Stephen van Vlack

Sookmyung Women`s University

Graduate School of TESOL

Discourse Analysis

(Spring 2006)

Week 2 - McCarthy, Chapter 1 and Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, Chapter 1 & 2 - Answers

1. Where does discourse analysis come from? (MC)

            Where discourse comes from would depend on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are focusing their attention. As far as the history goes, for the Americans discourse developed out of the field of anthropology. This is probably easy to understand since anthropology really started as an American type of science. In the American anthropological tradition and a subfield called ethnography focused on how people in different cultures, and more specifically traditional cultures, told stories and engaged in conversation. It was observed early on that people in these cultures actually went about doing these things in different ways. The Americans discourse slowly emerged from this field of ethnography in to something more linguistic. For the British, less affected by changes in formal linguistics taking place in the US, discourse slowly started to emerge out all of the standard British linguistic theory. It was a long process starting first with what can be called Firthian approaches to language and received a big push from Halliday`s approach to language focusing on language use. Despite the differences in historical development, discourse today as it is carried out on both sides of the Atlantic has similar roles and is carried out in similar ways.

            The field of study called discourse analysis comes from the basic desire to study language in its context both linguistic and extra linguistic. It involves getting a larger picture not only of how language is used but of what language is. Through a serious analysis of discourse researchers hope to show how meaning is formed in one person`s bain and is transferred to the brain of others. It focuses on use and interaction; between one speaker and (an)other(s) within a specific and immediate or shared context in speaking and a writer, the text and a more distant or even non-existent context in writing.

            To a certain extent in general linguistics discourse plays a very strange role in that it runs contrary to some of the very basic ideas of standard linguistic theory. One important element of discourse is that use is somehow related to not only learning but actually linguistic systems. In short, up from a discourse perspective it is impossible to separate language itself from its use.

2. What are forms and functions and why do they need to be separated? (MC)

            In a very basic sense forms are the actual linguistic utterances which are used while functions are the reasons for speaking in the first place. It is obvious that any actual instance of linguistic use (speaking) is going to require both of these. Forms in and of themselves are useless (especially when we consider the inherent ambiguity of all forms on all levels). Functions alone do not create meaning or understanding. Functions shroud a potential for meaningful linguistic usage. The two of them need to be used together in language usage events, but we still need to think of them separately for one simple reason. There is no one-to-one form-to-function mapping in human language. Any single form can be used to fulfill a wide range of different functions (purposes) Think of a simple form hey. This simple form can be used for many functions.

-A warning

-Getting attention

-An amorous signal

-A simple greeting

            etc.

To an even greater degree any given function will be able to implement a virtually infinite number and array of different forms to serve it purposes. Just think of all the different forms which can be used for the function of apology. We could spend joyful hours coming up with never ending lists. Because of the complex configurations in form-to-function mapping it is important that we keep them separate. They mist be kept separate because they blend when they come together. As mentioned above, all forms are ambiguous until the moment they are used in a function. The function play an important role in determining the precise meaning of the form. Each specific form-to-function mapping in a linguistic usage situation is unique. To think of them together would mean that we would need to have several and sometimes hundreds of versions of the same form. It would not be a inefficient system.

3. What are speech acts and why do we need to know about them both as speakers and as teachers of speaking? (MC & CMO2)

            The idea behind speech acts is that instances of language use (whether spoken or written; short and fragmented, as is often found in speaking, or long and cohesive, as is often found in writing) are comprised of speech acts. Speech acts are `units` of language use which serve a particular purpose or point. In short, speech acts revolve around what is accomplished with language. A typical conversation will be composed of several different speech acts occurring in a succession. Some examples of speech acts would be:

apologize

complain

compliment

request

promise

etc.

            In contrasting speech acts with functions we can basically say that they are extremely similar, but speech acts are a little more specific. That we use functions to give any basic idea about our long-term goals were needs in trying to talk with someone and that this long-term goal can be broken down into shorter scenarios or even strategy sessions each of which has their own speech act. For example, if I`m trying to convince someone to do something for me (that is speak persuasively) I will probably engage in several different stages in this process. I will first need to butter the person up, then I will possibly breech the issue, and finally I will try to lay down convincing reasons why this person should help me. Each of these different parts to my conversation are composed of different speech acts all they all serve to support the same overall function.

