Week 1 Discourse Analysis

8/2/2019 Week 1 Discourse Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/week-1-discourse-analysis 1/8

Discourse Analysis (from McCarthy, Matthiessen, & Slade, 2002)

I. What is Discourse Analysis?

Life is a constant flow of discourse; we engage in communication in the extraordinary range of contexts.

Learning how to engage in discourse is one of the most important goals in language learning and teaching.

Discourse analysts study texts, whether spoken or written, whether long or short, and are interested in the

relationship between texts and the context in which they arise and operate; always look at real texts; study language

independently of the notion of the sentence, typically studying longer passages of text.

Questions that discourse analysts focus on when analysing texts: ⑴ Who are the participant in the discourse, that

is, the writer and reader(s) , the speaker(s) and listener(s) ? What is their relationship? ⑵ How do we know what

writers and speakers mean? What does this piece of language mean in this context?

II. Speaking and Writing

Past myth of ‘formlessness’ of spoken language (e.g., pauses, repetitions, false starts, hesitation, silence)

Recent research on the analysis of spoken discourse shows that spoken English does have a consistent and

describable structure and that in many respects the language patterning is the same as written English.

One way of approaching differences between speaking and writing is to plot individual texts along scales/dimensions.

Informal Spoken English Formal Written

English

Casual conversation Letter to an acquaintance Job interview Written

academic article

E-mail to a friend Conversation with manager at work Public speech

Informal written text Formal spoken/oral text

context: text가 이루어지고 있는 맥락; 현장

sentence: 전통적으로 semantics, syntax 연구자들의 관심은 sentence-level grammar 에 초점이 맞춰져 왔

the writer and reader(s): written discourse의 participants

the speaker(s) and listener(s): spoken/oral discourse의 participants

pauses, repetitions, false starts, hesitation, silence, etc.: 과거에 spoken lg.를 formless하다고 바라보는 이유였

으나 spoken lg. 역시 grammatical하고 form과 structure가 있다는 것이 밝혀졌다.



Lexical density in written text vs. spoken text

Text 1(written): Cockroaches

{Cockroaches are eminently tropical}, but {certain species have become widely disseminated through commerce}

and {are now cosmopolitan}. {Cockroaches are nocturnal in habit}, {hiding themselves during the day}; {the

domestic species are omnivorous} but {are especially addicted to starchy or sweetened matter of various kinds}, {as

a rule they injure and soil far more than consume}, and {most species emit a disagreeable odour}.

Lexical density: 29 content words / {9 clauses} = 29/9 ≒ 3.2

Text 2(spoken): Cockroaches

Pat: {I remember} {we were sitting for our analytical chemistry exam} and {it was the final exams} and {they have

sort of like bench desks} where {there’s three to a bench normally} and {they had the middle seat empty} and {two

sat either side} and {I was sitting there} and {I thought} {‘Geez I can feel something on my foot’}.

Lexical density: 20 content words / {10 clauses} = 20/10 = 2

Pauline: uuhh

Pat: And I thought ‘No, no don’t worry about it,’ you know ‘what on earth is this chemical equation? ’ and I am trying

to think ‘but there’s something on my foot!’ and I looked down and there was this cockroach like this [gesture] – and

I just screamed and jumped up on the chair and as I did that I knocked the bench and it went up and all Geoff ’s

exam stuff went into the bin next to him, and I was standing on this chair screaming and the exam supervisor came

running over, ‘what’s going on there?’ [laughs] And I said ‘there’s a cockroach down there’ [laughs] ’cause you’re

not allowed to speak, sneeze, cough, anything in those final exams, and um, there ’s me screaming on the chair.

1개의 문장. 95개의 단어

Non-verbal [Pat and Pauline both laugh]

Spoken Discourse Written Discourse

Context dependent (exophoric reference)

직접적으로 말하지 않아도 눈치로 알 수 있다.

Context independent

글에서 “저거 봐”해도 독자는 알 수 없다. 그러므로

writer 는 reader 를 위하여 context를 만들어줘야 하고,

reader 는 글에서 context를 파악할 수 있어야 한다.

