Assignment 45 for practical work in media lab: Defining text and discourse. What is Text Linguistics? What is Discourse Analysis?For the Departments of Media Studies by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari
Defining
text and discourse. What is Text Linguistics? What is
Discourse Analysis?
To define and describe the scope of study of Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis and to establish the differences between them both is not an easy task. Suffice it to say that the terms text and discourse are used in a variety of ways by different linguists and researchers: there is a considerable number of
theoretical approaches to both Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis and many of them belong to very different research traditions, even when they share similar basic tenets.
In everyday popular use it might be said that the term text is restricted to written language, while discourse is restricted to spoken language. However, modern Linguistics has introduced a concept of text that includes every type of utterance; therefore a text may be a magazine article, a television interview, a
conversation or a cooking recipe, just to give a few examples.
Crystal (1997) defines Text Linguistics as “the formal account of the linguistic principles governing the structure of texts”.
To define and describe the scope of study of Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis and to establish the differences between them both is not an easy task. Suffice it to say that the terms text and discourse are used in a variety of ways by different linguists and researchers: there is a considerable number of
theoretical approaches to both Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis and many of them belong to very different research traditions, even when they share similar basic tenets.
In everyday popular use it might be said that the term text is restricted to written language, while discourse is restricted to spoken language. However, modern Linguistics has introduced a concept of text that includes every type of utterance; therefore a text may be a magazine article, a television interview, a
conversation or a cooking recipe, just to give a few examples.
Crystal (1997) defines Text Linguistics as “the formal account of the linguistic principles governing the structure of texts”.
De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) present a broader
view; they define text as a communicative event that must satisfy the following
seven criteria:
1) Cohesion, which has to do with the relationship between text and syntax. Phenomena such as conjunction, ellipsis, anaphora, cataphora or recurrence are basic for cohesion.
2) Coherence, which has to do with the meaning of the text. Here we may refer to elements of knowledge or to cognitive structures that do not have a linguistic realization but are implied by the language used, and thus influence the reception of the message by the interlocutor.
3) Intentionality, which relates to the attitude and purpose of the speaker or writer.
4) Acceptability, which concerns the preparation of the hearer or reader to assess the relevance or usefulness of a given text.
5) Informativity, which refers to the quantity and quality of new or expected information.
6) Situationality, which points to the fact that the situation in which the text is produced plays a crucial role in the production and reception of the message.
7) Intertextuality, which refers to two main facts: a) a text is always related to some preceding or simultaneous discourse; b) texts are always linked and grouped in particular text varieties or genres (e.g.: narrative, argumentative, descriptive, etc.) by formal criteria.
Exercise:
De Beaugrande and Dressler define text as a communicative event that must satisfy the seven criteria; examine different texts for
the seven criteria
In spite of the considerable overlap between Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis (both of them are concerned with the notion of cohesion, for instance) the above criteria may help us make a distinction between them.
Tischer et al. (2000) explain that the first two
criteria (cohesion and coherence) may be defined as text-internal, whereas the remaining criteria
are text-external. Those approaches oriented
towards ‘pure’
Exercise:
Examine different texts for the text-internal and text-external
Text Linguistics give more importance to
text-internal criteria, while the tradition in Discourse Analysis has always
been to give more importance to the external factors, for they are believed to
play an essential role in communication.
Some authors, such as Halliday, believe that text is everything that is meaningful
in a particular situation: “By text, then, we understand a continuous process
of semantic choice” (1978:137).
In the “purely” text-linguistic approaches, such as
the cognitive theories of text, texts are viewed as “more or less explicit epi-phenomena of
cognitive processes” (Tischer et al., 2000: 29), and the context plays a subordinate role.
Definition
of epiphenomenon
: a secondary phenomenon
accompanying another and caused by itspecifically : a secondary mental phenomenon
that is caused by and accompanies a physical phenomenon but has no causal
influence itself
It could be said that the text-internal elements
constitute the text, while the text-external ones constitute
the context. Schiffrin points out that all
approaches within Discourse Analysis view text and context as the two kinds of information
that contribute to the communicative content of an utterance, and
she defines these terms as follows:
I will use the term “text” to differentiate linguistic material (e.g. what is said, assuming a verbal channel) from the environment in which “sayings” (or other linguistic productions) occur (context).
she defines these terms as follows:
I will use the term “text” to differentiate linguistic material (e.g. what is said, assuming a verbal channel) from the environment in which “sayings” (or other linguistic productions) occur (context).
