Discourse Analysis Handout

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 55

1.

DEFINITION OF DISCOURSE
“Discourse is always more than just language. Discourses are ways of being in the world, or forms of life
which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body
position, and clothes.”
Discourse is: ‘language above the sentence or above the clause. The study of discourse is the study of any aspect of
language use.

Discourse is for me more than just language use: it is language use, whether speech or writing, seen as a type of
social practice

Discourse is language use relative to social, political and cultural formation—it is language reflecting social order
but also language shaping social order, and shaping individuals’ interaction with society… it is an inescapable
important concept for understanding society and human responses to it, as well as for understanding language itself.

Discourse is…

“the use of language” (Chilton 2004: 16)

“anything written or said or communicated using signs” (Fillingham 1993: 100)

“the flow of knowledge through time” (Jäger 2004: 129)

“talk and texts as parts of social practice” (Potter 1996: 105)

“social cognitions, socially specific ways of knowing social practices” (van Leeuwen 2008: 6)

‘Discourse’ ... refers to language in use, as a process which is socially situated. However ... we may go on to discuss
the constructive and dynamic role of either spoken or written discourse in structuring areas of knowledge of the
social and institutional practices which are associated with them. In the sense, discourse is a means of talking and
writing about an acting upon worlds, a means which both constructs and is constructed by a set of social practices
within these worlds, and in so doing both repordues and constructs afresh particular social-discursive practices,
constraining or encouraged by more macro movements in the overarching social formation.(Candlin 1997)

“Discourse with a big “D” is always more than just language. Discourses are ways of being in the world, or forms
of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body
position, and clothes.”(Gee 19)

“In the end a Discourse is a `dance’ that exists in the abstract as a coordinated pattern of words, deeds, values,
beliefs, symbols, tools, objects, times, and places in the here and now as a performance that is recognizable as just
such a coordination.”(Gee 19)
Since its introduction to modern science the term 'discourse' has taken various, sometimes very broad, meanings.
Originally the word 'discourse' comes from Latin 'discursus' which denoted 'conversation, speech'. Thus understood,
however, discourse refers to too wide an area of human life, therefore only discourse from the vantage point of
linguistics, and especially applied linguistics, is explained here. Discourse (from Latin discursus, "running to and
from") denotes written and spoken communications:

 In semantics and discourse analysis: Discourse is a conceptual generalization of conversation within each
modality and context of communication.
 The totality of codified language (vocabulary) used in a given field of intellectual enquiry and of social
practice, such as legal discourse, medical discourse, religious discourse, et cetera.[1]
 In the work of Michel Foucault, and that of the social theoreticians he inspired: discourse describes "an entity
of sequences, of signs, in that they are enouncements (énoncés)", statements in conversation.[2]

As discourse, an "enouncement" (statement) is not a unit of semiotic signs, but an abstract construct that allows the
semiotic signs to assign meaning, and so communicate specific, repeatable communications to, between, and among
objects, subjects, and statements.[2] Therefore, a discourse is composed of semiotic sequences (relations among signs
that communicate meaning) between and among objects, subjects, and statements.

The term "discursive formation" (French: formation discursive) conceptually describes the regular communications
(written and spoken) that produce such discourses, such as informal conversations. As a philosopher, Michel
Foucault applied the discursive formation in the analyses of large bodies of knowledge, such as political
economy and natural history.[3][4]

In the first sense-usage (semantics and discourse analysis), the term discourse is studied in corpus linguistics,
the study of languageexpressed in corpora (samples) of "real world" text. In the second sense (the codified language
of a field of enquiry) and in the third sense (a statement, unénoncé), the analysis of a discourse examines and
determines the connections among language and structure and agency.

Moreover, because a discourse is a body of text meant to communicate specific data, information, and knowledge,
there exist internal relations in the content of a given discourse; likewise, there exist external relations among
discourses. As such, a discourse does not exist per se (in itself), but is related to other discourses, by way of inter-
discursivity; therefore, in the course of intellectual enquiry, the discourse among researchers features the questions
and answers of What is ...? and What is not. ..., conducted according to the meanings (denotation and connotation)
of the concepts (statements) used in the given field of enquiry, such as anthropology, ethnography,
and sociology; cultural studies and literary theory; the philosophy of science and feminism.
The term discourse itself can be used in a rather narrow or in a wider sense. In a narrow sense it can apply to
specific communicative situations characterized by spoken interaction between two or more participants. In a wider
sense it can apply to specific types of communicative interaction both in the spoken and in the written medium. In
the widest sense it can apply to a complex array of genres and communicative events that are related to a particular
communicative domain, such as medical discourse, which includes not only medical treatises and textbooks, but also
doctor patient interactions, teaching situations, scholarly discussions, conference presentations and so on. Other
examples would be the discourse of football, the discourse of linguistics, or – in the sense relevant for this paper –
the discourse of news reporting.
Such fields of discourse overlap in many ways. A report on the Football World Cup, for instance, is both part of the
discourse of football and part of the discourse of news reporting.
On the basis of such a broad definition of the term discourse a vast research agenda for historical discourse analysis
suggests itself. As a first step it is essential to provide detailed descriptions of specific historical text types and
genres. On the basis of such specific descriptions for related text types and genres at different points in the history of
a language, the next step may attempt to trace specific developments. On a more abstract level we might try to
compare the developments of different text types and genres in order to learn something about the diffusion of text-
type innovations. How do text-types develop in general? Who introduces innovations and how do they spread across
speech communities? A different but related task is to establish inventories of text-types at any given point in the
history of a language. Such inventories may lead to a characterisation of entire discourse domains. The ultimate task
of the historical discourse analyst would then be to trace the development of the overall repertoire of text-types and
ultimately of entire discourse domains (see also Fritz 1994, 1995, 1997; Jacobs &Jucker 1995; and Jucker 2000).
Naturally this is a rather substantial undertaking, and at present we can only hope to contribute small fractions of
knowledge or map out tiny areas of knowledge in this vast territory. The questions mentioned above are
hierarchically structured. An investigation into the development of entire discourse domains requires an extensive
knowledge of the inventories of text types at different points in the history of the language and this – in turn –
requires an intimate knowledge of specific historical text types. However, in the present paper I shall attempt to
characterise some relevant changes in the history of news discourse even though our knowledge of the historical
stages of the domain of news discourse are still sketchy at best.

There is no agreement among linguists as to the use of the term discourse in that some use it in reference to texts,
while others claim it denotes speech which is for instance illustrated by the following definition: "Discourse: a
continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit such
as a sermon, argument, joke, or narrative" (Crystal 1992:25). On the other hand Dakowska, being aware of
differences between kinds of discourses indicates the unity of communicative intentions as a vital element of
each of them. Consequently she suggests using terms 'text' and 'discourse' almost interchangeably betokening the
former refers to the linguistic product, while the latter implies the entire dynamics of the processes (Dakowska
2001:81). According to Cook (1990:7) novels, as well as short conversations or groans (cries) might be equally
rightfully named discourses.

 Features of discourse.

Since it is not easy to unambiguously clarify what a discourse is it seems reasonable to describe features which
are mutual to all its kinds. To do it thoroughly Saussurean concepts of langue and parole are of use. Ferdinand
de Saussure divided the broad meaning of language into langue, which is understood as a system that enables
people to speak as they do, and parole - a particular set of produced statements. Following this division
discourse relates more to parole, for it always occurs in time and is internally characterized by successively
developing expressions in which the meaning of the latter is influenced by the former, while langue is abstract.
To list some additional traits: discourse is always produced by somebody whose identity, as well as the identity
of the interpreter, is significant for the proper understanding of the message. On the other hand langue is
impersonal that is to say more universal, due to society. Furthermore, discourse always happens in either
physical, or linguistic context and within a meaningful fixed time, whereas langue does not refer to anything.
Consequently, only discourse may convey messages thanks to langue which is its framework (1).

 Why discourse analysis?

What is Discourse analysis? Wikipedia :Discourse Analysis is a general term for a number of approaches to
analyzing written, spoken, signed language use or any significant semiotic event. Brown& Yule (1983):
Discourse Analysis in this book we take a primarily linguistic approach to the analysis of discourse. Stubbs. M
(1983) : Discourse analysis is also concerned with language use in social contexts, and in particular with
interaction or dialogue between speakers. Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language
'beyond the sentence'.

The diverse of discourse and discourse analysis Discourse is language above the sentence level. Discourse is
more than just language use. Discourse constitutes the social; distinguished-knowledge, social relations, and
social identity. The analysis of discourse is the analysis language in use.Language as an instrument of
communication, whose expression is discourse. The analysis of the functions of language can be referred to as
discourse analysis.

What is Discourse analysis? Discourse Analysis is an increasingly popular and important area of language
study. It discusses not only about language itself but also how it relates with society, culture, and thought. It is
use to describe activities in several disciplines, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. There
are three approaches that are presented in this book. They include speech act theory, ethnography of
communication, and pragmatics.

