ASSIGNMENT NO 3

SEMANTICS AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

CODE NO 557

PRESENTED TO :
PROFESSOR S. MALIK

ASSIGNMENT NO 3
Q.NO.1. DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Many linguists use this term to denote a sequence of sentences and consequently
discourse analysis is taken to be the investigation into the formal devices used to connect
sentences together. In this sense, discourse is to be regarded as a product of the language
code and discourse analysis as an extension of the scope of grammatical description.
What we are interested in, however, is the connection between what is said and what is
meant and done, between linguistic form and social meaning and action. We wish to
discover the relationship between sentences and such different actions as requesting,
ordering, promising, predicting and so on. In order to avoid confusion, we might refer to
connected sentences as text and the study of such connections as text analysis. The
relation between sentences and social meanings and actions we shall call discourse and
the study of these discourse analyses. It has two aspects. The first one is related to the
study of utterances types or communicative acts in isolation. The second aspect of
discourse analysis concerns the ways in which individual communicative acts are linked
together to develop large units of communication. And there are two things on the basis
of which we can judge the worth of a discourse. The first one is cohesion and the second
one is coherence. Cohesion means the joining strength for example.
A. Your pen has been broken why?
B. Because it was old and rickety.
Here in this example the anaphoric word because is strengthening it and thus making it
cohesive. But coherence is something different. It means not well connected but has some
relevance. For example:
A. Your pen has been broken why?
B. I was not at home.
If propositions are taken as such
A. Your pen has been broken why?
B. (It was broken by someone) when I was not home.
Hence the discourse is analyzed regarding above two aspects and these two
characteristics.
COMMUNICATIVE ACT
As there is no neat correspondence between linguistic forms and communicative
functions. So how a linguistic form is to be understood as a message depends, then, on
factors in the speech event other than the code itself? Of course there must be mutual
understanding between addressee and addresser that these other factors in combination do
provide the necessary condition for a certain piece of language to count as a particular
communicative act. Hence he means that it is the act which we perform through the use
of language. An extreme example of this form of act is one in which the words
themselves perform an act as in I divorce you. The words actually perform the act of
dissolving a marriage. And in the case of word written on the glass in capital letter a
laborer might drop it and break it and in the end he can claim that he could not
understand it properly. It is always possible to be preverse in the absence of an explicit
formal indicator of communicative function. One is reminded of the story of the man who
refused to go down an escalator because there was notice reading DOGS MUST BE
CARRIED ====and he had no dog to carry. How ever, we generally assume that the
rules of use also operate in communicative act. In other words setting form provides
sufficient conditions for the message to be conveyed without recourse to the explicit
imperative of code. Although the imperative form is sometimes used by manufacturer yet
in the form of a label reading HANDLE WITH CARE, the labels of GLASS AND
FRAGILE both serve the same directive function.
THE RULES OF USE.
As there must be mutual understanding between the addressee and the addresser about
the communicative act of some linguistic form so an understanding comes when both
addressee and the addresser have learned the rules of use. And it must be in mind that the
acquisition of such rules and their uses is quite as much a part of learning a language as
acquiring the rules of grammar. And often learners are misled about the use of
interrogatives and imperatives in the places of commands. Instead of that there are certain
words as GLASS in capital letters show that it will break down. So the rules of use enable
the user of language to relate what is said to what is meant, to know what the use of a
given form counts as in terms of communication. These rules of use are the conditions
which users of the language subconsciously apply when they hear, or read an utterance in
order to test its true worth.
CONTEXTUAL APPROPRIACY
Since rules have to do with the operation of the language in a social context, it is clear
that they must relate to the kind of social notions which have discussed above. The
conditions which must be their for the utterance to be appropriate for the purpose
intended and interpreted as an order have to do with social constructor, like roles, rights,
and obligations, stereotypes, reference groups, categories and attitudes. Hence the
characterization of communication involves specifying how language is related to social
context. And we have to see whether the linguistic structures are appropriate to the
context or not. And as we have learnt one sentence convey a number of different
meanings and messages the practical objection is that there would be endless numbe4r of
sentences to learn by the heart if we try to use the language according to the situation and
condition. And many times sentences would be multifunctional. The pedagogic problem
is that there is no method to teach the foreign language learner to use which of the
sentence to use at the specific situation.