In terms of utterances, then, “text” is the
linguistic content: the stable semantic meanings of words, expressions, and sentences,
but not the inferences available to hearers depending upon the contexts in
which words, expressions, and sentences are used. […] Context is thus a world
filled with people producing utterances:
People who have social, cultural, and personal identities, knowledge, beliefs, goals and wants, and who interact with one another in various socially and culturally defined situations. (1994: 363
People who have social, cultural, and personal identities, knowledge, beliefs, goals and wants, and who interact with one another in various socially and culturally defined situations. (1994: 363
Thus, according to Schiffrin, Discourse Analysis
involves the study of both text and context. One might conclude, then, that Text Linguistics only
studies the text, while Discourse Analysis is more complete because it studies
both text and context. However, as has been shown, there are definitions of
text (like de
Beaugrande’s) that are very broad and include both elements, and that is why it would be very risky to talk about clear-cut differences between the two disciplines.
Beaugrande’s) that are very broad and include both elements, and that is why it would be very risky to talk about clear-cut differences between the two disciplines.
De Beaugrande’s (2002) definition of Text Linguistics
(herinafter TL) as “the study of real language in use” does not differ from
many of the definitions of Discourse Analysis (hereinafter DA) presented by
Schiffrin within its functional approach, some of which are the following:
The study of discourse is the study of any aspect of
language use (Fasold, 1990: 65).
The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use.
The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use.
As such, it
cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the
purposes or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs
(Brown & Yule, 1983: 1).
Discourse… refers to language in use, as a process which is socially situated (Candlin, 1997: ix).
Thus, we see that the terms text and discourse are sometimes used to mean the same and therefore one might conclude that TL and DA are the same, too.
Discourse… refers to language in use, as a process which is socially situated (Candlin, 1997: ix).
Thus, we see that the terms text and discourse are sometimes used to mean the same and therefore one might conclude that TL and DA are the same, too.
It can be
said, nevertheless, that the tendency in TL has been to present a more formal
and experimental approach, while DA tends more towards a functional
approach.
Formalists are apt to see language as a mental
phenomenon, while functionalists see it as a predominantly social one. As has
been shown, authors like Schiffrin integrate both the formal and the functional
approaches within DA, and consequently, DA is viewed as an all-embracing term
which would
include TL studies as one approach among others.
include TL studies as one approach among others.
Exercise:
Give examples of language as a mental phenomenon and social one.
Slembrouck points out the ambiguity of the term discourse analysis and provides another broad definition:
The term discourse analysis is very ambiguous. I will
use it in this book to refer mainly to the linguistic analysis of naturally occurring
connected speech or written discourse. Roughly speaking, it refers to attempts to study the
organisation of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore
to study larger linguistic units, such as conversational
exchanges or written texts. It follows that discourse analysis is also
concerned with language use in social
contexts, and in particular with
interaction or dialogue between
speakers. (2005:1)
speakers. (2005:1)
Exercise:
Give examples of the study of language above the sentence.
Another important characteristic of discourse studies is that they are essentially multidisciplinary, and therefore it can be said that they cross the Linguistics border into different and varied domains, as van Dijk notes in the following passage:
…discourse analysis for me is essentially multidisciplinary, and involves linguistics, poetics, semiotics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, and communication research. What I find crucial though is that precisely because of its multi-faceted nature, this multidisciplinary research should be integrated. We should devise theories that are complex and account both for the textual, the cognitive, the social, the political and the historical dimension of discourse. (2002: 10)
Thus, when analyzing discourse, researchers are not
only concerned with “purely” linguistic facts; they pay equal or more attention
to language use in relation to social, political and cultural aspects. For this
reason, discourse is not only within the interests of linguists; it is a field
that is also studied by communication scientists, literary critics,
philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, social psychologists, political
scientists, and many others.
As Barbara Johnstone puts it:
… I see discourse analysis as a research method that can be (and is being) used by scholars with a variety of academic and non-academic affiliations, coming from a variety of disciplines, to answer a variety of questions. (2002: xi)
As noted above, not all researchers use and believe
in the same definition of text and discourse.
In this book,
we are going to adopt the general definition of DA as the study of language in use, and we shall follow Schiffrin
in including both text and context as parts of discourse, in which
case we will consider the term text in its narrow sense, not in the broad sense that
could place it on a par with the term
discourse.
discourse.
1.2. Origins and brief history of Text Linguist and Discourse Analysis
Parallel to the Chomskyan Generative School (whose starting point is considered to be the publication of Syntactic Structures in 1957), other schools emerged in different parts of the world that supported different and even opposing ideas to those of Chomsky’s.
All these new schools believed that a good linguistic description should go beyond the sentence, and pointed to the fact that there are certain meanings and aspects of language that cannot be understood or embraced if its study is limited to the syntactic analysis of sentences.
Exercise:
Give examples of certain meanings and aspects of language that
cannot be embraced if its study is limited to the syntactic analysis of
sentences.