Discourse analysis is a way of understanding social interactions. The researcher acknowledges their own bias
and positions on the issue, known as reflexivity. The aims of research vary: The aim of one investigator might
be to understand power relationships in society in order to bring about change; but another investigator may be
interested in an interaction or conversation simply for its own sake. The research begins with a research
question (and not a hypothesis in the formal sense) that is aimed at testing a theoretical position. A
conversation or piece of text is transcribed and then deconstructed. This involves attempting to identify
features in the text, such as discourses. A discourse is a particular theme in the text, especially those that relate
to identities, for example such as a statement that reiterates a view or claim that men find weddings dull, and so
on. Topics that have been studied include men's friendships, family conversations of the royal family, an
interview with Princess Diana, media constructions of racism, gender categories in discourse, conversations
about marriage, men's talk about fatherhood, and so on.

 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS - ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT

Discourse analysis is a primarily linguistic study examining the use of language by its native population whose
major concern is investigating language functions along with its forms, produced both orally and in writing.
Moreover, identification of linguistic qualities of various genres, vital for their recognition and interpretation,
together with cultural and social aspects which support its comprehension, is the domain of discourse analysis.
To put it in another way, the branch of applied linguistics dealing with the examination of discourse attempts to
find patterns in communicative products as well as and their correlation with the circumstances in which they
occur, which are not explainable at the grammatical level (Carter 1993:23).

 Starting point of discourse analysis

The first modern linguist who commenced the study of relation of sentences and coined the name 'discourse
analysis', which afterwards denoted a branch of applied linguistics, was Zellig Harris (Cook 1990:13).
Originally, however, it was not to be treated as a separate branch of study - Harris proposed extension of
grammatical examination which reminded syntactic investigations (2).

The emergence of this study is a result of not only linguistic research, but also of researchers engaged in other
fields of inquiry, particularly sociology, psychology, anthropology and psychotherapy (Trappes-Lomax
2004:133). In 1960s and 1970s other scholars, that is philosophers of language or those dealing with pragmatics
enormously influenced the development of this study as well. Among other contributors to this field the Prague
School of Linguists, whose focusing on organization of information in communicative products indicated the
connection of grammar and discourse, along with text grammarians are worth mentioning (McCarthy 1991:6).

A significant contribution to the evolution of discourse analysis has been made by British and American
scholars. In Britain the examination of discourse turned towards the study of the social functions of language.
Research conveyed at the University of Birmingham fruited in creating a thorough account of communication in
various situations such as debates, interviews, doctor-patient relations, paying close attention to the intonation of
people participating in talks as well as manners particular to circumstances. Analysis of the factors essential for
succession of decently made communication products on the grounds of structural-linguistic criteria was another
concern of British scholars. Americans, on the other hand, focused on examining small communities of people
and their discourse in genuine circumstances. Apart from that, they concentrated on conversation analysis
inspecting narratives in addition to talks and the behavior of speakers as well as patterns repeating in given
situations. Division and specification of types of discourse along with social limitations of politeness and
thorough description of face saving acts in speech is also American scholars' contribution (McCarthy 1991:6).

 Sphere of interest of discourse analysts.

The range of inquiry of discourse analysis not only covers linguistic issues, but is also concerned with other
matters, such as: enabling computers to comprehend and produce intelligible texts, thus contributing to progress
in the study of Artificial Intelligence. Out of these investigations a very important concept of schemata emerged.
It might be defined as prior knowledge of typical situations which enables people to understand the underlying
meaning of words in a given text. This mental framework is thought to be shared by a language community and
to be activated by key words or context in order for people to understand the message. To implement schemata to
a computer, however, is yet impossible (Cook 1990:69).

Discourse analysts carefully scrutinize universal circumstances of the occurrence of communicative products,
particularly within state institutions. Numerous attempts to minimize misunderstandings between bureaucrats
and citizens were made, resulting in user-friendly design of documents. The world of politics and features of its
peculiar communicative products are also of concern to discourse analysts. Having carefully investigated that
area of human activity scholars depicted it as characterized by frequent occurrence of face saving acts and
euphemisms. One other sphere of life of particular interest to applied linguists is the judicature and its language
which is incomprehensible to most common citizens, especially due to pages-long sentences, as well as peculiar
terminology. Moreover, educational institutions, classroom language and the language that ought to be taught to
enable learners to successfully comprehend both oral and written texts, as well as participate in real life
conversations and produce native-like communicative products is the domain of discourse analysis. Last but not
least, influence of gender on language production and perception is also examined (Renkema 2004, Trappes-
Lomax 2004).

 Spoken language analysis

The examination of oral discourse is mainly the domain of linguists gathered at the University of Birmingham,
who at first concentrated on the language used during teacher - learner communication, afterwards altering their
sphere of interest to more general issues. However, patterns of producing speech characteristic of communities,
or members of various social classes within one population were also of ethnomethodologists' interest. A result
of such inquiries was discovering how turn taking differs from culture to culture as well as how standards of
politeness vary. In addition, manners of beginning discussions on new topics were described (McCarthy
1991:24).
What is more, it was said that certain characteristics are common to all societies, for instance, indicating the end
of thought or end of utterance. The words that are to point the beginning or the closing stages of a phrase are
called 'frames'. McCarthy (1991:13) claims that it is thanks to them that people know when they can take their
turn to speak in a conversation. However, in spite of the fact that frames can be noticed in every society, their use
might differ, which is why knowledge of patterns of their usage may be essential for conducting a fluent and
natural dialogue with a native speaker. Moreover, these differences are not only characteristic of cultures, but
also of circumstances in which the conversation occurs, and are also dependent on the rights (or 'rank') of the
participants (McCarthy 1991:13).

Apart from that, it was pointed out that some utterances are invariably interrelated, which can enable teachers of
foreign languages to prepare learners adequately to react as a native speaker would. Among the phrases whose
successors are easy to anticipate there are for instance: greeting, where the response is also greeting; apology
with the response in the form of acceptance or informing - and acknowledging as a response. Such pairs of
statements are known as adjacency pairs. While the function of the reply is frequently determined by the former
expression its very form is not, as it depends on circumstances in which the conversation occurs. Thus, in a
dialogue between two friends refusal to provide help might look like that: no way! I ain'tgonna do that!, but for a
typical English mother-son relationship, when mother asks her son to do something the refusing reply is more
likely to take different form: I'm afraid I can't do that right now, can you wait 5 minutes? though this is not a
typical discourse used by an Arab son, for instance. Frequently used phrases, such as "I'm afraid", known as
softeners, are engaged when people want to sound more respectful. Learners of a foreign language should be
aware of such linguistic devices if they want to be skillful speakers (McCarthy 1991:121).

 Written texts analysis

Since the examination of written language is easier to conduct than the scrutiny of oral texts, in that more data is
available in different genres, produced by people from different backgrounds as well as with disparate purposes,
it is more developed and of interest not only to linguists but also language teachers and literary scholars. Each of
them, however, approaches this study in a different way, reaching diverse conclusions, therefore only notions
that are mutual for them and especially those significant for language methodology are accounted for here. What
is worth mentioning is the fact that in that type of analysis scholars do not evaluate the content in terms of
literary qualities, or grammatical appropriateness, but how readers can infer the message that the author intended
to convey (Trappes-Lomax 2004:133).

Apart from differences between written and spoken language described beforehand it is obviously possible to
find various types and classes of discourse depending on their purpose. Written texts differ from one another not
only in genre and function, but also in their structure and form, which is of primary importance to language
teachers, as the knowledge of arrangement and variety of writing influences readers' understanding, memory of
messages included in the discourse, as well as the speed of perception. Moreover, written texts analysis provides
teachers with systematic knowledge of the ways of describing texts, thanks to which they can make their students
aware of characteristic features of discourse to which the learners should pay particularly close attention, such as
cohesion and coherence. In addition, understanding these concepts should also improve learners' writing skills as
they would become aware of traits essential for a good written text.

One of the major concerns of written discourse analysts is the relation of neighboring sentences and, in
particular, factors attesting to the fact that a given text is more than only the sum of its components. It is only
with written language analysis that certain features of communicative products started to be satisfactorily
described, despite the fact that they were present also in speech, like for instance the use of 'that' to refer to a
previous phrase, or clause (McCarthy 1991:37). Written language is more integrated than the spoken one which
is achieved by more frequent use of some cohesive devices which apart from linking clauses or sentences are
also used to emphasize notions that are of particular importance to the author and enable the reader to process the
chosen information at the same time omitting needless sections.

Approaches to discourse analysis


Structural and functional definitions of discourse

Structural or textual definition of discourse:

Discourse is a particular unit of language (above the sentence).

Functional definition of discourse: Discourse is a particular focus of language use.

Structural approach to discourse

Find the constituents that have particular relationships with each other and that can occur in a restricted number of
arrangements;

Problems: units in which people speak do not always look like sentences, or grammatically correct sentences.