Q.NO. 2
As it has been propounded by one of the linguists that language is not just the utterance
of sentences which are grammatically correct and convey some meanings. Some times
just one word in some context and situations is enough to convey the required meaning.
And one must not confine himself to the properties of the language and should not think
that language is always a system and at every time it is the same. Hence is the case that
the learner of the foreign language can not claim to be perfect at it at any stage.
The learners of the foreign language often find themselves in quandary when
they find some utterance difficult to understand in the given situation. For example the
word GLASS written in capital letters connotes meanings that it must be handle with care
otherwise it may break And the handler if he breaks the glass can claim that there was not
warning written but it was just a single word. But the person bred and fed in the same
situation has the knowledge of the language communication and he can easily understand
that it means if handled not with care it might break and he would have to face the
consequences. But the learner of the foreign language will not understand it, it he has not
learned it before. Exactly like that if an English speaker says I am afraid before asking
something doubtfully, there must be a communicative act between him and the addressee
who is supposed to be a foreigner. But in teaching language no such properties of
language are taught. Hence it is a tendency in foreign language teaching that it is assumed
that linguistic forms and communicative functions are equal. And to each language is
purely use din terms of codes.
This is the reason that learners are commonly misled into thinking that commands
are uniquely associated with imperative sentences and questions with interrogative
sentences. The danger of such a grammar-oriented approach to language teaching is that
the learner can come to believe that rules of use are not distinct form rules of grammar
and message will always match the code forms which most directly reflect the function
which the messages fulfill. That is the case that students entering higher education after
five or sex years of formal instruction in the secondary school often have great
difficulties in trying to cope with the language used as medium for the subjects they are
to study. This is clearly a case for teaching rules of use in addition to grammatical rules.