Thus, in the twentieth century, the following new
disciplines emerged within the field of Linguistics:
• Functionalism (functional grammars)
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Pragmatics
• Text Linguistics
• Discourse Analysis
• Functionalism (functional grammars)
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Pragmatics
• Text Linguistics
• Discourse Analysis
All these new disciplines are interrelated, and
sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish one from the other, due to the
fact that all of them have common denominators.
Bernárdez (1999: 342) explains the basic tenets of
these disciplines, which are summarized here as follows:
a) Language only exists in use and communication. It always fulfils certain functions in human interaction.
b) Language use is necessarily social.
c) Language is not autonomous. It shares some characteristics with other social and cognitive phenomena.
d) The description of language must account for the real facts of language. It should not postulate hidden entities only motivated by the needs of the formal system utilized.
e) Linguistic structures should be closely linked to the conditions of language use.
f) Language is natural and necessarily vague and inaccurate; therefore any prediction can only be probabilistic.
Exercise:
Why language is not autonomous and necessarily vague?
When performing DA, then, researchers may also engage
themselves in Functional Grammar, Sociolinguistics, Pragmatics or Cognitivism,
because all these fields are interrelated and have common tenets. As regards TL
and DA, we may speak of a progressive “integration” of both disciplines, for,
if we observe the evolution of language research through time, it will be
noticed that many scholars have moved from TL into DA as part of the natural
flow of their beliefs and ideas, as is the case with van Dijk, who, in his
biographical article of 2002, explains how his research evolved from Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis
This author
points out that the main aim of his studies in the 1970s was to
give an explicit description of the grammatical structure of texts, and the most obvious way of doing so was by accounting for the relationship among sentences. A very important concept for Text Grammar at that time was the introduction of the notion of macrostructure (van Dijk, 1980).
give an explicit description of the grammatical structure of texts, and the most obvious way of doing so was by accounting for the relationship among sentences. A very important concept for Text Grammar at that time was the introduction of the notion of macrostructure (van Dijk, 1980).
Another fundamental notion was that of coherence and the idea that texts are
organized at more global descriptive levels than that of the sentence. Later
on, and under the influence of the cognitive theories, the notion of strategic
understanding was developed, which attempted to account for what the users of a language really do when they understand a given text. Van Dijk also notes how several other new concepts were introduced in TL studies, such as socio-cultural knowledge and mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983), as well as all
the ideas and concepts coming from the field of Pragmatics. In his particular case, he took interest in the study of power and ideology, which places him within the DA stream-of-thought known as Critical Discourse Analysis
understanding was developed, which attempted to account for what the users of a language really do when they understand a given text. Van Dijk also notes how several other new concepts were introduced in TL studies, such as socio-cultural knowledge and mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983), as well as all
the ideas and concepts coming from the field of Pragmatics. In his particular case, he took interest in the study of power and ideology, which places him within the DA stream-of-thought known as Critical Discourse Analysis
Thus, after the early and uniform stage of “Text Grammar”, TL went through a series of more open and diversified stages. The “textuality” stage emphasized the global aspects of texts and saw the text as a functional unit, larger than the sentence. This stage led into the “textualization” or “discourse processing”
stage, where analysts “set about developing process models of the activities of discourse participants in interactive settings and in ‘real time’” (de Beaugrande, 1997: 61-62).
Exercise:
How text can be larger than the sentence?
The current aim now in DA is to describe language where it was originally found, i.e. in the context of human interaction. In this respect, it is important to point out that this interaction often involves other media besides language. Examples of these other semiotic systems may be gesture, dance, song,
photography or clothing, and it is also the discourse analyst’s job to explain the connection between these systems and language. In order to achieve these aims, different researchers have taken different approaches. We now turn to them.
1.2. Approaches to the phenomenon of discourse
Current research in DA, then, flows from different academic fields. This is one of the reasons why the terms discourse and discourse analysis are used to mean different things by different researchers.
Schiffrin et al. note that all the definitions fall into three main categories:
1) Anything beyond the sentence
2) Language use
3) A broader range of social practice that includes non-linguistic and non-specific instances of language. (2001: 1)
Authors such as Leech (1983) and Schiffrin (1994)
distinguish between two main approaches:
1) The formal
approach, where discourse is defined as a unit of language beyond the sentence, and
2) The functional
approach, which defines discourse as language use.
Z. Harris (1951, 1952) was the first linguist to use
the term discourse analysis and he was a formalist: he viewed
discourse as the next level in
Another example can be found in de Beaugrande (1997: 68) when he comments on how his concepts of text and discourse evolved over a series of studies and expanded beyond the linguistic focus he first encountered.