Less explicit (shared knowledge) Quite explicit (in the first place, finally )

Spontaneous (false starts, hesitations) Planned, edited, re-drafted

All interactants are engaged in the creation of the text

(turn-taking, interruptions, overlaps)

Only implicitly interactive

암묵적인 interaction 뿐(전통적 의미에서의

interaction은 찾아보기 힘들다). 그러나 최근의

interactionism에서는 ⑴writer & reader, ⑵reader &

Written lg.는 formal하고, spoken lg.는 informal하다는 dichotomy가 깨질 수 있다(mix되는 부분도 있다).

Casual conversation에서는 turn-taking, topic shifting, overlapping, interruption이 많이 일어나고, 이러한 성질

이 Written academic article 쪽으로 갈수록 보이지 않게 된다.

Lexical density: Written texts are typically lexically denser than spoken texts.



text(→reader response theory), ⑶reader & social

context(가장 최근의 관점)의 3가지 interaction을 말하

고 있다.

cf. 전통적 관점에서의 reading은 top-down, bottom-up.

Writer

↓encoding

messages writer 와 reader 사이의 NO

interaction

↑decoding

reader

Multilogue Dialogic (writer & projected reader)

Grammatical complexity ∵the chaining of clauses

Spoken & written discourse 모두 grammatical,

structured, complex하다. 단지 그 complexity가 어떻게

획득되느냐가 다를 뿐이다. Spoken discourse는

chaining of clauses를 통해서, written discourse는

density of structure within sentences를 통해서 그것을

얻는다.

Grammatical complexity ∵density of structure within

sentences

전통적 관점에서는 이 density of structure within

sentences가 complexity의 증거였기 때문에 spoken

discourse는 grammar, structure, complexity를 가지고

있지 않다고 생각했던 것이다.

Lexically sparse Lexically dense

Everyday vocabulary Specialised vocabulary

Discourse analysis has demonstrated that both spoken and written discourse have consistent and describable

structures, with different complexities reflecting the different functions of speech and writing. In every way possible,

learner should be alerted to the special qualities of spoken language and encouraged to accord equal validity to

both spoken and written formulations of language.

III. Approaches to Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic disciplines: ⑴Philosophy(Speech act theory ,

pragmatics ), ⑵Sociology(Conversation Analysis ), ⑶Sociolinguistic Approaches(Ethnography of Speaking, Variation

Theory ), ⑷Linguistic Approaches(The Birmingham school - IRF model).

Philosophy

Speech act theory : We can act by saying.

Pragmatics : Grice’s maxims (Cooperative principle), presupposition, performative verbs, factive verbs, deictics(지

시어), etc.

Sociology

performative verbs: e.g. promise “I promise you I will give you a present.” 동사promise 대신 say를 쓰면

performative sense가 사라지게 된다. 동사promise도 felicity condition을 만족해야 진정 promising의 기능을

할 수 있다.



Conversation Analysis is concerned with the detailed organisations of everyday interaction.

Turn taking

In conversation analysis, the basic unit of speech is the individual speaker ’s turn. A turn is each occasion that a

speaker speaks and a turn ends when another speaker takes a turn. Conversation analysts are interested in how

speakers achieve smooth turn-taking, and what the ‘rules’ are for who speaks when.

Patterns in Turn-taking: Adjacency Pairs(인접쌍)

In conversation analysis, the most basic pattern is the adjacency pair(AP), which is a pair of turns that mutually affect

one another. Examples of everyday APs are greeting-greeting , compliment-thanks , apology-acceptance . Such pairs

consist of two parts: a first pair part(FPP) and a second pair part(SPP).

A: Good morning. (FPP)

B: Hi, good morning. (SPP)

A: Can I use your phone? (FPP)

B: Sure. (SPP)

Preferred vs. Dispreferred SPPs

A: I think Ralph’s pretty good writer.

B: I think so, too. (preferred SPP)

A: I think Ralph’s pretty good writer.

B: Well, his imager ’s interesting, but apart from that I don’t think he writes well at all. (dispreferred SPP)

A: Wanna meet for lunch tomorrow?

