Texto y discurso 2

Notas a los temas

1. Textgrammar and discourse analysis

2. Textual components

3. Pragmatics

3.1 Speech act theory

3.2 Conversational implicature and relevance theory

4. Discourse analysis

4.1 Conversation analysis

4.2 Social interaction: politeness theory

 #1

A) Definitions of Text and Discourse

discourse: A continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than the sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or narrative. (Crystal 1992:25)

text: A piece of naturally occurring spoken, written, or signed discourse identified for purposes of analysis. It is often a language unit with a definable communicative function, such as a conversation, a poster. (Crystal 1992:72)

discourse: stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified, and purposive. (Cook 1989:156)

text: a stretch of language interpreted formally, without context. (Cook 1989:158)

discourse: whole complicated process of linguistic interaction between people uttering and comprehending texts. (Fowler 1986:86)

text: unit of communication seen as a coherent syntactic and semantic structure which can be spoken or written down. (Fowler 1986:85)

discourse is utterances... Discourse is "above" (larger than) other units of language... [it] arises not as a collection of decontextualized units of language structure, but as a collection of inherently contextualized units of language use. (Schiffrin 1994:39)

text: the linguistic content of utterances: the stable semantic meanings of words, expressions and sentences... the "what is said" part of utterances (Schiffrin 1994:378-9)

Cook, G. (1989) Discourse, Oxford: O.U.P.

Crystal, D. (1992) Introducing Linguistics, London: Penguin

Fowler, R. (1986) Linguistic Criticism, Oxford/New York: O.U.P.

Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse, Oxford (UK)/Cambridge (USA): Blackwell

B) Types of cohesion

REFERENCE (endophoric, exophoric, anaphoric, cataphoric)· pronominals (he, she, it, his, theirs...)· demonstratives & def. article (this, here, then...)· comparatives (same, other, else, more, as...)

SUBSTITUTION· nominal substitutes (one, so)· verbal substitutes (do, be, have)· clause substitutes (so, not)

ELLIPSIS· nominal (deictic, numeral, epithet as H)· verbal (main verb, operator)· clausal ellipsis

CONJUNCTION (conjunctions and conjuncts)· additive (and, furthermore, by contrast)· adversative (yet, but, rather)· causal (so, therefore, because)· temporal (then, soon, next)

LEXICAL REFERENCE LEXICAL RELATIONS· same item identical (Putin-The Russian PM)· synonym (speechless-dumb) inclusive (Russia-Siberia)· superordinate (car-Rolls) exclusive (mammals-reptiles)· general item (people, creature, thing) unrelated· collocation (undergraduate-grades)

Halliday, M.A.K. & R.Hasan (1976) Cohesion in English, London: Longman

#2

A) Speech act theory

-approach developed by Austin and Searle

-constatives vs performatives

-focused on sentences

-means of analyzing discourse (eg. problems of indirect s.a., multifunctionality and context dependence)

Example [1]

 speaker Can you read this?

hearer /Reads it/

Task: Consider the two possible actions performed by the speaker. Explain them in terms of hypothetical contexts

B) Gricean pragmatics

-conversational implicature

-cooperation

-speaker's communicative intention

-focused on sentences

Example [2]

 A: Do you want coffee?

B: Coffee would keep me awake

Task: What does B implicate? Can B implicate the reverse? How?

C) Discourse analysis

-model proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard for classroom interaction

-revision made by Burton for the analysis of casual conversation

-Hierarchy of structures: interaction, transaction, exchange, move, act.

-move: "minimal free interactive unit"

opening moves: topic carrying items which are recognizably new in terms of the preceding talk

supporting moves: items that concur the initiatory move

challenging moves: hold up the progress of a topic or the introduction of a topic in some way

Example [3]

 A: What shall I do this afternoon? opening

B: Go away and drown yourself supporting?

Task: Is B's move supporting? Why?