Another example can be found in de Beaugrande (1997: 68) when he comments on how his concepts of text and discourse evolved over a series of studies and expanded beyond the linguistic focus he first encountered.
3 A hierarchy of morphemes, clauses and sentences. This view has been criticized due to the results shown by researchers like Chafe (1980, 1987, 1992), who rightfully argued that the units used by people in their speech cannot always be categorized as sentences. People generally produce units that have a semantic
and an intonational closure, but not necessarily a syntactic one.
Functionalists give much importance to the purposes and functions of language, sometimes to the extreme of defending the notion that language and society are part of each other and cannot be thought of as independent (Fairclough, 1989; Focault, 1980).
Exercise:
Why society and language cannot be thought of as independent?
Functional analyses include all uses of language because they
focus on the way in which people use language to achieve certain communicative
goals.
Discourse is not regarded as one more of the levels
in a hierarchy; it is an all-embracing concept which includes not only the
propositional content, but also the social, cultural and contextual contents.
As explained above, Schiffrin (1994) proposes a more
balanced approach to discourse, in which both the formal and the functional
paradigms are integrated. She views discourse as “utterances”, i.e. “units of linguistic
production (whether spoken or written) which are inherently contextualized”
(1994: 41).
From this perspective, the aims for DA are not only
sequential or syntactic, but also semantic and pragmatic.
Within the category of discourse we may include not only the
“purely” linguistic content, but also sign language, dramatization, or the
so-called ‘bodily hexis’ (Bordieu, 1990), i.e. the speaker’s disposition or the
way s/he stands, talks, walks or laughs, which has to do with a given political
mythology. It can
thus be concluded that discourse is multi-modal because it uses more than one semiotic system and performs several functions at the same time.
Wetherell et al. (2001) present four possible approaches to DA, which are summarized as follows:
thus be concluded that discourse is multi-modal because it uses more than one semiotic system and performs several functions at the same time.
Wetherell et al. (2001) present four possible approaches to DA, which are summarized as follows:
1. The model that views language as a system and therefore it is important for the
researchers to find patterns.
2. The model that is based on the activity of language use, more than on language in itself. Language is viewed as a process and not as a product; thus researchers focus on interaction.
Exercise:
What language as a process and not as a product means?
3. The model that searches for language patterns associated with a given topic or
activity (e.g. legal discourse, psychotherapeutic discourse, etc.).
4. The model that looks for patterns within broader contexts, such as “society” or
“culture”. Here, language is viewed as part of major processes and activities, and as such the interest goes beyond language (e.g. the study of racism or sexism through the analysis of discourse).
In spite of these categorizations, it would not be
unreasonable to say that there are as many approaches to discourse as there are
researchers devoted to the field, for each of them proposes new forms of
analysis or new concepts that somehow transform or broaden previous modes of
analysis. However, it would also
be true to say that all streams of research within the field are related to one another, and sometimes it is difficult to distinguish among them. Precisely with the aim of systematizing the study of discourse and distinguishing among different ways of solving problems within the discipline, different traditions or
schools have been identified. It would be impossible to embrace them all in only one work, and for that reason, we are only going to concentrate on the main ideas and practices within some of the best-known schools, which are the following:
1. Pragmatics ( Chapter 3)
2. Interactional Sociolinguistics (Chapter 4)
3. Conversation Analysis (Chapter 5)
4. The Ethnography of Communication (Chapter 6)
5. Variation Analysis and Narrative Analysis (Chapter 7)
6. Functional Sentence Perspective (Chapter 8)
7. Post-structuralist Theory and Social Theory (Chapter 9)
8. Critical Discourse Analysis and Positive Discourse Analysis (Chapter 10)
9. Mediated Discourse Analysis
A common characteristic of all these schools of thought is that they do not focus on language as an abstract system. Instead, they all tend to be interested in what happens when people use language, based on what they have said, heard or seen before, as well as in how they do things with language, such as express feelings, entertain others, exchange information, and so on. This is the main reason why the discipline has been called “Discourse Analysis” rather than “language analysis”.
be true to say that all streams of research within the field are related to one another, and sometimes it is difficult to distinguish among them. Precisely with the aim of systematizing the study of discourse and distinguishing among different ways of solving problems within the discipline, different traditions or
schools have been identified. It would be impossible to embrace them all in only one work, and for that reason, we are only going to concentrate on the main ideas and practices within some of the best-known schools, which are the following:
1. Pragmatics ( Chapter 3)
2. Interactional Sociolinguistics (Chapter 4)
3. Conversation Analysis (Chapter 5)
4. The Ethnography of Communication (Chapter 6)
5. Variation Analysis and Narrative Analysis (Chapter 7)
6. Functional Sentence Perspective (Chapter 8)
7. Post-structuralist Theory and Social Theory (Chapter 9)
8. Critical Discourse Analysis and Positive Discourse Analysis (Chapter 10)
9. Mediated Discourse Analysis
A common characteristic of all these schools of thought is that they do not focus on language as an abstract system. Instead, they all tend to be interested in what happens when people use language, based on what they have said, heard or seen before, as well as in how they do things with language, such as express feelings, entertain others, exchange information, and so on. This is the main reason why the discipline has been called “Discourse Analysis” rather than “language analysis”.