Example 1

(From “The Colour Purple”, Alice Wharton)

Jack is tall and kind and don't hardly say anything. Love children. Respect his wife, Odessa, and all Odessa
Amazon sisters (Celie’s Diary)

Structural Approach

Examples, like Colourless green ideas sleep furiously (Chomsky);


Solving the problem: adopt Lyons’s distinction between system-sentences and text – sentences. System sentences
are well-formed abstract theoretical sentences generated according to the existing grammar rules; text-sentences are
context-dependent utterances or parts of utterances which occur in everyday life.

The discourse analysis will be concerned with text-sentences.

Functional approach to discourse

Roman Jakobson: language performs six functions:

Addressor(emotive);

Context (referential)

Addressee (conative);

Contact (phatic);

Message (poetic);

Code (metalinguistic).

Functional approach to discourse

Utterances may have multiple functions;

The major concern: discourse analysis can turn out into a more general and broader analysis of language functions.
Or it will fail to make a special place for the analysis of relationships between utterances.

 Recent approach to DA
Discourse is no longer studies for its own sake. Discourse is viewed as a social practice. M. Foucault, N.
Fairclough

Discourse is characterised as:produced/consumed/monitored by social actors (producers/ receivers of social


practices);shaped by social structures;with social implications;socially valued and regulated (production, reception
and circulation).

Recent approach to DA

If in traditional studies discourses were analysed in relation to social processes that form them, then recently
researchers started talking about bidirectional and complex relations between discourses and social practices:

What Makes Discourse Different?


Similarities (to monologues)

Anaphora

Discourse structure & coherence

 Discourse as Action
Identifying Speech act theory, Relevance theory and Politeness theory

Identifying Speech act theory

Speech acts

John Austin:"By saying something, we do something”, as when a minister joins two people in marriage saying, "I
now pronounce you husband and wife." People perform some kind of acts simply by using language; these
are called speech acts.

• Locutionary, Illocutionary, Perlocutionary Acts


• Different uses of a speech act:
• locutionary: utterance conveys a proposition with ordinary ‘meaning’
• illocutionary: informing, ordering, warning, undertaking: utterance has a certain conventional force.
• perlocutionary: utterance brings about or achieves a state of affairs in the saying of it
Grice (1975, 1978)

Theory of Conversational Implicature

Proposed that what enables listeners to draw inferences are guided by a set of maxims (heuristics for interpretations)

Property #3: Implicature

Grice’s Maxims (1975, 1978)

Maxim of Quantity

Be exactly as informative as is required

Maxim of Quality

Try to make your contribution one that is true

Maxim of Relevance

Be relevant

Maxim of Manner

Be perspicuous (Avoid obscurity & ambiguity)

 Discourse in Action
Linguistics has been to point out that discourse is action, that saying something or writing something is a form of
doing something, and mediated discourse analysis, in many ways, shares this ‘discourse as action’ perspective.
One of the most fundamental issues in discourse studies is understanding the relationship between what we say,
write and what we do, that is, the relationship between discourse and action. Nearly all mainstream approaches to
discourse analysis begin with the assumption that discourse itself is a kind of social action. Conversation analysts,
for example, see talk as a matter of “paired action,” genre analysts speak of genres as examples of “communicative
actions,” interactional sociolinguists focus on how people strategize discursive actions within an ongoing negotiative
process with other social actors, and critical discourse analysts remind us that discourse constitutes and is
constitutive of what they call “social practice.”
“Systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, and courses of action, beliefs and practices that
systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak.”
Originally, it has roots in the Latin language. The term assumes slightly different meanings in different contexts.
In literature, discourse means speech or writing, normally longer than sentences, which deals with a certain
subject formally. In other words, discourse is the presentation of language in its entirety, while performing an
intellectual inquiry in a particular area or field, such as theological discourse or cultural discourse.
Examples of Discourse in Literature

 Types of Discourse
 Poetic Discourse
Poetic discourse is a type of literary conversation which focuses on the expression of feelings, ideas, imaginations,
events, and places through specific rhymes and rhythms. Poetic discourse makes use of common words in
appealing ways to present feelings and emotions. The mechanism of poetic discourse involves certain steps
starting from different sources, then entering the mental process, mental realization, and then finally into a finished
product as poetry.

Expressive Discourse
Expressive discourse does not involve the presentation of facts, or the motivating of others, but is rather a
reflection of our emotions that form the foundation of our expressions. This is a form of basic or entry-level
discourse, and is beneficial for beginners in the field of literature. It primarily deals with generating ideas with

no concrete source. Examples include academic essays and diaries. This type of discourse is commonly found in
creative writing, poetry, personal narratives, and certain forms of speech or rhetoric where the primary goal is
to evoke an emotional response or to express oneself authentically. It often relies on vivid language, imagery,
and figurative expressions to convey the speaker's or writer's inner thoughts and emotions effectively. Expressive
discourse can serve various purposes, including self-expression, catharsis, persuasion, or the creation of empathy
and understanding between individ.

 Transactional Discourse

The basic aim in this kind of discourse is to convey the message in such a way that it is clearly understood without
any confusion. Whatever is said has no ambiguity – everything is clear for the reader. Usually, this type of
discourse is in active voice. Examples include instructions, guidelines, manuals, privacy policies, and patient
instructions as written by doctors.

Transactional discourse refers to communication that is primarily focused on the exchange of information, ideas,
or goods between participants. Unlike expressive discourse, which emphasizes personal expression and emotion,
transactional discourse is more functional and task-oriented. In transactional discourse, the primary goal is often
to convey or receive information efficiently, negotiate meanings, make decisions, or accomplish specific
objectives. This type of discourse is commonly found in various contexts, including business negotiations,
academic discussions, professional settings, and everyday interactions such as buying and selling goods or
services. Transactional discourse typically involves clear and concise language, logical organization, and adherence
to established communication norms and conventions to facilitate effective communication and achieve desired
outcomes.
 Function of Discourse
The Real Truth

The role of discourse is hard to ignore in our daily intellectual pursuits, for it provides a basis to conduct a
comparative analysis and frame our perceptions about different things. For instance, two competing discourses about
the civil war in Syria today can be used to qualify the war as either “war against dictatorship,” or “war against
imperialism.” On the other hand, it could be deemed as “war against Islam,” or “war for humanity.” Thus, both
discourses provide a distinct style, vocabulary, and presentation, which are required to convey the respective
ideas to a specific audience.

According to Jacques Lucan and Ferdinand de Saussure, language (discourse) is the main force which works
behind all kinds of human activities and changes in social fabric; whereas Modernists attribute discourse to
development and progress. Another important function of discourse is to generate and preserve truth as argued by
the Postmodernist theories.

Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated... (PDF Download Available). Available from:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233923348_Discourse_in_Action_Introducing_Mediated_Discourse_An
alysis [accessed May 02 2018].
Discourse and Society (1990) goes back to the emergence of an interest in language as structuring (no just
expressing or reflecting) power relations (a concept that first appeared during ’70s)
• Language is social,
• Social institutions and groups have systems of meanings and values like individuals do,
• Texts are the units of communication
• Readers are interactive active operators (Wodak& Meyer, 2001: 6)
 Austin’s Speech Act Theory
.Austin's Speech Act Theory, developed by philosopher J.L. Austin in the mid-20th century, revolutionized the
understanding of language by emphasizing the performative aspect of speech beyond mere descriptive or
propositional content. Here are the key components of Austin's Speech Act Theory:

Speech Acts Austin argued that utterances (speech or written statements) can do more than just convey information;
they can perform actions. He categorized speech acts into three main types:

a. Locutionary Acts: These are the literal, grammatical acts of producing sounds, words, and sentences with
meaning.

b. Illocutionary Acts: These are the intended or implied actions performed by speaking. For example, making a
promise, giving a command, asking a question, apologizing, etc.
c. Perlocutionary Acts: These are the effects or consequences of speaking on the listener, such as persuading,
convincing, frightening, etc.

Constative vs Performative Utterances Austin distinguished between constative utterances, which


describe states of affairs and can be judged as true or false, and performative utterances, which do not describe
but perform actions. Performative utterances are not judged as true or false but can be judged as felicitous
(successful) or infelicitous (unsuccessful) depending on various conditions.

Felicity Conditions For a performative utterance to be successful, certain conditions must be met. These include
sincerity conditions (the speaker must genuinely mean what they say), preparatory conditions (preconditions
necessary for the utterance to make sense), and essential conditions (conditions that must exist for the utterance to
have the intended effect).

Speech Act Classification Austin provided a classification of illocutionary acts into five main categories
assertives (making statements or claims), directives (issuing commands or requests), commissives (making
promises or commitments), expressives (expressing feelings or attitudes), and declarations (bringing about a
new state of affairs by the act of speaking, such as pronouncing someone married or declaring a meeting open).

 Distinction between constatives and performatives.