4. What are some of the variables in analysing discourse? (MC & CMO2)

            In reading this chapter you’ve probably came to see just a few of some of the many different variables related to not only analyzing discourse but actually creating discourse. The beauty of doing discourse analysis is that by analyzing discourse we are hopefully going through a similar process as the person who is actually creating the discourse. Discourse (words – language) does not simply spilled out of someone`s mouth. People engage in rather complicated decision-making processes before, during, and after an actual speaking event. Speech is planned and many things are considered in the plan not only to heighten comprehension but also to follow social rules of conversation. A few of these very general variables are listed below.

register

genre

mode

function

            It is important to remember that these are just a few of the many possible variables that people think about before they speak and therefore discourse analysis also used to analyze how a discourse is not only put together but how well it fits a certain context. From a teacher perspective how well our students are able to fit their language into a certain context is really a determiner of how well they can use language. Language must fit otherwise comprehensive ability breaks down the cooperative social nature of language breaks down. It is much more than just forms and functions.

5. How are different types of discourse classified? (MC & CMO1)

            Basically, different types of discourse are classified across an orality/literacy continuum. First we look at the mode itself. It is exceedingly easy to determine if the discourse is in spoken or written form. Then within each modality there is a continuum of orality -vs- literacy. More formal instances of speaking are more literate while more informal modes of writing are often oral in form and design. This is very simple, but also quite important. Very often students are simply not aware of differences between different types of discourse. Just because we are speaking doesn`t mean that we can be oral. Again, it takes context onto a more formalized type of level linking it to specific types of language modes.

6. What is context and what role does it play in discourse? (CMO1)

            As has already been mentioned above context is the `place` in which language usage events find themselves embedded. It is generally thought that there are two types of context: linguistic (sometimes referred to as co-text) and extra-linguistic (simply context, or situational context). As the names would seem to indicate linguistic context is the linguistic situation in which the current text is being embedded. We need to think of conversations between people as being never ending. When I am talking to someone I know well I need to take into consideration not only what has just been said both by myself and all other parties involved in this particular conversation but also what we have said to each other over the entire length of our acquaintance. Having a stored recollection of all the things two people have said to each other has a profound effect on how they will talk to each other both currently and in the future. The forms people use are greatly effected by the linguistic context near and far in the expanse of time. Extra-linguistic context or situational context refers to the situation the speakers find themselves. Factors in situational context include, but are not restricted to: location, audience, gestures and other non-linguistic cues, time and much more. Celce-Murcia & Olshtain (2000:12) list four kinds of context which more precisely divide up the more general distinction I made above.

            As regards context certain usage events will be more or sometimes less linked to different types of context. Certainly certain situations are going to be more context heavy and certain types of language use are going to be more or less related to context. Again, writing, because it generally involves a lack of context is going to be much less situation we context dependent. If there is less situational context then the linguistic context is going to be much, much more important because really it`s all we have. As regards speaking, which is of course our main focus here, the important thing to remember is that speaking is more often highly dependent on situational types of context. This is a little bit tricky because it means as teachers we need to it all rather elaborate and realistic situational context for our students if we want them to practice speaking effectively.

7. What is pragmatics and what does it entail? (CMO2)

            Pragmatics is the study of language and language meaning in context. This involves how the context (the linguistic context - what was said previously and extra-linguistic or situational context work in affecting instances of language use and the meanings generated from such use. One of the main questions asked in pragmatics is `why did she say that the way she did?` and `how are others able to interpret such uses of language?`

            In this respect, we can contrast pragmatics with semantics. Both of them focus on the study of meaning, but for semantics we are talking about the underlying meaning inherent just in the forms while for pragmatics we are talking that the interaction between the semantic meaning and meaning inherent in or moulded by the situation. This is what makes pragmatics both difficult and also very interesting. In pragmatics we start looking at the human, interactional side of language and how this pertains to meaning. Interesting!

8. What are some of the basic points made in the seminal work of Grice (1975)? (CMO2)

            Grice (1975) was one of the first works to attach principles to conversation. His four conversational maxims impose restrictions and guidelines for instances of language use. This is important because it shows at least one more thing which affects language usage events in addition to forms and functions and all that entails. Rather then just going through a somewhat programmable form-to- function mapping process, because of Grice (1975) it became crystal clear that there are certainly other concerns which are part of the process of communication. These different concerns revolve around social norms and behavior. Although linguists often don`t like to think about language in this way it is certainly true that the act of speaking (creating language) is a highly specified type of behavior. Rather than simply avoiding this obvious observation we need to embrace this reality and try to think about some of the mitigating influence is on how speaking advance actually unfold. Once we are able to do the is then we can begin to start to teach speaking.