B: Sure! (preferred SPP)

A: Would you like to meet for lunch tomorrow? [Invitation]

B: Well, um… tomorrow’s the 24th, right? I told Lori I’d have lunch with her tomorrow. And it’s her birthday, so

I can’t

softener reason

cancel. How ’bout Wednesday? [Refusal] (dispreferred SPP)

suggestion(face-saver)

written & spoken discourse 중에서 spoken discourse를 대상으로 하는 것이 conversation analysis. 그리고

-



A major contribution of CA has been to make everyday interaction a subject worthy of academic research; always

based on actual recorded data of naturally occurring interactions, transcribed in meticulous detail and reject

experimental methods of collecting conversational data.

∴ Implications for the language teaching classrooms: As much as possible, language learners should be given access

to authentic spoken extracts.

Sociolinguistic Approaches

Ethnography of Speaking (Dell Hymes) is concerned with the situation and uses, the patterns and functions, of

speaking as an activity in its own right; speech event as the prime unit of analysis.

Hyme’s SPEAKING grid(1972): Any speech event (e.g., a conversation at a party) comprises several components:

S Setting/Scene Temporal and physical circumstances

Subjective definition of an occasion

P Participant Speaker/sender/addressor

Hearer/receiver/audience/addressee

E Ends Purposes and goals

Outcomes

A Act sequence Message form and content

K Key Tone, manner

I Instrumentalities Channel (verbal and non-verbal; physical forms of speech

drawn from community repertories)

N Norms of interaction and interpretation Specific properties attaches to speaking

Interpretations of norms within cultural belief system

G Genre Textual categories

Variation Theory : Description of the structure of spoken narratives (Labov & Waletsky, 1967)

(Abstract) who and what the narrative is about; summary

Orientation the background for the narrative e.g., time, place, situation

Complication the conflict or problem in the story

(Evaluation) asides(방백) or comments from the narrator

Resolution the outcome of the narrative

(Coda) an epilogue or the moral of the story

하나의 narrative; story telling을 구성하는 데 있어서 ( )는 optional하나 orientation, complication, resolution

은 obligatory한 요소이다.

e.g. This is about a prince, a witch, and a princess. [abstract]

Once upon a time there was a handsome prince. [orientation]

A wicked witch turned him into a frog. [complication]

That’s not good, is it? [evaluation]

위의 disagreement나 refusal에서 보여지듯 dispreferred SPP는 상대방이 기대하던 반응이 아니기 때문에 상

대방이 겪을 충격(surprising)을 완화시키기 위해 사족이 많이 붙어 길어지고 복잡해지는 경향이 있다.



A beautiful princess broke the witch’s spell by kissing the frog. [resolution]

The prince and princess lived happily ever after. [coda]

Linguistic Approaches

The Birmingham School (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975)

IRF model (for the analysis of classroom discourse)

Transactions: lesson phases bounded by discourse markers Now then, Right, etc.

Transactions are composed of exchanges, moves, acts.

Exchanges: question-answer-feedback combinations

Moves: single actions of questioning, answering, feeding back

Acts: local, micro-actions (e.g., nominating a pupil to speak)

<A typical exchange in the teacher-fronted classroom>

T: How do we use a thermometer? Jennie. (Initiating move)

P: Put it in your mouth. (Responding move)

T: You put it in your mouth. (Follow-up move)

IV. Grammar and Discourse: Spoken and Written Differences

A grammar that fails to make the spoken-written distinction may be incomplete or even misleading

Hi, Nigel, been working? (understood: Have you been working?)

A: Anybody want soup? (Does anybody want soup?)

B: No, thank you.

Turned out well in the end. (It turned out well in the end.)

A: Nice restaurant. (It’s a nice restaurant.)

B: Yes, it is, isn’t it?

These common features of spoken discourse mean that a grammar written solely on the basis of written texts, where

such phenomena might be rare or completely absent, is incomplete. Equally, some structures which are common in

writing may be very rare in everyday conversation(‘bookish’ English). A discourse grammar, since it derives its

description from real contents of use rather than from isolated or invented sentences, will necessarily be interested

in the spoken-written divide wherever it is relevant. Language teaching should take note of the differences, especially

where skills are separated into speaking or listening skills and writing or reading skills, in syllabuses, materials and

written discourse에서는 비문으로 취급될 만한 것들이 spoken discourse에서는 가능/타당/합당한 범주의

grammar 이다. 이는 written discourse에서 찾아볼 수 없는 spoken discourse의 특징이다.

syntax에서는

어떤

구조를

설명하기

위해

sentence를

invent하기도

한다

.



language testing.