Constatives are utterances that describe or assert states of affairs, facts, or propositions about the world.
Constatives are typically considered as descriptive statements that can be evaluated as true or false based on
whether they correspond to reality. Examples: Statements such as "The sky is blue," "She lives in New York," or
"Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" are constatives. These statements aim to convey information about the world
and can be judged for their truth value

Performatives are utterances that not only describe but also perform actions or functions. They are used to
accomplish something by the act of speaking. Unlike constatives, performatives do not describe states of affairs
but rather bring about actions or changes in the world. They are typically not evaluated as true or false but rather as
felicitous (successful) or infelicitous (unsuccessful) based on whether certain conditions are met. Examples
Utterances such as "I promise to be there," "I apologize for the mistake," or "I now pronounce you husband and
wife" are performatives. These utterances don't just describe actions; they actually perform the actions of promising,
apologizing, or marrying.

Austin (1962)

An utterance in dialogue is an ACTION

Speech acts

Performative sentences uttered by an authority (they change the state of the world)
Any sentence in real speech contains

Locutionary act – utterance with particular meaning

Illocutionary act – asking, answering, promising, etc.

Perlocutionary act – effect upon feelings, thoughts, etc.

Searle (1975)

All speech acts classified as

Assertives – suggesting, boasting, concluding, etc.

Directives – asking, ordering, inviting, etc.

Commissives – promising, planning, vowing, etc.

Expressives – thanking, apologizing, deploring, etc.

Declarations – performatives (state-changing)

Speech Acts

Searle (1975): (modification of Austin)

Assertives: suggesting, boasting, concluding

Directives: asking, ordering, inviting

Commissives: promising, planning, vowing

Expressives: thanking, apologising

Declarations: Using performative verbs

Developed by two philosophers: John Austin and John Searle;

Austin (“How to do things with words”): some sentences are used not just to state something, which is true or false:

Example 1

I apologize.

I declare the meeting open.

In a performative context, "hereby" is often used to mark the moment of performing the action. For example: "I
hereby declare the meeting open." In this sentence, "hereby" indicates that the speaker is performing the act of
declaring the meeting open at that very moment by uttering those words. The action of declaring the meeting open is
being carried out through the act of speaking, making it a performative.

However, "hereby" can also be used in constative sentences to indicate the time or manner in which something is
done or the circumstances under which something is true. For example: "I hereby submit my report." In this
sentence, "hereby" is not performing an action; instead, it is simply indicating that the action of submitting the report
is being done at that moment or under the circumstances mentioned. The act of submitting the report is not
inherently performed by the utterance; it's merely described as happening in conjunction with the

Example 2

I hereby apologize.

I hereby declare the meeting open.

Examples of performative verbs in English:

Constatives can be true or false; performatives can't be true or false. But performatives can go wrong;

Conditions for performative sentences, which make them successful ("felicitous“ conditions):

Condition 1:

There must be a conventional procedure following a conventional effect;

The circumstances and the persons must be appropriate.

Condition 2:

The procedure must be executed:

Correctly;

Completely.

Condition 3:

Often

The person must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, as specified in the procedure;

If consequent conduct is specified, then the relevant parties must do so.

Favorite examples: marriages

Types of speech acts:

Verdictives (e.g. estimating, assessing, describing); These involve making statements of assessment or evaluation.
Examples include estimating, assessing, and describing. Verdictives are primarily concerned with conveying
information or judgment about something.

Exercitives (ordering, appointing, advising); These are speech acts that involve exerting influence or control over
others. Examples include ordering, appointing, and advising. Exercitives are typically used to direct or guide the
actions of others.

Commissives (promising, betting);


Behabitives (apologizing, congratulating, thanking); Behabitives are speech acts that involve expressing attitudes
or feelings towards others' behavior. Examples include apologizing, congratulating, and thanking. Behabitives are
often used to acknowledge or respond to the actions of others.

Expositives (arguing, insisting). These involve presenting arguments, explanations, or assertions about a certain
topic. Examples include arguing and insisting. Expositives are used to persuade, inform, or clarify.

Performatives: explicit and implicit;

Performatives and constatives are just two subclasses of illocutionary acts;However Illocutionary acts consist
of other classes of speech acts.Each speech act consists of 3 components.These are Locutionary act,
Illocutionary act and Perlocutionary act.

Locutionary act (the actual words which the speaker is saying); E.g "Please close the door."

Illocutionary act (the intention of the speaker);E.g The speaker intends to make a polite request for the door to.

Perlocutionary act (the effect of the utterance on the hearer). The listener may feel obliged to close the door or
may choose to ignore the request.

Example:

Locutionary Act: "Please close the door."

Illocutionary Act: The speaker intends to make a polite request for the door to be closed.

Perlocutionary Act: The listener may feel obliged to close the door or may choose to ignore the request

 Conclusions for DA:


Speech act theory is concerned with what people do with language or it is concerned with the function of
language.Apiece of discourse (what is said) is chunked/segmented into units that have communicative
functions.These function are identified and labelled. Different speech acts initiate and respond to other acts. Acts to
a certain degree specify what kind of response is expected. They create options for a next utterance each time they
are performed. An utterance can perform more than one speech act at a time. There is more than one option of
responses for a next utterance.

Deborah Schiffrin: ‘this flexibility has an important analytical consequence: it means that a single sequence of
utterances may actually be the outcome of a fairly wide range of different underlying functional relations.’

 Discourse in communication

Differentiating the discourse situation and the socio-semiotic approach. In everyday language, the word
discourse usually means conversation or discussion. However, to scholars, discourse is far more than this. Discourse
can encompass all forms of communication. Dominance,and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text
in talk and the social and political context” (including media) (van Dijk, 2003, p. 352)

 “Discourse” and “discourse”

1. Discourse (with a lowercase "d"): In this context, "discourse" refers to communication or conversation,
particularly in a formal or extended manner. It encompasses spoken or written communication that involves
exchanging ideas, expressing thoughts, and conveying meaning within a specific context or framework. For
example, academic discourse refers to the language and communication style typical of scholarly writing and
research.
2. Discourse (with an uppercase "D"): When capitalized, "Discourse" often refers to a specific theoretical
concept within various fields such as linguistics, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. It involves the study
of language in use, focusing on how language shapes and is shaped by social practices, power dynamics,
cultural norms, and ideologies. Discourse analysis examines patterns of language use, discourse structures, and
the ways in which language constructs and reflects social reality. It's a broad interdisciplinary field that explores
how language influences thought, perception, and social interactions.
 Ideology
Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions that shape and guide individuals'
understanding of the world, particularly in the social, political, and cultural realms. It encompasses a system of
ideas and ideals that often serves to justify and maintain existing power structures, social relations, and
inequalities. Ideologies can be explicit or implicit and are often deeply ingrained in society's norms and
practices. They provide a framework through which individuals interpret and make sense of their surroundings. For
example:
Ideology of beauty This refers to the set of beliefs and standards within a society that define what is considered
beautiful or attractive. It includes cultural norms, media representations, and societal expectations regarding
physical appearance.
Ideology of success This refers to the beliefs and values surrounding achievement, wealth, and social status
within a given society. It encompasses notions of meritocracy, ambition, and the pursuit of material wealth as
markers of success.
 Hegemony
Hegemony refers to the dominance or leadership of one group or social class over others, often achieved through
consent rather than coercion. It involves the exertion of influence, control, and cultural leadership by the
dominant group, shaping the norms, values, and institutions of society to reflect their interests and
worldview. Hegemony operates through the dissemination of ideologies, cultural practices, and social
structures that reinforce the existing power dynamics. It can be observed in various spheres, including politics,
economics, culture, and education.
For instance, in a capitalist society, the dominant economic class may exert hegemonic control by shaping cultural
narratives, controlling media outlets, and influencing public discourse to maintain and justify their economic power
and privilege.
 Discourse types
Everyday Discourse This type of discourse encompasses the communication that occurs in daily life, including
casual conversations, interactions with family and friends, and exchanges in various social settings. Everyday
discourse can be informal, spontaneous, and often serves practical purposes such as sharing information,
expressing emotions, or negotiating social relationships.
Literary Discourse Literary discourse refers to written or spoken communication that is crafted with artistic or
aesthetic purposes. It includes various forms of literature such as novels, poetry, short stories, plays, and essays.
Literary discourse often exhibits rich language, symbolism, imagery, and narrative techniques, aiming to evoke
emotions, provoke thought, or explore complex themes and ideas.
Electronic Discourse Electronic discourse refers to communication that takes place through digital platforms and
technologies, such as email, social media, instant messaging, forums, and blogs. It encompasses a wide range or
written and multimedia content exchanged electronically. Electronic discourse often exhibits characteristics such as
brevity, informality, interactivity, and multimodality, and it plays a significant role in contemporary communication,
social interaction, and information dissemination.
Each of these discourse types serves different functions and exhibits distinct forms of language use.Everyday discourse
focuses on practical communication needs and interpersonal relationships, employing conversational language, slang, and
colloquial expressions. Literary discourse prioritizes artistic expression and aesthetic qualities, utilizing figurative
language, metaphor, symbolism, and narrative structures to create meaning and evoke emotions.Electronic discourse
adapts to the affordances of digital communication platforms, incorporating features such as hyperlinks, emojis,
multimedia elements, and abbreviated language to facilitate rapid information exchange and social interaction.

