Discourse Analysis

 

Discourse Analysis---Notes

Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow together.

Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. For example, Charles Fillmore points out that two sentences taken together as a single discourse can have meanings different from each one taken separately. To illustrate, he asks you to imagine two independent signs at a swimming pool: "Please use the toilet, not the pool," says one. The other announces, "Pool for members only." If you regard each sign independently, they seem quite reasonable. But taking them together as a single discourse makes you go back and revise your interpretation of the first sentence after you've read the second.

Discourse and Frames

'Reframing' is a way to talk about going back and re-interpreting the meaning of the first sentence. Frame analysis is a type of discourse analysis that asks, What activity are speakers engaged in when they say this? What do they think they are doing by talking in this way at this time? Consider how hard it is to make sense of what you are hearing or reading if you don't know who's talking or what the general topic is. When you read a newspaper, you need to know whether you are reading a news story, an editorial, or an advertisement in order to properly interpret the text you are reading.

Turn-taking

Conversation is an enterprise in which one person speaks, and another listens. Discourse analysts who study conversation note that speakers have systems for determining when one person's turn is over and the next person's turn begins. This exchange of turns or 'floors' is signaled by such linguistic means as intonation, pausing, and phrasing. Some people await a clear pause before beginning to speak, but others assume that 'winding down' is an invitation to someone else to take the floor. When speakers have different assumptions about how turn exchanges are signaled, they may inadvertently interrupt or feel interrupted. On the other hand, speakers also frequently take the floor even though they know the other speaker has not invited them to do so.

Discourse Markers

'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh', 'but', and 'and' that break our speech up into parts and show the relation between parts. 'Oh' prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but' indicates that sentence to follow is in opposition to the one before. However, these markers don't necessarily mean what the dictionary says they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start a new thought, and some people put 'but' at the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing off gently. Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers is important to prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect every word to have its dictionary meaning every time it's used.

Linguistic Competence and Communicative Competence

Linguistic Competence is defined as the ability of a speaker-hearer to speak and understand language in a grammatically correct manner. The emphasis is put on grammar. Eg: A linguistically competent person would know which structure is acceptable in their native language or they would know the correct use of tenses in their language, though they may not be able to explain the grammatical rules. The focus of the attention is upon questions such as which among grammatical sentences are most likely to be produced, easily understood, less clumsy, more natural.

Communicative Competence

Hymes (1971) criticizes the notion of linguistic competence based on the fact that real communication, which involves the use of language in society, is not taken into consideration. He proclaims that there is nothing like a homogenous speech community or an ideal native speaker- listener. All we have is diversity in communities, differential competence and a repertoire of codes/varieties/styles. Therefore, Hymes came up with a theory which takes into consideration such factors which he called “communicative competence”. 

The theory of communicative competence is based on four points:

1. Whether and to what degree something is formally possible.

By being “formally possible” we mean how far the sentence is grammatically possible.

Eg: You is my friend is formally not possible in English and it is grammatically incorrect.

2. Whether and to what degree something is feasible

This denotes how far something is acceptable keeping in view the psychological constraints.

Eg: Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Though this sentence is grammatically perfect, it is not acceptable since it doesn’t have any meaning.

3. Whether and to what degree something is appropriate in relation to context

Eg: If somebody asks you “How are you?” and your reply is “Linguistics is a good subject”, the answer is not appropriate in the context.

4. Whether and to what degree something is actually performed.

This denotes the kind of sentences we usually use in our daily communication.

Eg: If we say John kicked the bucket not many non native speakers will understand the meaning of this sentence which is John died but if we say John died or John passed away, most of us will understand what it means. 

This theory takes into account both the grammaticality as well as the usability of language.