V. Corpus(말뭉치) Linguistics and Variation in Discourse

In recent years, discourse analysts have been able to greatly expand the scope of their work thanks to computer

software that can analyse large corpora. Corpus linguistics sprang from a desire to be more objective about language

and to free description from subjective intuition.

e.g. Written (per 5 million words) Spoken

‘ Absolutely’ 276 1234

A: I thought it was wonderful, you know.

B: Yeah, absolutely.

Additional study

Adjacency pairs

Linguist Sacks defines adjacency pairs in terms of characteristics. Adjacency pairs are sequences of two utterances

that are ⑴adjacent, ⑵produced by different speakers, ⑶ordered as first part and a second part, ⑷typed, so that a

particular first part requires a particular second part. There is a rule governing adjacency pairs: Having produced a first

part of the same pair, the current speaker must stop speaking and the next speaker must produce it at that point a

second part of the same pair.

Structure of adjacency pairs: ⑴The two parts are contiguous and are uttered by different speakers. A speaker who

makes a statement before answering a question sounds strange because the parts of the adjacency pairs are non-

consecutive. ⑵The two parts are ordered. For example, the answer to a question cannot precede the question in

ordinary conversation. ⑶The first and second parts must be appropriately matched to avoid odd exchanges. i.e. It

is called sequential organisation .

The requirement that both parts of an adjacency pair should be contiguous is violated in a socially recognised way.

e.g. A: Where is the book I bought this morning?

B: The green book?

A: Yes.

B: On the table.

The examples of dispreferred second parts are an offer-rejection, a proposal-rejection, an invitation-refusal, etc. A

dispreferred second is a marked and unexpected response. They are typically delivered ⑴after a significant delay, ⑵

with some reason that the preferred second part cannot be performed.

Felicity conditions

spoken discourse에서의 빈도수가 훨씬 높은 것으로 보아 absolutely는 spoken discourse에서 보다 더 많

이 쓰이는 단어라 결론 지을 수 있다.

실제 대화 자료를 모아놓은 corpus는 그 시초가 Brown Corpus (1967. 100만 단어)이다. 현재는 영국의

BNC(British National Corpus)와 미국의 ANC(American National Corpus)가 가장 방대한 corpus로서 초판만

1억만 단어였고, 현재 BNC는 2007년에 3판이, ANC는 2006년에 2판이 나왔다. Corpus의 종류에는

written text와 spoken text 모두를 수집한 balanced corpus와 각각 구분해 모은 written corpus, spoken



In pragmatics, the conditions that must be in place and the criteria that must be satisfied for a speech act to achieve

its purpose.Several kinds of felicity conditions have been identified, including:

(1) an essential condition (whether a speaker intends that an utterance be acted upon by the addressee);

(2) a sincerity condition (whether the speech act is being performed seriously and sincerely);

(3) a preparatory condition (whether the authority of the speaker and the circumstances of the speech act are

appropriate to its being performed successfully).

Etymology: Introduced by Oxford philosopher J. L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words (1962) and further

developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle.

"[Performatives are] utterances in which saying is doing, and they . . . are only successful if certain felicity conditions

are fulfilled . . .. A good example is the act of ordering someone to do something. To do this it is possible to use the

verb 'order' and say, for example, 'I order you to clean your boots,' or to use the imperative form 'Clean your boots,'

which is often associated with ordering. Yet, as with declarations, such utterances will only be perceived as orders if

certain conditions are in operation by both the sender and the receiver.

The felicity conditions for an order are:

The sender believes the action should be done.

The receiver has the ability to do the action.

The receiver has the obligation to do the action.

The sender has the right to tell the receiver to do the action.

If any one of these conditions is not fulfilled, the utterance will not function as an order. If I order someone to clean

their boots when I really do not believe this should be done, then my order is insincere, and flawed (condition 1). I can

order someone to clean their boots, but not to eat the Eiffel Tower--they will not have the ability (condition 2). My order

will not succeed as an order unless the person I am talking to is obliged to clean their boots (condition 3), and I have

the right and the power to make them do so (condition 4)."

(Guy Cook, Discourse. Oxford Univ. Press, 1989)

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/pragmaticsterm.htm



http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/speechactterm.htm





Documents

Week 1 Discourse Analysis