Q.NO.3. FOUR LINGUISTIC FORMS

1. Would you please tell me the time of flight departing for Lahore?
2. What is the time of flight for Lahore?
3. Time of flight for Lahore, Please?
4. When the flight for Lahore?
If we analyze all of these linguistic forms they convey messages in the
following way. The first one is in the situation in which the speaker is quite slow and
courteous. And he has a lot of time to inquire. But in the case of the forth the traveler has
no time and he seems in quite hurry. It may be spoken in a hurried manner and there may
be a lot of rush. But the case of second one is different. Here the inquirer is quite cool and
show no feeling. He just wants to know the time of the flight and he may be asking for
some of his friends who wants to go or for any other purpose. In short how one basic
communicative act can be fulfilled by a variety of linguistic forms and how one linguistic
form can be used to fulfill a variety of communicative acts. There is no simple one to one
correspondence between messages and the forms in the language code which reflect the
functions which messages fulfill. What controls whether a given sentence can convey a
particular communicative intent is not a set of grammatical rules but a set of conditions
which together constitute a rule of use. For the learner to understand the way language
operates as discourse he must somehow be made aware of rules of use of this kind
Q.NO.4 DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPOSITIONAL AND
ILLOCUTIONARY FEATURES OF DISCOURSE
ANS:- First of all the problem is to define propositional and illocutionary features of
discourse. Propositional features of a discourse. Henry Widdown says that any
utterance is an expression and it is called proposition. In a discourse there are many
propositions interconnected or not well-connected. If propositions are well-connected by
conjunctions like as or so and because it is called cohesion of the discourse and if there is
weak link but they, however convey their messages clearly it is coherence of the
discourse. And this conveyance of many interconnected messages in sequence and order
is a feature of a discourse that is called propositional development. For example:
A: What happened to the crops?
B: The crops were destroyed by the rain.
They were destroyed by the rain.
Destroyed by the rain.
As we have seen the sentences used communicatively in discourse does not in themselves
express independent propositions. And in the same way unnecessary repetition of what is
already known, or given may reduce, communicative effectiveness, because the
importance, unknown, part of the proposition tend to become overshadowed by what is
known. Although propositional development can be overtly signaled out in this way, it is
common to find instances of this kind which will not appear to be cohesive at all. And
here at this point Illocutionary features are discussed. Illocutionary act is that we
express the same proposition and its sense will vary form situation to situation. And the
description of discourse involves in part accounting for the way proposition combine to
from an ongoing development; but it involves accounting for the illocutionary acts these
propositions are used to perform, and how they are related to each other. For example;
The house is on fire.
It is just proposition. But it conveys different messages in different situations. Here are
three more examples to explore.
1. A. What are the police doing?
B. They are arresting the demonstrators.
2. A. What are the police doing?
B. The fascists are arresting the demonstrators.
3. A. What are the police doing?
B. I have just arrived.
In the first of these examples, the anaphoric item they signal a propositional link with the
preceding sentence. It is cohesive. But in second case there we must assume the semantic
link between police and the fascists. And in the case of third example there are no much
formal signals. But it could be entirely appropriate if we look carefully. And we can put
the missing propositional link in the following way.
A. What are the police doing?
B. ( I dont know what are the police doing because) I have just arrived.
Thus cohesion is the overt relationship between propositions expressed. Many other
interpretations are possible. Here we have given instance to get linguistic clues to get
what propositions express and on the basis of these clues we make sense of sentences.
What we do when we produce discourse is to provide as many clues as se think necessary
for the satisfactory conveyance of meanings. We do not express everything we mean.
Indeed it is probably impossible to do this even if it were necessary. We inevitably rely on
common knowledge
To illustrate the point, let us consider the following example.
A. The committee decided to continue with its arrangements.
B. Morgan left London on the midnight.
Presented in this way, on the separate lines these are simply instances of usage: two
isolated sentences manifesting certain rules of the system of English. But if we present
them as a sequence then we have consider them as sue:
A. The committed decided to continue with its arrangements.
B. Morgan left London on the midnight train.
Once we have attributed certain illocutionary value to the second proposition, we are in a
position to see what inferences are required to fill the gap between the second proposition
and the first. We infer, for example; that the committees arrangement should have
prevented Morgans departure. To make the discourse cohesive we could write in
something write in something to that effect:
The committee decided to continue with its arrangements. (These
arrangements required Morgan to remain in London.) Morgan,
however, left London on the midnight train.
Other interpretations are of course possible. Morgan can be understood to have acted in
accordance with and not in defiance of the committees arrangement. In this case, the
second proposition takes on the value of a logical conclusion, and the two propositions
can be seen as realizing a cause relationship. We can make this interpretation explicit by
use of the marker therefore.
The committee decided to continue with its arrangements.
Morgan, therefore, left London on the midnight train.
And the other interpretation would be like this:
The committee decided to continue with its arrangements. (These arrangements require
Morgan to leave London.) Morgan, therefore, left London on the midnight train.
Other interpretations are of course possible, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate
that the recovery of the propositional link here crucially depends on the illocutionary
value that is given to the two propositions. But it is important to note that the context or
the situation does not of itself indicate the value that sentences assume in discourse as
expressions of propositions and performances of illocutionary act. This value is inferred
by the language use by reference to the evidence at his disposal.
We make assumptions about what the person we are addressing can infer
form what we say. If we judge correctly and make the right assumptions, then the person
being addressed will be able to reconstitute our meanings on the basis of the clues we
provide and with reference to the knowledge he shares with us, of course this does not
necessary mean that what the discourse produces creates will be the same as what the
discourse receiver re-creates. Apart from the fact that the later may miss or misinterpret
certain clues, his purpose in processing the discourse may not require him to recover all
the meaning that the producer intends.
The point to be stressed here is that the use of language in discourse is an
essentially creative endeavor which involves the language use in working out
propositional and illocutionary development. In either case, the discourse is interpreted
by our understanding how sentences are used for propositional and illocutionary
development and how these two aspects of discourse are inter-related and reinforce.
Q.NO. CONVENTIONS OF COHERENCE.
As to the writers preference let us first look at the three types of discourse
A. Rocks are composed of a number of different substances. These are called
minerals. Minerals are classified according to their chemical composition.
Some are oxides. Some are sulphides. Some are silicates. Minerals form
which we extract metals are called ores. Gold is an ore.