D) Interactional sociolinguistics: politeness theory

-Brown and Levinson's model: face maintenance

-Face is the self-image that a person assumes in interaction

-Negative face: impositions on the hearer's freedom

-Positive face: disregard for the hearer's wishes

-Strategies to lessen Face threatening acts

-Variables: power, distance, ranked extremity

Example [4]

Goodness, you cut your hair! (...) By the way, I came to borrow some flour

Task: Identify face, FTA and the strategies to redress it.

References:

Cook, G. (1989) Discourse, Oxford: O.U.P. Ch. 3, 4

 #3

"performatives" (a) do not describe or report or constate anything at all, are not true or false

(b) the uttering of the sentence is the doing of the action

eg. promising (S= speaker, A= action, P= proposition)

(i) propositional content rule: S's future action

(ii) preparatory rules: A is prefered

(iii) sincerity rule: S intends to do A

(iv) essential rule: the utterance of P counts as the undertaking to do A

(i) locutionary: the mere act of saying

(ii) illocutionary: the act performed by virtue of the utterance, it coincides with the propositional content/intention

(iii) perlocutionary force: the effect on the hearer

felicity conditions: presupposition.

existential

linguistic

pragmatic

(1) Student A: Let's go to the movies tonight

(2) Student B: I have to study for an exam

sentence type         utterance

declarative             statement

interrogative             question

imperative                 directive

exclamative             exclamation

A) Austin's (1962):

Verdictives: understand, reckon, describe

Exercitives: order, advise, claim

Commissives: promise, undertake, shall

Behabities: apologize, thank, curse

Expositives: state, remark, report

B) Searle's [1975](1979):

Assertives: boast, complain, conclude

Directives: invite, advise, order

Commisives: promise, threat, offer

Expressives: thanking, apologizing, welcome

Declarations: christen, fire (from employment), resign

Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: O.U.P.

Searle, R. [1965] (1972) "What is a speech act?" repl in P.Giglioli (Ed.) Language and Social Context, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Searle, R. [1975] (1979) "A taxonomy of illocutionary acts", rep. in Expression and Meaning, Cambridge: C.U.P.

#4

-literal meaning vs speaker meaning

eg. He is in the grip of a vice

CP: "make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged" (Grice 1975:45)

QUANTITY:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

QUALITY: make your contribution one that is true

1. Do not say what you believe to be false

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

RELATION: be relevant

MANNER: be perspicuous

1. Avoid obscurity of expression

2. Avoid ambiguity

3. Be brief

4. Be orderly

Cases:

(i) A speaker may unostentatiously violate a maxim

(ii) He may opt out from the operation both of the maxims and the CP

(iii) He may be faced by a clash: he may be unable to fulfil the maxim of, say, quantity, without violating the maxim of quality

(iv) He may flout a maxim, that is, he may blatantly fail to fulfil it.

eg.

a) A: I am out of petrol

b) A: Where does Jean live?

c) A: Did you like the lecture?

Implicatures are inferences about speaker intention that arise from:

-conventional meanings of words, references

-CP

-context of the utterance

-background knowledge

-the fact that the previous is available to both participants

eg. A: You've just failed your linguistics exam

-Schema theory

-Explicature and Implicature

-Models of communication

Grice, H.P. (1975) "Logic and conversation", in P.Cole & J.Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3 Speech Acts, N.Y.Academic Press, Harcourt

Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: C.U.P.

Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986) Relevance, Oxford: Blackwell

 #5

4. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

-The Birmingham school of discourse analysis

-The analysis of classroom discourse

- Interaction, transaction, exchange, move, act

Conversational structures: interaction, transaction, exchange, move, act.

MOVE: "minimal free interactive unit"

opening moves: topic carrying items which are recognizably new in terms of the preceding talk

supporting moves: items that concur the initiatory move

challenging moves: hold up the progress of a topic or the introduction of a topic in some way

bound-opening moves: enlarge and extend the topic of the original opening move

re-opening moves: reinstate the topic that the challenge has either diverted or delayed

ACT: "minimal unit of discourse"

marker, summons, silent stress, starter, metastatement, conclusion, informative, elicitation, directive, accusation, comment, accept, reply, react, acknowledge, excuse, preface, prompt, evaluate