 Discourse connections/Discourse markers


identifying Cohesion, Coherence and Rhetorical Structure Theory

Discourse Markers

Discourse markers (words like 'however', 'although' and 'Nevertheless') are referred to more commonly as 'linking
words' and 'linking phrases', or 'sentence connectors'. They may be described as the 'glue' that binds together a
piece of writing, making the different parts of the text 'stick together'. They are used less frequently in speech,
unless the speech is very formal.

Without sufficient discourse markers in a piece of writing, a text would not seem logically constructed and the
connections between the different sentences and paragraphs would not be obvious.Care must also be taken,
however, to avoid over-use of discourse markers. Using too many of them, or using them unnecessarily, can make a
piece of writing sound too heavy and 'artificial'. They are important, but must only be used when necessary.

Key advice
1. What are the different discourse markers that can be used?

2. How can sentence connectors be replaced in order to increase variety in writing?

3. How are paragraphs linked together?

4. Discourse markers in a sample passage of academic English

What are the different discourse markers that can be used?

There are many discourse markers that express different relationships between ideas. The most common types of
relationship between ideas, and the sentence connectors that are most often used to express these relationships, are
given in the table below. The discourse markers in the table are generally used at the start of a phrase or
clause. (a clause is a minimal grammatical structure that has meaning in its own right, and consists of a
subject and verb, and often an object too). Sentence connectors do not always begin a completely new sentence;
they may be separated from the previous idea with a semi-colon.

Note that there are two particular features of the sentence connectors indicated below. Sentence connectors can be
used to begin a new sentence or a new clause that follows a semi-colon. Some sentence connectors can be placed
in different positions within the sentence. initial position (e.g. Because he is ill, he needs to rest.) and 'mid-way
position' at the start of another clause (e.g. He must rest, because he is ill).

Adding something

Making a contrast between two separate things, people, ideas, etc.

Making an unexpected contrast (concession)

Saying why something is the case

Saying what the result of something is

Expressing a condition

Making what you say stronger

Seven criteria which have to be fulfilled to qualify either a written or a spoken text as a discourse have been
suggested by Beaugrande (1981). These include:

 Cohesion - grammatical relationship between parts of a sentence essential for its interpretation;
Cohesion refers to the linguistic devices used within a text to connect its various parts and create
coherence. This includes features like pronouns, conjunctions, lexical repetition, and grammatical
parallelism, which help to link sentences and paragraphs together.
 Coherence - The order of statements relates one another by sense. Coherence relates to the overall
meaningfulness and logical organization of a text. It involves the arrangement of ideas, information,
and events in a way that makes sense to the reader or listener. Coherent texts are internally consistent
and exhibit clear relationships between different elements.
 Intentionality - The message has to be conveyed deliberately (means on purpose) and consciously;
Intentionality refers to the purpose or goal underlying the production of a text. It involves
considering why the text was created and what the author or speaker intends to achieve through it.
Understanding the intentionality of a discourse helps to interpret its meaning and significance.
 Acceptability - indicates that the communicative product needs to be satisfactory in that the
audience approves it; Acceptability concerns the extent to which a text conforms to the social,
cultural, and linguistic norms of its intended audience or community. Texts must be formulated in a
way that is appropriate and understandable to their readers or listeners, taking into account factors such
as language register, tone, and style.
 Informativeness- some new information has to be included in the discourse; Informativity refers to
the degree of new or relevant information conveyed by a text. Effective discourse should provide
valuable insights, knowledge, or perspectives that contribute to the audience's understanding or
awareness of a topic. Informativity is essential for engaging and retaining the interest of readers or
listeners.
 Situationality- circumstances in which the remark is made are important; Situationality involves
considering the context in which a text is produced and interpreted. This includes factors such as
the social setting, cultural background, communicative goals, and participants' roles and
relationships. Situationality influences how texts are constructed and understood, as well as the
expectations and assumptions of the audience.
 Intertextuality- reference to the world outside the text or the interpreters' schemata;
Intertextuality refers to the relationship between a text and other texts within a broader cultural or
discursive framework. Texts often draw on and reference existing ideas, narratives, genres, or
conventions, creating layers of meaning and interconnections. Intertextuality enriches discourse by
contextualizing and expanding upon shared cultural knowledge and symbols.

Nowadays, however, not all of the above mentioned criteria are perceived as equally important in discourse
studies, therefore some of them are valid only in certain methods of the research (Beaugrande 1981, cited in
Renkema 2004:49).
 Conversation analysis:

 Identifying turn-taking principles and Discourse markers,

What is conversation?
Using Language Socially Conversation is a fundamental way in which humans interact socially, using language to
convey meaning, express thoughts and emotions, share information, and establish connections with others. It
involves "doing things with words," as language is employed to accomplish various social functions such as
greeting, informing, persuading, and entertaining.

Interaction of Participants Conversations typically involve two or more participants who take turns speaking and
listening. It is a dynamic process where individuals engage in reciprocal exchanges, responding to each other's
contributions and adjusting their own communication based on the ongoing interaction.

Variability in Participants and Length Conversations can vary in terms of the number of participants involved
and the length of their contributions. Some conversations may be between just two individuals, while others may
involve larger groups. Additionally, contributions to the conversation can vary in length, with participants offering
brief remarks or more extended discourse.

Open-Ended and Dynamic: Conversations are open-ended interactions with no predetermined script or fixed
agenda. They have the potential to develop in any direction, with participants introducing new topics, responding to
each other's comments, and exploring different aspects of the conversation. As such, conversations are characterized
by spontaneity, flexibility, and adaptability.

Structured by Social Rules Although conversations are not governed by strict rules in the same way as formal
activities, they are still structured by social norms and conventions. Participants adhere to implicit rules of
communication, such as taking turns, maintaining relevance, observing politeness norms, and following
conversational cues. These rules help to facilitate smooth interaction and mutual understanding among participants.

 CONVERSATION

Wright (1936: 85) point out that , the English word, conversation, is made up of a combination of two Latin roots,
‘con,’ and ‘vers.’ ‘Con’ means with, together. ‘Vers’ mean to turn about in a given direction. Thus, to engage in
conversation literally means to turn about with others.Conversation can be said to contain two elements, the
information and the phatic.

“Phatic communications is used to establish social relationship rather than impart information. All
conversations contain phatic communication; some conversations are also purposeful in that the participants have
defined goal, whether to impart information, formulate a plan, etc. In a purposeful meeting. Every conversational
move ideally contributes to the overall goal as set by the participants.

Phat·ic [fáttik] adjective :conveying emotions rather than information: spoken in order to share feelings,
create goodwill, or set a pleasant social mood, rather than to convey information. "Have a nice day!" is a phatic
phrase. Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Fairclough (2001:9) states “conversation is systematically structured, and that there is evidence of the orientation
of participants to these structures in the way in which they design their own conversational turns and react to those
of others.” Conversation consists of two or more participants taking turns and only one participants speaking
at any time.

Conversations are the ideal form of communication in some respects, since they allow people with different views
on a topic to learn from each other. A speech, on the other hand, is an oral presentation by one person directed at a
group. For a successful conversation, the partners must achieve a workable balance of contributions. A successful
conversation includes mutually interesting connections between the speakers or things that the speakers know.

 DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF CONVERSATION

The discourse structure of conversations is generally less easy to predict than in many other genres. For example,
conversations tend to be more open-ended and involve more shift in topic than is the case with some other
genres. conversations are generally divided up into three main stages. As Burns and Joyce in Paltridge
(2000:85) suggest, these are typically Opening Stage, Middle Stage and Closing Stage.

Opening stages Beginnings (e.g salutations and greetings such as ‘Hello, How are you?’)

Middle stages Development of range of topics using conversational strategies for turn taking, turn allocation,
and keeping a turn, adjacency pairs, preferred and dispreferred responses, ways of giving back, changing a
topic, asking for clarification, correcting what was said, etc.

Closing stages Preclosing exchanges which signal the ending of the conversation (e.g. discourse markers and
formulaic expressions, such as : ‘Anyway, well, I’d better be off’. ‘Thanks for calling’, falling intonation).
Closing (e.g. formulaic expressed such as ‘bye’, ‘see you’).

 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS (CA)

The approach to the analysis of spoken interactions known as Conversation Analysis (CA) developed from work
carried out by Harvey Sacks, Gail Jefferson and Emanuel Schegloff in the early 1960s at the University of
California. CA originated in the field of sociology and started with the examination of telephone calls made to
the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Centre. This work then continued with the examination of more ordinary
telephone calls and conversations.