It must be acknowledge in this regard that though these seem separate sentences; there in
the sentences there is some sort of coherence instead of that we write sentences
separately. But according to the propositional development this is not the only possible
versions. The main point here is that sentences are combined by subordination the
proposition expressed in one necessarily becomes dependent on the proposition expressed
in the other: one becomes prominent at the expense of he other. Now analyze the
sentences. If we re-arrangement the sentences than definitely there must be some
implications of the illocutionary development. Now look at the second version.
 B. Rocks are composed of a number of minerals of different substances. Some
are oxides, some are sulphides and some are silicates. These substances are
called minerals. Minerals are classified according to their chemical
composition. Those from which we extract metals are called ores. Gold for
example is an ore.
This arrangement not only changes the order in which the information is presented but
also alters what the sentences count as in terms of illocutionary functions. And this
example is more coherent than the previous one. And now look at the third version.

C. Rocks are composed of a number of different substances. These are called

minerals. Minerals from which we extract metals are called ores. Gold, for
example, is an ore. Minerals are classified according to their chemical
composition. Some are exides, some are sulphides and some are silicates.

Re-ordering in this arrangement represents that s7 as n identification of a particular class

of minerals and s8 as an example of such a class, before we get a statement of how
minerals are classified in general and the effect of this is to change the directions of the
discourse.
In short we can arrange our sentences in a variety of ways and get a number of results. In
each case we ca be said to have cohesion to the extent that se have arranged for
propositional content to be conveyed form sentence to sentence. But different versions
function differently: to alter the arrangement is to alter the illocutionary character of the
discourse. Although they can all be said to be saying the same thing they are no all
doing the same thing. And are they equally coherent.
To answer this question we have to return to the point made above. When using language
for normal communicative purposes, the writer draws on what he assumes to be a
common knowledge of usage to provide clues to his intended meaning. In doing this he
makes assumptions about the capacity of the reader for interring propositional content
that is not explicitly stated and illocutionary value which is not explicitly indicated. Part
of this capacity has to do with quite general interpretative strategies which all language
users bring to bear for making sense of language use. Among such strategies are: assume
the writer has something informative to convey, relate what he says to what you already
know, if the writer does not remind you something, assume that it is not important,
assume that if one thing is said after another the two things are related in some way,
assume that something, assume that it is not important, assume that if one thing is said
after another the two things are related in some way, assume that something expressed in
a subordinate sentence is intended to be less prominent than something expressed in a
main sentence, and so on. Part of capacity for inference, however it has to do with more
specific sets of conventions associated with particular kinds discourse. We learn, for
example those businesses letters take a certain form that experiments in the laboratory are
written up in a certain way, and so on. A discourse is coherent to the extent that we
recognize it as representative of normal language use, to the extent that we can accept the
sequence of illocutionary acts as conforming to known conventions.
With regard to the three versions, we can judge their relative coherence by invoking our
knowledge of the conventions which inform the kind of discourse which they most
closely resemble. Thus we might say that discourse A is to be preferred to Discourse B
and C because it resembles the kind of description to be found in textbooks in which
there is a progression from the general to the particular in a gradual lead in to a specific
topic. Discourse B and C are less coherent because both of them exhibit a disturbance in
this progression by the insertion of a parenthetical comment: in B this comment projects
the reader backwards to expand on something previously discussed and in C it leads him
off on a tangent away from the main theme. To the extent that this kind of disruption does
not normally occur in discourse of this kind, these versions are incoherent. Another way
of putting this is to say that these versions are more difficult to process: a greater strain is
put on the readers interpretative strategies because he cannot refer to known conventions
as guide.
Coherence then, is measured by the extent to which a particular instance of language use
corresponds to a shared knowledge we can judge how coherent it is as description, a
technical repost, a legal brief, an explanation and so on. If we are not familiar with the
conventions, then the language is incoherent to a degree corresponding with our
unfamiliarity. It may, of course, be cohesive: we may recognize by reference to syntactic
and semantic clues how the propositions relate to each other. What we do not recognize is
the illocutionary significance of the relationship. This means that if we are asked to say
what the piece of language is about we cannot summarize, we can only quote.
We can arrive at a number of cohesive versions but their acceptability as instances of
discourse will depend on which version is the most coherent. To organize propositions so
that they link up with each other is not enough: they must link in such a way as to provide
for a satisfactory illocutionary relationship.
As far as I am concerned I shall arrive at the same conclusion as Widowson has arrived in
his contention.