Discourse frame

inform/acknowledge, elicit/reply, directive/react, accuse/excuse

Conditions to establish topic

H can refuse to pay attention

H can demand repetition

H can demand clarification

H can demand more information

Rules for interpretation (directives)

The action is purposeful

H has the ability and obligation to do it

S has the right to issue the directive

Burton, D. (1980) Dialogue and discourse. London: Routledge

Martínez-Cabeza, M.A. (1995) Lengua y estilo en las novelas de E.M.Forster. Granada: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada

Sinclair, J. & M. Coulthard (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse

Toolan, M. (1989) "Analysing conversation in fiction: an example from Joyce's Portrait", in R. Carter and P. Simpson (Eds) Language, discourse and literature. London: Unwin & Hyman

 #6

4. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS (Cont.)

ACTS (Burton 1980:156-9) (Statement [S], Question [Q], Command [C])

Marker: Realized by "well", "OK", "good". Marks boundaries in the discourse

Summons: Names, bells. Used to gain the attention of the hearer

Silent Stress: Pause(!). Highlights marker or summons

Starter: S, Q, C. Provides information or directs attention for a correct initiation

Metastatement: S, Q, C. Makes clear the structure of the following discourse and extends turn

Conclusion: Anaphoric statement. Makes clear the structure of the preceding discourse

Informative: S. Provides information

Elicitation: Q. Requests a linguistic response

Directive: C. Requests a non-linguistic response

Accusation: S, Q, C. Requests an apology

Comment: S, Q, C. Expands, justifies, provides additional information

Accept: "yes", "OK", "I will". The speaker has understood the utterance and is compliant

Reply: S, Q. Provides a linguistic response appropriate to a preceding elicitation

React: Non-linguistic action. Provides a non-linguistic response appropriate to a preceding directive

Acknowledge: "Yes", "OK", "Uhuh". Shows that an informative has been understood and appreciated

Excuse: Formulaic apology, S. Provides appropriate response to a preceding accusation

Preface: Meta-reference to preceding talk. Shows that a diverted topic is being reintroduced.

Prompt: "Go on", "Hurry up". Reinforces a preceding Directive or Elicitation

Evaluate: S, Q, C. Comments on the appropriateness of a preceding utterance

4.1 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS (Ethnomethodological approach to conversation)

-Speaker-change recurs

-One party talks at a time

-Speaker overlappings are common but brief

-Turn order and size are not fixed

-Length of conversation is not specified in advance

-What parties say is not specified in advance

-Number of parties can vary

-Turn-allocation techniques are used. A current speaker may select a next speaker or parties may self-select in starting to talk

-Turns vary from one word to several sentences

-Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors

First part: request offer assessment question blame

Second part: acceptance acceptance agreement expected ans. denial

refusal refusal disagreement unexpected ans. admission

Features of dispreferred acts: delays (pauses), prefaces (well, actually), accounts, declinations

References:

Sacks, H., E.Schegloff, G.Jefferson (1974) "A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language 50:696-735

 #7

4.2 POLITENESS THEORY (Brown & Levinson 1978, 1987)

Face: the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attibutes.

Negative face: the want of speakers that their actions be unimpeded by others

Positive face: the want of speakers that their wants be desirable to at least some others

-Those that threaten H's negative face: orders, suggestions, remindings, threats

-Those that threaten H's positive face: expressions of disapproval, criticism, disagreements

-Those that threaten S's negative face: expressing thanks, excuses, acceptance of offers or thanks

-Those that threaten S's positive face: apologies, acceptance of compliments, confessions

-Do the FTA on record, without redressive action, baldly

-Do the FTA on record, with redressive action, with positive politeness

-Do the FTA on record, with redressive action, with negative politeness

-Do the FTA off record

-Don't do the FTA

-The social distance (D) of S and H

-The relative power (P) of S and H

-The absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture

Brown, P. y S.Levinson (1978) "Politeness", in E.Goody (Ed.) (1978) Questions and Politeness, Cambridge: C.U.P. pp. 56-289

Brown, P. y S.Levinson (1987) Politeness. Some universals in language usage, Cambridge: C.U.P.