In CA, particular attention is given to everyday spoken interaction such as: interview, interaction in courtroom
or in classroom between teacher and student. Hutcby and Woffitt (1998:135) says that conversation analysis (CA)
concerns with the problem of social order and how language is created by social context. Conversation analysis is an
analysis of conversation when the speaker follows in a particular interaction.

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing both verbal and
non-verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. As its name implies, CA began with a focus on casual
conversation but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered
interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings,
and the mass media. As a consequence, the term 'conversation analysis' has become something of a misnomer, but
it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of social interactions.

Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodological approach to sociology


developed in the 1960s, offered a unique perspective on the study of social interactions. Here are some key aspects
of his approach, along with contrasts to more traditional approaches like Discourse Analysis (DA) and Conversation
Analysis (CA):

Ethnomethodological Approach:

Organization of Talk-in-Interaction Garfinkel was interested in how people organize their interactions
through language. He focused on the sequential organization of talk, examining the patterns and structures that
emerge in everyday conversations.

Empirical Approach with Inductive Methods Garfinkel emphasized an empirical approach that avoided
premature theory construction. His methods were inductive, involving the systematic gathering and analysis of
data from real-life conversations to identify recurring patterns and themes.

Data-Driven Theorizing In contrast to approaches that begin with theoretical frameworks, Garfinkel's approach
prioritized data-driven theorizing. He believed that theories should emerge from empirical observations rather
than being imposed onto the data.

Emphasis on Interactional Consequences Instead of focusing on theoretical rules, Garfinkel highlighted the
interactional and inferential consequences of the choices individuals make in their utterances during
conversations. He explored how these choices shape the flow and dynamics of social interactions.

Avoidance of Intuitive Judgments Garfinkel advocated for minimizing reliance on intuitive judgments and
instead focusing on observable phenomena. His approach emphasized what could be empirically observed to
occur in social interactions.

Contrasts with Discourse Analysis (DA) and Conversation Analysis (CA):

Avoidance of Single-Text Analyses Unlike some forms of DA and CA that may focus on analyzing a single
text or conversation, Garfinkel's approach preferred examining multiple instances of a phenomenon across
various texts or interactions. This allowed for the discovery of systematic properties and patterns in social
interactions.

Focus on Systematic Properties of Talk Garfinkel's approach aimed to uncover the systematic properties of
the sequential organization of talk and how utterances are designed to manage these sequences. This contrasted with
some approaches in DA and CA that may focus more on micro-level linguistic features or specific textual
elements. procedures employed have proved themselves capable of yielding by far the most substantial insight that
can be gained into the organization of conversation.

 CONVERSATION ASPECTS
Opening and Closing

Adjacency Pairs

Topic Management

Turn-Taking

Preference Organization

Feedback

Repair

Opening And Closing


Opening and closing is an important part in conversation shown in pairs of utterances. It plays a big role which
determines how the conversation will be started and finished, and how the conversation will be going on.
Another reason why it is very important is that each culture in this world uses that method of conversation to sign
the relation between one another. The way to open and close a conversation is also different depending on where the
conversation takes places.

According to Paltridge (2000: 86), “openings and closings in conversations are often carried out in typical ways.”
They are also context and speech-event-specific. For example, how we open a conversation at the bus stop is
very different from how we do it on the telephone. Openings and closings often make use of pairs of utterances
(adjacency pairs), such as: ‘Hi’, ‘How are you’ and ‘Bye’, ‘See you later’, which are often not meant to be taken
literally. Closings are often preceded by pre-closings, such as: ‘Okay’, ‘Good’, statements such as ‘Well, it’s
been nice talking to you’ or ‘Anyway, I’ve got to go now’, and an accompanying fall in intonation.

Adjacency Pairs

An adjacency pair is a unit of conversation that contains an exchange of one turn each by two speakers. The
turns are functionally related to each other in such a fashion that the first turn requires a certain type or range of
types of second turn.

An adjacency pair, used in conversational analysis, is a pair of conversational turns by two different speakers
such that the production of the first turn (called a first-pair part) makes a response (a second-pair part) of a
particular kind relevant. For example, a question, such as "What's your name?”, requires the addressee to provide
an answer in the next conversational turn. A failure to give an immediate response is noticeable and accountable.
Many actions in conversation are accomplished through adjacency pair sequences.
Talk tends to occur in responsive pairs ; however, the pairs may be split over a sequence of turns. Adjacency
pairs divide utterance types into 'first pair parts' and 'second pair parts' to form a 'pair type'. There are lots
of examples of adjacency pairs including Questions-Answers, Offer-Acceptance/Refusal and Compliment-
Response. (Schegloff& Sacks:1973)

Adjacency Pairs are characterized by their type,

e.g. → greeting-greeting

→ question-answer,

→ complaint-acceptance/denial,

→ invitation-acceptance/denial

→ offer-acceptance/rejection

Adjacency Pairs mutual dependency of utterances and their expected responses

Utterance function Expected response

Greeting .................................................................. greeting

Congratulation ........................................................thanks

Apology ..................................................................acceptance

Inform .................................................................... acknowledge

Leave-taking ..............................................................leave taking

Discovery that became a starting point for a whole new approach (similar as speech acts to pragmatics)
two subsequent utterances constituting a conversational exchange

distinction between ‘frist pair part’ and ‘second pair part’

Request – Acceptance/Refusal Requesting is asking someone to do something which can be responded with
acceptance or refusal.

e.g. A: “Would you mind closing the door?” (Request)

B: “Of course.” (Acceptance) Or


A: “Would you mind closing the door?” (Request)

B: “ Sorry, I am busy” (Refusal)


Offer/Invite – Acceptance/ Refusal Offering something to someone, it may be in the form of goods or
services. It can be responded into acceptance or refusal, or generally called granting.

e.g. A: “Will you come to my house sometimes?”

B: “Yes, I will.” OR

A: “Will you come to my house sometimes?”

B: “No, never.”

Assessment – Agreement/Disagreement
Assessment can be formed into opinion seek or comment, which is asking another’s opinion or agreement. It is
responded with agreement or called opinion provide.

e.g. A: “What do you think about that kitten?”

B: “So cute.” OR

A: “What do you think about that kitten?”

B: “Disgusting.”

Question – Answer/Unexpected Answer Or Non-Answer


Question can be formed into information seek, clarification seek, etc. It is about asking something to someone.
It is responded with information provide, clarification provide, etc.

e.g. A: “Where do you live?”

B: “I live in Semarang.” OR

A: “Where do you live?”

B: “Is it important?”

Compliment – Acceptance/Refusal
Compliment is the way of praising another person about something he or she has. It is responded with
acceptance.

e.g. A: “What a nice cloth?”

B: “Oh, thanks.” OR

A: “What a nice cloth?”

B: “Are you kidding?”

Other Adjacency Pairs


Beside the adjacency pair above there also other kinds of adjacency pairs carried out by Paltridge (2000:98-99),
they are:

Greeting-greeting The way of saying hello and salutation

e.g. A: “Hi!”

B: “Hello!”

Leave taking adjacency pair The utterances which have purpose to end the conversation.
e.g. A: “See you.”

B: “See you”

Complaint-apology is utterances which indicate feeling unsatisfied about something. However, apology is the
way to response the complaint, which express regretfulness.

e.g. A: “This food is too salty.”

B: “I’m sorry, sir. I’ll give you another one.”

Warning-acknowledgement
Warning is utterances to warn someone about something. While acknowledgement is statements which show that
the warning is already acceptable.

e.g A: “Beware of the hole in the street.”

B: “Okay. Thank you.”

Blame - Denial

Blame is utterances that express that someone is responsible about the mistake. Denial is statement to say that
something is not true.

e.g. A: “You loose the key, don’t you?”

B: “No. I don’t.”

Threat - counter-threat, etc


Threat is utterances that indicate the intension of harm. However, counter-threat is utterances that express the
defeat of someone’s threat.

e.g. A: “You got to get out of here or I’ll call the security.”

B: “No, I won’t.”

 Turn Taking
In conversation, there is a situation when a speaker takes the chance to speak, that is turn. Turn-taking gives a
chance for speakers to do conversation smoothly, so there won’t be a dominant speaker in the conversation. First
speaker utters something which is then followed by another speaker. It may make a simultaneous conversation.

Malcolm (1985: 59) suggests that “there is an underlying rule in American English conversation: at least and not
more than one party talks at a time.” This is not an empirical fact because there are obviously many instances of
short pauses and short overlaps, but rather a normative or observably oriented to feature of conversation; in
other words, it is a rule used by conversationalists themselves.