1.4 What do discourse analysts do?
Broadly speaking, discourse analysts investigate the use of language in context, thus they are interested in what speakers/writers do, and not so much in the formal relationships among sentences or propositions. Discourse analysis, then, has a social dimension, and for many analysts it is a method for
studying how language “gets recruited ‘on site’ to enact specific social activities and social identities”(Gee 1999: 1).
Even when a discipline is hard to delimit, as is the case with DA, we can learn a great deal about its field of concern by observing what practitioners do. If we look at what discourse analysts do, we will find they explore matters such as:
• Turn-taking in telephone conversations
• The language of humor
• Power relationships in doctor/patient interviews
• Dialogue in chat rooms
• The discourse of the archives, records or files of psychoanalysts
• The conversation at a dinner table
• The scripts of a given television program
• The discourse of politicians
• The study of racism through the use of discourse
• How power relations and sexism are manifested in the conversation between men and women
• The characteristics of persuasive discourse
• Openings and closings in different types of conversations
• The structure of narrative
• Representations of black/white people (or any race) in the written media (magazines,
newspapers, etc.)
• The strategies used by speakers/writers in order to fulfil a given discourse function
• The use of irony or metaphor for certain communicative aims
• The use of linguistic politeness
• The discourse of E-mail messages
• Legal discourse used in trials
• How people create social categories like “boy” or “immigrant” or “lady” as they talk to, about, or among each other
• And a long etcetera…
These are just a few examples reflecting the concerns of discourse analysts, but they are sufficient to demonstrate that researchers in DA are certainly concerned with the study of language in use.
Exercise:
Explore the strategies used by speakers/writers in order to fulfil
a given discourse function.
Several other examples of possible DA areas of interest.
Several other examples of possible DA areas of interest.
It is worth noting that, as Johnstone (2002) remarks,
the discipline is called discourse analysis (and not, for instance, “discourseology”) because it
“typically focuses on the analytical process in a relatively explicit way”
(2002: 3). This analysis may be realized by dividing long stretches of
discourse into parts
or units of different sorts, depending on the initial research question, and it can also involve looking at the phenomenon under study in a variety of ways, by performing, for instance, a given set of tests.
Thus, discourse analysts have helped (and are helping) to shed light on how speakers/writers organize their discourse in order to indicate their semantic intentions, as well as on how hearers/readers interpret what they hear, read or see. They have also contributed to answer important research questions which
have lead, for instance, to the identification of the cognitive abilities involved in the use of symbols or semiotic systems, to the study of variation and change, or to the description of some aspects of the process of language acquisition.
In order to carry out their analyses, discourse analysts need to work with texts. Texts constitute the corpus of any given study, which may consist of the transcripts of a recorded conversation, a written document or a computerized corpus of a given language, to name a few possibilities. The use of corpora
has become a very widespread practice among discourse researchers, and for that reason it is necessary for any discourse analyst to acquire some basic knowledge of how to handle the data and how to work with corpora.
or units of different sorts, depending on the initial research question, and it can also involve looking at the phenomenon under study in a variety of ways, by performing, for instance, a given set of tests.
Thus, discourse analysts have helped (and are helping) to shed light on how speakers/writers organize their discourse in order to indicate their semantic intentions, as well as on how hearers/readers interpret what they hear, read or see. They have also contributed to answer important research questions which
have lead, for instance, to the identification of the cognitive abilities involved in the use of symbols or semiotic systems, to the study of variation and change, or to the description of some aspects of the process of language acquisition.
In order to carry out their analyses, discourse analysts need to work with texts. Texts constitute the corpus of any given study, which may consist of the transcripts of a recorded conversation, a written document or a computerized corpus of a given language, to name a few possibilities. The use of corpora
has become a very widespread practice among discourse researchers, and for that reason it is necessary for any discourse analyst to acquire some basic knowledge of how to handle the data and how to work with corpora.
A collection of
written texts, especially the entire works of a particular author or a body of
writing on a particular subject.
"The
Darwinian corpus"
The terms text and discourse have been –and still are– used
ambiguously, and they are defined in different ways by different researchers. We
are going to use the term text to refer to the ‘purely’
linguistic material, and we are going to consider discourse in a broader sense, defining it
as language in use, composed of text and context.
2. Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis share some basic tenets and, while some authors make a distinction between them, others use both terms to mean the same. However, it may be said that “purely” Text Linguistic studies are more concerned with the text-internal factors (i.e. cohesion and coherence), while Discourse Analysis focuses its attention more on the text-external factors,
without disregarding the text-internal ones. The history of these disciplines shows that research has evolved, in many cases, from the narrower scope of Text Grammar (and later, Text Linguistics) into the broader discipline of Discourse Analysis, and therefore both disciplines have merged. For this
reason and for clarifying and practical purposes, we shall consider DA as a macro-discipline that includes several sub-approaches, among which the ‘purely’ text-linguistic ones can also be found.
3. We are going to touch on the main theoretical and practical tenets of the following traditions identified within discourse studies: Pragmatics, Conversation Analysis, Interactional Sociolinguistics, Ethnography of Communication, Variation Analysis and Narrative Analysis,
Functional Sentence Perspective, Post-structural and Social Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis/Positive Discourse Analysis and Mediated Discourse Analysis.
4. In order to learn about a given discipline, it is useful to look at what practitioners do. Discourse analysts explore the language of face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations, e-mail messages, etc., and they may study power relations, the structure of turn-taking, politeness strategies,
the linguistic manifestation of racism or sexism, and many, many other aspects of language in use.
The sky is the limit.
5. Discourse analysts are interested in the actual patterns of use in naturally-occurring texts. These natural texts, once transcribed and annotated, are known as the corpus, which constitutes the basis for analysis. Thus, discourse analysts necessarily take a corpus-based approach to their research
Exercise:
2. Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis share some basic tenets and, while some authors make a distinction between them, others use both terms to mean the same. However, it may be said that “purely” Text Linguistic studies are more concerned with the text-internal factors (i.e. cohesion and coherence), while Discourse Analysis focuses its attention more on the text-external factors,
without disregarding the text-internal ones. The history of these disciplines shows that research has evolved, in many cases, from the narrower scope of Text Grammar (and later, Text Linguistics) into the broader discipline of Discourse Analysis, and therefore both disciplines have merged. For this
reason and for clarifying and practical purposes, we shall consider DA as a macro-discipline that includes several sub-approaches, among which the ‘purely’ text-linguistic ones can also be found.
3. We are going to touch on the main theoretical and practical tenets of the following traditions identified within discourse studies: Pragmatics, Conversation Analysis, Interactional Sociolinguistics, Ethnography of Communication, Variation Analysis and Narrative Analysis,
Functional Sentence Perspective, Post-structural and Social Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis/Positive Discourse Analysis and Mediated Discourse Analysis.
4. In order to learn about a given discipline, it is useful to look at what practitioners do. Discourse analysts explore the language of face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations, e-mail messages, etc., and they may study power relations, the structure of turn-taking, politeness strategies,
the linguistic manifestation of racism or sexism, and many, many other aspects of language in use.
The sky is the limit.
5. Discourse analysts are interested in the actual patterns of use in naturally-occurring texts. These natural texts, once transcribed and annotated, are known as the corpus, which constitutes the basis for analysis. Thus, discourse analysts necessarily take a corpus-based approach to their research
Exercise:
Choose the answer that best suits the information given above.
1. Modern Linguistics has introduced a concept of text that…
a) is very restrictive.
b) includes all types of utterances.
c) includes only written discourse.
2. De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981)…
a) view Text Linguistics from a broader perspective than that of Crystal’s (1997).
b) define text in terms of three main criteria.
c) define text as a grammatical category.
3. According to Tischer et al. (2000), the first two criteria that define text (De Beaugrande &
Dressler, 1981)…
a) are text-external.
b) belong only to “pure” Text Linguistics.
c) are text-internal.
4. The tradition in Discourse Analysis has always been to…
a) give more importance to the text-external criteria of intentionality, acceptability, informativity,
situationality and intertextuality.
b) give more importance to the text than to the context.
c) consider context as playing a subsidiary role.
5. According to Schiffrin (1994) and other authors, Discourse Analysis…
a) involves only the study of context.
b) is devoted to the study of text.
c) includes the analysis of both text and context.
Exercise:
1. Modern Linguistics has introduced a concept of text that…
a) is very restrictive.
b) includes all types of utterances.
c) includes only written discourse.
2. De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981)…
a) view Text Linguistics from a broader perspective than that of Crystal’s (1997).
b) define text in terms of three main criteria.
c) define text as a grammatical category.
3. According to Tischer et al. (2000), the first two criteria that define text (De Beaugrande &
Dressler, 1981)…
a) are text-external.
b) belong only to “pure” Text Linguistics.
c) are text-internal.
