What is discourse analysis? B. Paltridge 2006. Discourse Analysis. Continuum.

Discourse Analysis focuses on knowledge beyond the word, clauses, phrase and sentence that is needed for successful communication. looks at patterns of language across texts and considers the relationship between language and the social and cultural context in which it is used.

Discourse Analysis considers the ways the use of language presents different views of the world and different understandings. examines how the use of language is influenced by the relationships between participants as well as the effects the use of language has upon social identities and relations.

Discourse Analysis considers how views of the world and identities are constructed through the use of discourse examines both spoken and written texts. The term discourse analysis was introduced by Zellig Harris in 1952.

Discourse Analysis and Relevant Concepts Context Pragmatics Cultural ways of speaking and writing Communicative competence Why? How do you relate these terms to the “concerns” of discourse analysis?

Language-Context The runway is full at the moment 1. Air traffic controller says it to a pilot: instruction 2. A woman says it to her friend waiting someone to pick up: simple statement Discourse analysis is the language in use. It considers the relation between language and contexts in which it is used and concerned with the description and analysis of spoken and written interactions.

Discourse analysis-Pragmatics Pragmatics is concerned with how the interpretation of language depends on knowledge of the real world. It is interested in what people mean by what they say.

Communicative competence 4 underlying components of communicative competence: grammatical competence : mastery of language codes sociolinguistic competence: knowledge of appropriate language use discourse competence:knowledge of connection utterances in a cohesive and coherent text strategic competence: mastery of strategies that speakers use to compensate for breakdowns in communication and the strategies to enhance the effectiveness of the communication.

Discursive competence It includes not only language-related and text-level knowledge but also complex factors outside of the text which need to be taken account for effective communication. Textual competence: ability to produce and interpret contextually appropriate texts. To do this we draw on our linguistic, textual, contextual and pragmatic knowledge of what typically occurs in a particular text, how it is typically organized and how it is typically interpreted. Eg. Internet communication (MSN Messenger), term paper, seminar, etc.

Discursive competence Generic competence describes how we are able to respond to both recurring and new communicative situations by constructing, interpreting, using and exploiting conventions associated with the use of particular kinds of texts, or genres. Eg. e-mail to a lecturer or a text message to a friend. Social competence describes how we use language to take part in social and institutional interactions in a way that enables us to express our social identity, within the constraints of the particular social situation and communicative interaction.

Different Views of Discourse Analysis Cazden (1998): analysis of the stretches of naturally occuring language; considering different ways of talking and understanding Fairclough (2003) : textually oriented discourse analysis vs. social theoretical orientation Cameron and Klucik (2003): instances of language in use that are studied under a textually oriented view of discourse are still socially situated and need to be interpreted in terms of their social meanings and functions.

Summary DA is a view of language at the level of text. DA is a view of language in use. (communicative goals, acts, present themselves) DA considers how people manage interactions with each other, other groups, societies and cultures. DA focuses on how people do things beyond language, and the ideas and beliefs that they communicate.

Discourse as the Social Construction of Reality Texts are embedded in social and cultural practices. Discourse is both shaped by the world as well as shaping the world. Discourse is shaped by language as well as shaping the language that people use.

Discourse as the Social Construction of Reality Discourse is shaped by the discourse that has preceded or follow it. Discourse is shaped by the medium in which it occurs as well as it shapes the possibilties of that medium. Discourse shapes the range of possible purposes of texts.

Discourse as the Social Situated Identities When we speak or write we use more than just language to display who we are, and how we want people to see us. Dressing, gestures, the ways we think, the attitudes we display, and the things we value,feel and believe.

Discourse as the Social Situated Identities Discourses invole the socially situated identities that we enact and recognize in different settings that we interact in: culture specific ways of performing and culture specific ways of recognizing identities and activities. Discourses involve different styles of language. Discourses involve characteristic ways of acting, interacting and feeling and showing emotion, gesturing. Discourses involve particular ways of valuing, thinking, believing, knowing, speaking and listening, reading and writing.

Discourse and Performace Discourses are socially constructed rathen than natural. People “are who thay are because of the way they talk” not because of who they already are” Social identities are not per-given, but are formed in the use of language and the various other ways we display who we are, what we think, value and feel,etc. Eg. the rap singer

Discourse and Intertextuality Texts may more or less implicity or explicitly cite other texts, they may refer to another texts, or they may allude to other past, or future texts. All texts are intertextual relationship with other texts. Eg. The movie “Casablanca” recalls film genres such as adventure movie, the patriotic movie, gangester movies, action movies, spy movies and romance.

Difference between spoken and written language Grammatical intricacy and spoken discourse Lexical density in spoken and written discourse Nominalization in written and spoken discourse Explicitness in spoken and written discourse Contextualization in spoken and written discourse The spontaneous nature of spoken discourse Repetition, hesitation and redundancy in spoken discourse

Grammatical intricacy and spoken discourse: Written language is more structurally complex and elaborate than speech. Halliday (1989) argues that spoken discourse has its own complexity. Gramatical intricacy refers to the relationship between clauses in spoken discourse which can be much more spread out and with more complex relations between them than in writing. Lexical density in spoken and written discourse: Written language tends to be more lexically dense which refers to the ratio of content words to function words.

Nominalization in written and spoken discourse There is a high level of nominalization in written texts. Actions and events are presented as nouns rather than as verb. They also include longer noun groups Explicitness in spoken and written discourse Writing is more explicit than speech. This depends on the purpose of text and again is not absolute. Contextualization in spoken and written discourse Writing is more decontextualized than speech. This view based on the percepin that speech depends on a shared situation and backgroud for interpretation wheras writting does not depend on such a shared context. Spoken genres determins it. For convesations: YES for academic lectures:NO

The spontaneous nature of spoken discourse Spoken discourse contains more half completed and reformulated utterances than written discourse. This is because it is often produced spontaneously. Repetition, hesitation and redundancy in spoken discourse Spoken discourse involves repetition, hesitation and redundancy than written discourse. It is produced in real time. It also involves fillers leke “hhh,er, you see”.