quest for understanding of how
participants in communication achieve
meaning, DA cannot limit itself to textual
analysis alone, any more than it can limit itself
to the cultural and psychological context of
language use without attention to actual text.
FINAL WORDS
There is a valid case for saying that
there is no longer a single theory or
method of analysis which can be clearly
labeled as discourse analysis.
It has become a superordinate term for a
wide range of traditions for the analysis of
language in use, so general and all-inclusive
that it is hardly worth using.
Perhaps the term discourse analysis has
had its day. It is now so built into the fabric
of applied linguistics that any analysis of
language in use is discourse analysis of
some kind.