4. The tradition in Discourse Analysis has always been to…
a) give more importance to the text-external criteria of intentionality, acceptability, informativity,
situationality and intertextuality.
b) give more importance to the text than to the context.
c) consider context as playing a subsidiary role.
5. According to Schiffrin (1994) and other authors, Discourse Analysis…
a) involves only the study of context.
b) is devoted to the study of text.
c) includes the analysis of both text and context.
Exercise:
Choose the answer that best suits the information given above.
De Beaugrande & Dressler’s (1981) definition of
Text Linguistics…
a) differs widely from Schiffrin’s (1994) definition of Discourse Analysis
b) does not substantially differ from Schiffrin’s (1994), Fasold’s (1990), Brown & Yule’s (1983) or
Candlin’s (1997) definition of Discourse Analysis.
c) is exactly the same as Schiffrin’s (1994).
7. The tendency in Text Linguistics has been to…
a) present a more formal approach than that of Discourse Analysis.
b) present a more functional approach than that of Discourse Analysis.
c) be less formal than any other approach.
8. Functionalists see language…
a) mainly as a mental phenomenon.
b) as a predominantly social phenomenon.
c) as an acoustic phenomenon.
9. Many discourse analysts, like Schiffrin or Slembrouck …
a) integrate both the formal and functional approaches in their study of discourse.
b) do not mix the formal with the functional approach.
c) prefer the formal to the functional approach.
10. Discourse studies are…
a) restricted to the field of Linguistics.
b) devoted mainly to social phenomena.
c) essentially multidisciplinary.
11. Functionalism, Cognitive Linguistics, Sociolinguistic, Pragmatics, Text Linguistics and
a) differs widely from Schiffrin’s (1994) definition of Discourse Analysis
b) does not substantially differ from Schiffrin’s (1994), Fasold’s (1990), Brown & Yule’s (1983) or
Candlin’s (1997) definition of Discourse Analysis.
c) is exactly the same as Schiffrin’s (1994).
7. The tendency in Text Linguistics has been to…
a) present a more formal approach than that of Discourse Analysis.
b) present a more functional approach than that of Discourse Analysis.
c) be less formal than any other approach.
8. Functionalists see language…
a) mainly as a mental phenomenon.
b) as a predominantly social phenomenon.
c) as an acoustic phenomenon.
9. Many discourse analysts, like Schiffrin or Slembrouck …
a) integrate both the formal and functional approaches in their study of discourse.
b) do not mix the formal with the functional approach.
c) prefer the formal to the functional approach.
10. Discourse studies are…
a) restricted to the field of Linguistics.
b) devoted mainly to social phenomena.
c) essentially multidisciplinary.
11. Functionalism, Cognitive Linguistics, Sociolinguistic, Pragmatics, Text Linguistics and
Exercise:
Choose the answer that best suits the information given above.
Discourse Analysis are…
a) all relatively new disciplines which are interrelated.
b) completely different from one another.
c) very easily distinguished from one another.
12. Many scholars’ studies, like those of van Dijk or de Beaugrande…
a) have not changed substantially with time.
b) have evolved from Text Linguistics to Discourse Analysis.
c) do not show a natural flow of beliefs or ideas.
13. The current and main aim in Discourse Analysis is to…
a) study the formal aspects of texts.
b) discover the functions of language.
c) describe language in the context of human interaction.
a) all relatively new disciplines which are interrelated.
b) completely different from one another.
c) very easily distinguished from one another.
12. Many scholars’ studies, like those of van Dijk or de Beaugrande…
a) have not changed substantially with time.
b) have evolved from Text Linguistics to Discourse Analysis.
c) do not show a natural flow of beliefs or ideas.
13. The current and main aim in Discourse Analysis is to…
a) study the formal aspects of texts.
b) discover the functions of language.
c) describe language in the context of human interaction.
Exercise:
Choose the answer that best suits the information given above.
Zellig Harris (1951, 1952)…
a) was a functionalist.
b) was the first scholar that used the term Discourse Analysis.
c) criticized Chafe’s view of Discourse Analysis.
15. According to Schiffrin (1994), utterances are…
a) written or spoken linguistic units that are inherently contextualized.
b) units which are essentially and only sequential and syntactic.
c) purely linguistic units.
16. Discourse is multi-modal because it…
a) embodies one semiotic system.
b) includes laughter in its study.
c) uses more than one semiotic system.
Exercise:
Choose the answer that best suits the information given above.
Whetherell et al (2001) …
a) write about four possible approaches to Discourse Analysis.
b) write about only two models of analysis.
c) do not distinguish between models.
