DISCOURSE ANALYSIS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

discourse analysis n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation

play fullscreen
1 / 37
Download Presentation
Download Presentation


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AmaliahKhairina (2201410077) AnnisLuthfiana (2201410051) ShofiaDesy R (2201410073) M. RizqiAdhi P (2201410007) Junnilalita A.V (2201410148)

  2. INTRODUCTION Applied linguistics interested in discourse analysis because it is aware of the inability the formal linguistics account for how participants in communication achieved meaning.

  3. What is discourse? A strecth of language in use, of any length, and in any mood which achieves meaning and coherence for those involved (Routledge’s book)

  4. What is discourse analysis? Discourse analysis can be defined as the use and development of theories and methods which elucidate how this meaning and coherence is achieved. The focus of this chapter is to examine the DA among other approches in language use.

  5. Early AL DA In the 1950s DA was seen and understood as a theoretical and structural linguistics as the potensial extension in language analysis beyond the level of single sentences to discover the distributional principles between sentences as well as within them (Harris 1952).

  6. Inresponce to theoretical stimuli, the 1970s and the 1980s saw a major works on DA emerging from AL perspective. The concern of DA in language teaching is related to some treatments in language teaching and learning.

  7. TEXT, CONTEXT, AND DISCOURSE • Much early DA work in AL saw text (the linguistic element in communication) as essentially distinct from context (the non linguistic elements) and discourse as the two in interaction to create meaning.

  8. TEXT • "Text" is written material. We discuss the text when we study a novel, drama, or short story. You might even call a letter to someone a text.

  9. CONTEXT • Context variously included consideration of such factors as: • the situation or immediate environment of communication; • the participants and their intentions, knowledge, beliefs, and feelings, as well as their roles, relations, and status;

  10. the cultural and ideological norms and assumptions against which a given communication occurs; • language which precedes or follows that under analysis, sometimes referred to as ‘co-text’ • other texts evoked for the participants and affecting their interpretation – sometimes referred to as ‘intertext’

  11. non-linguistic meaningful communicative behaviour, i.e. paralanguage, such as voice quality, gestures, and facial expressions • use of other modes of communication accompanying the use of language, such as music and pictures; • the physical medium of communication, such as speech, writing, print, telephone, computer.

  12. DISCOURSE • "Discourse" can mean spoken conversation or a written discussion of a single topic.

  13. The binary opposition of text and context, however, and the itemisation of contextual components, has come to be seen as problematic. If context and text are separate, then the status of text itself becomes precarious.

  14. As linguistic forms, if text is separated from context for the purposes of analysis, text ceases to have any actual existence, and seems at odds with the aim of DA to deal with the realities of language in use rather than linguistic abstractions. • There is no use of language which does not have a situation, participants, co-text, paralanguage, etc.

  15. Early DA, however, often work with this binary text/context distinction. At that time, DA was indeed experienced as the addition of a new dimension (i.e. context) to their existing object of study (i.e. text). And now, DA turned to a variety of approaches to communication from outside linguistics.

  16. PRAGMATICS • Interest in the role of context led initially to the classic texts of pragmatics and attention to how discourse is structured by what speakers are trying to do with their words, and how their intentions are recognised by their interlocutors.

  17. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) used the pragmatic notion of the act as a fundamental unit of analysis, showing how acts combine to form higher units (which they called moves, exchanges and transactions) in an attempt to formulate rules analogous to those in structural grammars. It is known as Birmingham School of Discourse Analysis (Birch, 1982)

  18. The approach focused upon language in isolation from other modes of communication, and, working from transcriptions after the event, tended to treat discourse as a product rather than a process.

  19. Schema Theory • Schema theory is a powerful tool in DA as it can help to explain both high level aspects of understanding such as coherence, and low level linguistic phenomena such as article choice.

  20. Both pragmatics and schema theory have remained salient in many approaches to DA. • But their focus is very much on understanding as a product, explained after the event, rather than a process. • Their representations of how communication works can seem removed from the actual development of discourse as it appears for participants.

  21. Conversation analysis • Working from the premise, consistently denied in Chomskyanlinguistics: • that talk in interaction, • including casual conversation, • is fundamentally ordered, • CA made use of newly available recording technology to transcribe and closely analyse actually occurring conversation,

  22. seeking to understand how participants make sense of, • find their way about in, • and act on the circumstances in which they find themselves’ (Heritage 1984: 4) and through this close analysis to understand the patterns of social life (Bhatia et al. 2008: 4) as realized in talk.

  23. Ethnography, language ecology, linguistic ethnography • Like CA, it isfirmly committed to seeking significance in the details and apparent disorder of everyday communication, and understanding participants’ own perspectives on the meaning and dynamics of what is happening. • It too rejects the idealisations and generalisations of formal linguistics.

  24. SEMIOTICS, PARALINGUAGE AND MULTIMODALITY Discourse analysts have long shown awareness of the need to incorporate such phenomena into their analyses, but also of the difficulty of doing so systematically

  25. SEMIOTICS The study of signs and symbols, what they mean and how they are used.

  26. PARALANGUAGE • Every spoken language has a volume, speed, pitch, and intonation. • Those paralinguistic element convey key information about the speaker’s identity, attitude, and commitment.

  27. MULTIMODALITY • In exploitation of paralanguage in spoken communication is an instance of multimodality as it involves visual, non-linguistics sound, and other sensor stimuli

  28. GENRE ANALYSIS • Genre analysis was developed by Swales and colleagues in connection with the teaching of English for Specific Purposes and is thus closely linked to the language learning approach to DA.

  29. Genre analysis seeks to understand any communicative event as an instance of a genre, defined as ‘a class of communicative events which share some set of communicative purposes’ (Swales 1990: 58). • Examples of genres are such events as academic articles, news bulletins, advertisements, prayers, operas, menus.

  30. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) • "Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context."  (Teun van Dijk, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis)

  31. CDA is concerned with ideology, power relations and social injustices, and how these are represented and reproduced through language. • They may focus primarily upon discourse practices and ideologies, or seek to link discourse and social structures, or to situate specific discourses such as those of racism within a broader historical perspective.

  32. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) investigates how language use may be affirming and indeed reproducing the perspectives, values and ways of talking of the powerful, which may not be in the interests of the less powerful.

  33. Back to Detail and Forward to Generalization: Corpus Linguistics • The advent of corpus analysis, however has enabled DA partially to redress these shortcomings, and to add a quantitative dimension to research.

  34. Corpus linguistics, like other forms of linguistic analysis before it, is an invaluable tool for DA. • Yet in its quest for understanding of how participants in communication achieve meaning, DA cannot limit itself to textual analysis alone, any more than it can limit itself to the cultural and psychological context of language use without attention to actual text.

  35. FINAL WORDS • There is a valid case for saying that there is no longer a single theory or method of analysis which can be clearly labeled as discourse analysis.

  36. It has become a superordinate term for a wide range of traditions for the analysis of language in use, so general and all-inclusive that it is hardly worth using. • Perhaps the term discourse analysis has had its day. It is now so built into the fabric of applied linguistics that any analysis of language in use is discourse analysis of some kind.

  37. REFERENCE • James, Simpson. 2011. The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. (pp. 431 – 440)