Rega Detapratiwi
2201409057
405-406
Summary of
Discourse Analysis
According to m Stubbs (1983:1),
discourse analysis is defined as concerned with language use beyond the
boundaries of a sentence/utterance, the interrelationships between language and
society and the interactive or dialogic properties of everyday communication.
The differences between text
analysis and discourse analysis are:
Text
Analysis
|
Discourse
Analysis
|
1.
Needs linguistic analysis
2.
Interpretation is based on linguistic evidence
3.
Text analysts need the right ‘knife’ to cut
the right ‘bread’
4.
Different ‘knives’ for different ‘bread’
5.
The
study of formal linguistic devices that distinguish a text from random
sentences. (Nunan:1993)
|
1.
How texts relate to contexts of situation and context
of culture
2.
How texts are produced as a social practice
3.
What texts tell us about happenings, what
people think, believe etc.
4.
How texts represent ideology (power struggle
etc.)
5.
Study
these text-forming devices which has goal to show how the linguistic elements
enable language users to communicate. (Nunan:1993)
|
The definition of Discourse analysis
is the study of how stretches of language used in communication assume meaning,
purpose and unity for their users: the quality of coherence. The coherence itself
derives from an interaction of text with given participants (context: participants’
knowledge and perception of paralanguage, other texts, the situation, the
culture, the world in general and the role, intentions and relationships of
participants).
Several approaches in Discourse
Analysis are:
1.
Speech Act Theory (Austin 1955, Searle 1969)
It
is a logico-philosophic perspective on conversational organization. Focus on interpretation rather than the
production of utterances in discourse. Every utterance can be analyzed as the
realization of the speaker’s intent (illocutionary
force) to achieve a particular purpose. Principal problems: the lack
of a one-to-one matchup between discourse function (IF) and the grammatical
form.
2.
Interactional Sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982,
Goffman 1959-1981)
It
is centrally concerned with the importance of context in the production and
interpretation of discourse which analyze grammatical and prosodic features in
interactions unit.
It
is focused on quantitative interactive sociolinguistic analysis, esp. discourse
markers (defined as ‘sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of
talk) and the unit analysis is turn. (Schiffrin: 1987).
3.
Ethnography of Communication (Dell Hymes (1972b,
1974)
It
is concerned with understanding the social context of linguistic interactions:
‘who says what to whom, when, where. Why, and how’. The unit of analysis is
speech event which comprises components. 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.
4.
Pragmatics (Grice 1975, Leech 1983, Levinson
1983)
It
is formulates conversational behavior
in terms of general “principles” rather than rules. At the base of pragmatic
approach is to conversation analysis is Gricean’s co-operative principle
(CP). 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.
5.
Conversational Analysis (Harold Garfinkel
1960s-1970s)
It
is used to understand how social members make sense of everyday life. There are
two grossly apparent facts: a) only one person speaks at a time, and b)
speakers change recurs. Thus conversation is a ‘turn taking’ activity. Models
conversation as infinitely generative turn-taking machine, where interactants
try to avoid lapse: the possibility that no one is speaking. The contribution
of CA is the identification of ‘adjacency pairs’ (fisrt and second pair parts):
conversational relatedness operating between adjacent utterances.
6.
Variation Analysis (Labov 1972a, Labov and
Waletzky1967
Variationists’
approach to discourse stems from quantitative of linguistic change and
variation. Although typically focused on social and linguistic constraints on
semantically equivalent variants, the approach has also been extended to texts.
7. SFA
(Structural-Functional Approaches)
Discourse analysis can turn out into a more
general and broader analysis of language functions. Or it will fail to make a
special place for the analysis of relationships between utterances. It refers
to two major approaches to discourse analysis which have relevance to the
analysis of casual conversation (the Birmingham School and Systemic Functional
Linguistics).
No comments:
Post a Comment