18. Discourse analysts are…
a) more interested in the grammatical aspects of language than in the details of its context.
b) more concerned with the actions of speakers or writers than with the formal relationships
between sentences.
c) not particularly interested in body language.
19. In general, we may say that discourse analysts are…
a) only interested in different types of conversations.
b) not interested in the written language.
c) mainly concerned with the study of language in use.
20. In order to carry out their analyses, discourse analysts…
a) very frequently use linguistic corpora as their data.
b) work only with written documents.
c) always use recorded conversations as texts.
Malinowski has said:
Even in the most abstract and theoretical aspects of human thought and verbal usage, the real understanding of words ultimately derives from active experience of those aspects of reality to which the words belong. The chemist or physicist understands his most abstract concepts ultimately on the basis of his acquaintance with chemical and physical processes in the laboratory. Even the pure mathematician, dealing with that most useless and arrogant branch of his learning, the theory of numbers, has probably had some experience of counting his pennies and shillings or his boots and buns.
Even in the most abstract and theoretical aspects of human thought and verbal usage, the real understanding of words ultimately derives from active experience of those aspects of reality to which the words belong. The chemist or physicist understands his most abstract concepts ultimately on the basis of his acquaintance with chemical and physical processes in the laboratory. Even the pure mathematician, dealing with that most useless and arrogant branch of his learning, the theory of numbers, has probably had some experience of counting his pennies and shillings or his boots and buns.
In short, there is no science whose conceptual, hence verbal,
outfit is not
ultimately derived from the practical handling of matter. (Malinowski, 1935: 58)
ultimately derived from the practical handling of matter. (Malinowski, 1935: 58)
Exercise:
Summarize the views of Malinowski
DISCOURSE AND PRACTICE
It is important to stress the difference between social practices and representations of social practices. It seems obvious, yet the difference is often glossed over. Martin (1984b: 5), in discussing a text about dog showing, does not draw a line between activity types which do and activity types which do not represent other activities or activity types: “Feeding is just as much part of dog showing whether one is doing it or talking about it.” Again, for Schank and Abelson (1977), the same “scripts” underlie our ability to participate in social practices and our ability to represent them. Here I will insist on the difference between “doing it” and “talking about it,” and on the plurality of discourses—the many different possible ways that the same social practice can be represented. To do so, I will use Bernstein’s concept of “recontextualization” (1981, 1986).
It is important to stress the difference between social practices and representations of social practices. It seems obvious, yet the difference is often glossed over. Martin (1984b: 5), in discussing a text about dog showing, does not draw a line between activity types which do and activity types which do not represent other activities or activity types: “Feeding is just as much part of dog showing whether one is doing it or talking about it.” Again, for Schank and Abelson (1977), the same “scripts” underlie our ability to participate in social practices and our ability to represent them. Here I will insist on the difference between “doing it” and “talking about it,” and on the plurality of discourses—the many different possible ways that the same social practice can be represented. To do so, I will use Bernstein’s concept of “recontextualization” (1981, 1986).
Exercise:
Explain the same
“scripts” underlie our ability to participate in social practices and our
ability to represent them.
Bernstein introduced this concept in relation to educational
practices. He described how knowledge is actively produced in “the upper reaches of the education system” (1986: 5) and then embedded into a pedagogic content in the “lower reaches” where it is objectified and made to serve the contextually defined purpose of a “discourse of order,” that is, of “moral education” in the Durkheimian sense.
practices. He described how knowledge is actively produced in “the upper reaches of the education system” (1986: 5) and then embedded into a pedagogic content in the “lower reaches” where it is objectified and made to serve the contextually defined purpose of a “discourse of order,” that is, of “moral education” in the Durkheimian sense.
Exercise:
Discuss discourse of order in monarchal orders.
Here I will use
Bernstein’s concept in a more general sense and connect it to the term
“discourse,” which I use here in Foucault’s sense (e.g., 1977), that is, not in
the sense of “an extended stretch of connected speech or writing,” a “text,”
but in the sense of social cognition, of “a socially constructed knowledge of
some social practice,” developed in specific social contexts, and in ways
appropriate to these contexts, whether these contexts are large, for instance
multinational corporations, or small, for instance particular families, and
whether they are strongly institutionalized, for instance the press, or less
so, for instance dinner table conversations.
As discourses are social cognitions, socially specific ways of knowing social
practices, they can be, and are, used as resources for representing social practices in text. This means that it is possible to reconstruct discourses from the texts that draw on them.
As discourses are social cognitions, socially specific ways of knowing social
practices, they can be, and are, used as resources for representing social practices in text. This means that it is possible to reconstruct discourses from the texts that draw on them.
Exercise:
What is “a socially constructed knowledge of some social practice?
Reconstruct discourses from texts.
Comments
Post a Comment