• turn: basic unit of conversation

→ may contain many illocutions, is everything a speaker communicates during a unit of conversation

• turn-taking: basic form of organization for conversation

→ speaker-change occurs

→ mostly, one speaker talks at a time

→ transition from one turn to the next without gap or overlap

→ turn order and size not fixed

Turn-Taking

→ length and topic of contribution not specified in advance

→ current speaker may select another speaker or parties may self-


select in starting to talk

→ transition from one turn to the next without gap or overlap

→ turn order and size not fixed

→ repair mechanisms: deal with turn-taking errors and violations

TURN TAKING (Cont’d)


In conversations, there are norms for who talks, when, and for how long. The basic rule in English is that one
person speaks at a time, after which they may nominate another speaker or another speaker may take up the
turn without being nominated. There are a number of ways in which we can signal that we have come to the end
of a turn, such as the completion of a syntactic unit followed by a pause.

We may also signal the end of a turn through eye contact, body position and movement, or pitch and loudness.
For example low pitch may indicate we are willing to give up our turn whereas maintained pitch may indicate we
wish to hold it.

Turn-taking
Natural talk: little interruption and overlap; brief silence; turn-taking is nominated or self-selected; overlap
occuring towards the completion of the utterance

Turn-taking

The basic turn-taking model for conversation was founded through empirical investigation of field recordings of
conversations and fitted to the concept that in conversation, participants are expected to issue their utterances in
allocated turns. The most basic forms take place in two-party conversations where sentence completion, or pause,
might be enough to allocate the next turn to the co-present party in the manner that has been discussed under the
rubric of 'adjacency pairs'.

In multi-party conversations the mechanisms were found to be more complicated where 'current speaker selects
next' is a possibility, and how frequently individual utterances are tailored for the sequence of speakers within the
conversation. The possibility of obtaining not only the next turn, but a series of turns (required for example in telling
a joke or story) is documented in analyses of announcements and story prefaces. A certain balance in conversation
could be located in the process whereby turns are allocated. That balance was directed at the 'turn commodity', but
also in countless other instances, for example with person identifiers and locators where minimal forms are utilized
to evenly distribute whom speaks during the conversation.

According to CA, the turn-taking system consists of two distinct components: the allocation mechanism
which is responsible for distributing a turn (in any case), This component deals with the rules and mechanisms
by which speakers distribute turns among themselves during conversation. It includes various techniques and
signals that participants use to signal when they are ready to speak, when they are yielding the floor to another
speaker, or when they are claiming the floor for themselves. These mechanisms are often implicit and can vary
across cultures and contexts. Examples of allocation mechanisms include:

Turn-yielding signals: Verbal cues such as "Okay, go ahead" or non-verbal cues such as nodding to indicate
that the current speaker is relinquishing their turn.

Turn-taking rules: Societal norms and expectations about when it is appropriate to speak, such as allowing the
current speaker to finish their turn before another speaker begins.

Transition relevance places (TRPs): Points in the conversation where it is considered appropriate for a new
speaker to take a turn, such as the completion of a question or the resolution of a topic.

And the seconed The lexical components that parties utilize in filling that turn while remaining
sequentially implicit in order to deal with the contingency of conversations that forces turn taking to happen.
This component refers to the linguistic resources and strategies that speakers use to fill their turns while adhering
to the rules of turn-taking. It involves the selection and use of words, phrases, and conversational devices that
help speakers manage the flow of conversation and respond to the contingencies that arise during interaction .
These lexical components enable speakers to maintain the coherence and relevance of the conversation while
remaining sequentially implicit. Examples of lexical components include:

Turn-constructional units (TCUs) Units of speech or writing that constitute a turn, such as a single word,
phrase, or clause.

Repair sequences Strategies used to address problems or misunderstandings in conversation, such as


repeating or rephrasing a statement.

Adjacency pairs Sequentially related utterances that occur in response to one another, such as questions and
answers or greetings and responses.

The turn constructional component describes basic units out of which turns are fashioned. These basic units are
known as Turn construction unit or TCUs. Unit types include: lexical, clausal, phrasal, and sentential.

The turn allocation component describes how participants organize their interaction by distributing turns
to speakers which coincide with sequence organization which focuses on how actions are ordered in conversation.

At a transition relevance place (TRP) which is a place in the conversation in where who is speaking shifts, a
set of rules apply in quick succession so that turns are allocated instantly:
1. Current speaker selects next speaker: this can be done by the use of addressing terms (e.g. names),
initiating action with eye contact, initiating action that limits the potential eligible respondents and the
availability of environmental cues (e.g. requesting the passing of salt in a situation where only a particular person
is sitting close to the salt).
2. Next speaker self-selects when there is no apparent addressee and potential respondents, one might self-select
to continue the conversation. This can be done by overlapping, using turn-entry devices such as "well" or "you
know"; and recycled turn beginning, which is a practice that involves repeating the part of a turn beginning that
gets absorbed in an overlap.
3. Current speaker continues If no one takes up the conversation, the original speaker may again speak to
provide further information to aid the continuation of the conversation. This can be done by adding an increment,
which is a grammatically fitted continuation of an already completed turn construction unit (TCU). Alternatively,
the speaker can choose to start a new TCU, usually to offer clarification or to start a new topic.

Sequence expansion
equence expansion is a fundamental concept in conversation analysis, a field within sociology and linguistics that
studies how people structure and manage their interactions through speech. In everyday conversations,
communication often involves more than just simple back-and-forth exchanges. Sequence expansion refers to the
process by which speakers elaborate on or add additional elements to a basic sequence of conversation, which
typically consists of a first pair part (FPP) and a second pair part (SPP). Sequence expansion allows talk which is
made up of more than a single adjacency pair to be constructed and understood as performing the same basic
action and the various additional elements are as doing interactional work related to the basic action underway.
Sequence expansion is constructed in relation to a base sequence of a first pair part (FPP) and a second pair part
(SPP) in which the core action underway is achieved. It can occur prior to the base FPP, between the base FPP
and SPP, and following the base SPP.

1. Pre-expansion Pre-expansion refers to additional elements or utterances that occur before the initiation of the
base sequence (FPP) in a conversation. an adjacency pair that may be understood as preliminary to the main
course of action.

1.1. A generic pre-expansion in conversation analysis, a generic pre-expansion refers to a type of interaction where
a summon-answer adjacency pair occurs before the initiation of any specific type of base adjacency pair, such
as a request or suggestion. This type of pre-expansion is considered generic because it doesn't specifically
contribute to any particular type of interaction but serves as a basic form of engagement or initiation.

For example: Speaker 1: "Mary?"

Speaker 2: "Yes?"

In this exchange, "Mary?" serves as a summon, prompting Speaker 2 to respond with "Yes?", which is the answer.
This generic pre-expansion doesn't set up any particular type of interaction; instead, it's a simple way to get
someone's attention or initiate a conversation without specifying the nature of the forthcoming interaction.

Pre-expansion refers to additional elements or utterances that occur before the initiation of the base sequence
(FPP) in a conversation.

Example Base FPP "Are you coming to the party?"

Pre-expansion "I was thinking about the party this weekend. Are you coming?"

Insert expansion an adjacency pair that comes between the FPP and SPP of the base adjacency pair. Insert
expansions interrupt the activity under way, but are still relevant to that action. Insert expansion allows a possibility
for a second speaker, the speaker who must produce the SPP, to do interactional work relevant to the projected SPP.
An example of this would be a typical conversation between a customer and a shopkeeper:

Customer I would like a turkey sandwich, please. (FPP base)


Server White or wholegrain? (Insert FPP)
Customer Wholegrain. (Insert SPP)
Server Okay. (SPP base)

In the provided example, the insert expansion occurs between the first pair part (FPP) and the second pair part
(SPP) of the base adjacency pair in a conversation between a customer and a shopkeeper. Here's a breakdown:
Base FPP "I would like a turkey sandwich, please."

Insert FPP "White or wholegrain?"

Insert SPP: "Wholegrain."

Base SPP: "Okay."

In this exchange:

Base FPP The customer initiates the conversation by making a request for a turkey sandwich.

Insert FPP The shopkeeper interrupts the customer's request to ask a clarification question about the type of bread
preferred.

Insert SPP: The customer responds to the clarification question.

Base SPP The shopkeeper acknowledges the response and confirms the completion of the order.

3. Post-expansion: a turn or an adjacency pair that comes after, but is still tied to, the base adjacency pair.
There are two types minimal and non-minimal.

Minimal expansion is also termed sequence closing thirds, because it is a single turn after the base SPP
(hence third) that does not project any further talk beyond their turn (hence closing). Examples of SCT include
"oh", "I see", "okay", etc.

Example Base FPP: "What time are you leaving?"

Base SPP: "In about ten minutes."

Minimal Expansion (SCT): "Okay."

In this example, the minimal expansion "Okay" acknowledges the response and concludes the sequence without
further elaboration.

Non-minimal Expansion Conversely, non-minimal expansions involve more extensive responses following
the base SPP, contributing additional information or initiating new topics. These expansions extend the
conversation beyond the immediate exchange.

Example Base FPP: "Do you have any plans for the weekend?"

Base SPP "Not really. Maybe just relax at home."

Non-minimal Expansion "Yeah, I've been feeling pretty tired lately. A quiet weekend sounds perfect."
4. Silence Silence can occur throughout the entire speech act but in what context it is happening depends what the
silence means. Three different assets can be implied through silence:

Gap when the speaker stops talking without selecting the next speaker so there is a silence until a new
participant self selects

Lapse when the current speaker stops talking, does not select a next speaker, and no one self selects creating
the conversation to end even if for just a moment

Pause the speaker selects the next person, but that person is silent creating a pause or silence that "belongs"
to them

Preference Organization

Preference organization is a pair which gives freedom in responding to some first pair part, whether it is
preferred or dispreferred one. There is, however, a certain amount of freedom in responding to some first pair
parts, such as in:

A: That’s a nice shirt. Compliment

B: Oh thanks. Accept
or

"Actually…I don’t really like it; got it for Christmas." (Reject)

Participant B has the freedom to respond with either an accepting response ("Oh thanks") or a dispreferred
response ("Actually…I don’t really like it; got it for Christmas") to the compliment expressed in the FPP. This
demonstrates the flexibility in response options within preference organization, where the recipient of the
compliment can choose how to respond based on their own preferences or intentions.

In conversation analysis, when a second pair part (SPP) follows a first pair part (FPP) and it is dispreferred
(such as a rejection following an invitation), there are often recognizable patterns in how the dispreferred response
is formulated. These patterns include delays, prefaces, and accounts, which serve various interactional functions:

Delay A delay refers to a hesitation or pause before delivering the response. This delay can signal to the
speaker's reluctance or hesitation in providing the dispreferred response.

Preface A preface is a linguistic marker that softens the dispreferred response or prepares the recipient for
the upcoming rejection. Phrases like "Uhhh..." or "Well..." often serve as prefaces to dispreferred responses,
signaling the speaker's hesitation or discomfort.

Account An account provides an explanation or justification for the dispreferred response. In the example
provided, "I think I might have something on that night" is an account that explains why the invitation might not
be accepted. Accounts help to mitigate potential face-threats by providing a rationale for the dispreferred
response.

These elements—delay, preface, and account—often work together to manage the interactional implications of
delivering a dispreferred response. They help to soften the impact of the rejection and maintain the speaker's social
relationships and face.

Example A: Would you like to come to the movies on Friday Invitation

B: Uhhh… Delay

I don’t know for sure. Preface

I think I might have something on that night. Account

Can we make it another time? Rejection

Preference organization
CA may reveal structural (i.e. practice-underwritten) preferences in conversation for some types of actions
(within sequences of action) over others. For example, responsive actions which agree with, or accept, positions
taken by a first action tend to be performed more straightforwardly and faster than actions that disagree with, or
decline, those positions (Pomerantz 1984; Davidson 1984). The former is termed an unmarked turn shape,
meaning the turn is not preceded by silence nor is it produced with delays, mitigation and accounts. The latter is
termed marked turn shape, which describes a turn with opposite characteristics. One consequence of this is that
agreement and acceptance are promoted over their alternatives, and are more likely to be the outcome of the
sequence. Pre-sequences are also a component of preference organization and contribute to this outcome (Schegloff
2007). Here's an explanation of key terms and concepts related to preference organization in conversation.

Unmarked Turn Shape: This refers to a turn in conversation that is straightforward and lacks features such as
silence, delays, mitigation, or accounts. Unmarked turn shapes are typically associated with agreement or
acceptance of preceding positions.

Marked Turn Shape In contrast, a marked turn shape describes a turn in conversation characterized by features
such as silence, hesitation, delays, mitigation, or accounts. Marked turn shapes are often associated with
disagreement or refusal of preceding positions.

Consequences of Preference Organization Preference organization promotes agreement and acceptance


over their alternatives. Because unmarked turn shapes are favored, they are more likely to lead to agreement or
acceptance as the outcome of the sequence.

Pre-Sequences Pre-sequences are sequences of actions that precede a primary sequence and contribute to
shaping the interaction. They help set up or prepare for the main action or sequence that follows. Pre-
sequences are also part of preference organization as they influence the likelihood of particular outcomes in the
interaction.

Repair
Repair is a correction of what has been said by the speaker about the previous statement they said during the
conversation. There are two types of repair, self repairs and other repairs.

Self-repair Self-repair occurs when a speaker recognizes and corrects their own error or inaccuracy in speech
during the course of conversation.

Example A: "I'm going to the movies tomorrow...I mean the opera."In this example, the speaker initially
says "movies" but quickly corrects themselves to "opera," recognizing the

Other-repair Other-repair happens when an interlocutor or another speaker identifies and corrects an error
or inaccuracy made by the original speaker.

Example

A: "I’m going to that restaurant we went to last week. You know the Italian one in Brunswick Street?"

B: "You mean Lygon Street, don’t you?"

In this example, speaker B corrects speaker A's mistake by providing the accurate location, "Lygon Street,"
instead of "Brunswick Street."mistake in real-time.

Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or
understanding. Repair is classified by who initiates repair (self or other) and by who resolves the problem
(self or other) as well as by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns.

Repair segments are classified by who initiates repair (self or other), by who resolves the problem (self or other),
and by how it unfolds within a turn or a sequence of turns. The organization of repair is also a self-righting Self-
initiated, self-resolved repair The speaker recognizes an error in their own speech and subsequently corrects it
without any intervention from the interlocutor.

Example:

A: "I'm going to the movies tomorrow...no, I mean the opera."

In this instance, the speaker acknowledges the mistake independently and makes the correction without input from
the other participant.

Self-initiated, other-resolved repair The speaker recognizes an error and attempts to correct it, but the
interlocutor provides the correct version.
Example:

A: "I'm going to that restaurant we went to last week. You know the Italian one in Brunswick Street?"

B: "You mean Lygon Street, don’t you?"

Here, speaker A initiates the repair by attempting to correct themselves, but speaker B provides the accurate
information.

Other-initiated, self-resolved repair The interlocutor identifies an error made by the speaker, but the speaker
corrects it themselves without external assistance.

Example A: "I'm going to the movies tomorrow...I mean the opera."

B: (silently acknowledges the error)

Here, speaker B recognizes the mistake made by speaker A, but speaker A corrects it without any input from B.

Other-initiated, other-resolved repair The interlocutor identifies an error made by the speaker and provides
the correct version to resolve it.

Example:

A: "I'm going to that restaurant we went to last week. You know the Italian one in Brunswick Street?"

B: "You mean Lygon Street, don’t you?"

A: "Yeah, that's right, Lygon Street."

In this scenario, speaker B identifies the mistake made by speaker A and offers the correction, which speaker A
then acknowledges. mechanism in social interaction (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977).

Action formation
This focuses on the description of the practices by which turns at talk are composed and positioned so as to realize
one or another actions.

Turn-taking A process by which interactants allocate the right or obligation to participate in an


interactional activity. (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Repair The mechanisms through which certain
"troubles" in interaction are dealt with. (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks 1977). Preference organization The
ways through which different types of social actions ('preferred' vs. 'dispreferred') are carried out
sequentially. (Pomerantz 1978, Pomerantz 1984)

Major dimensions
Action Organization of actions distinct from outside of a conversation. This could include openings and closings
of conversations, assessments, storytelling, and complaints.

Structure All human social action is structured and has rules, conversation is no different. In order to participate
in a conversation the participants must abide by these rules and structures to be an active participant

Intersubjectivity Concerning the ways in which the participants’ intentions, knowledge, relations, and stances
towards the talked-about objects is created, maintained, and negotiated

Interactional and transactional talk

Transactional talk is for getting business done in the world, i.e., in order to produce some change in the situation.

Interactional talk has as its primary function the lubrication of the social wheels, establishing roles and
relationships with another person prior to transactional talk.

Topic Management
Topic management is one of the important aspects of conversation. In doing the conversation, how the speaker
maintain the topic is related to the social culture where the speaker appears. The speaker should not talk about
topic thought as a taboo by the society. There is an effort to maintain the topic so it won’t change easily before
another speaker follows the previous topic.

“Topic management also includes an awareness of how speakers deal with changes in a topic, how they
maintain a topic, and how they repair the interaction when a misunderstanding occurs”, (Burns and Joyce in
Paltridge (2000:94).

Moreover, there are often culture-specific rules for who initiates a topic and how it is done, and who develops the
topic and how it is developed. That is, there are often culture specific strategies that people use to introduce,
develop, or change topics in a conversation. Equally, there are conventions and constraint on the choice of topic in
particular conversational contexts, depending on the genre, or speech event, situation, and culture in which they
occur.

An initial question is what sorts of thing can form topics in conversation. “Some topics are not relevant to particular
conversations because it is a general rule about conversation that it is your business not to tell people what you can
suppose they know” (Malcolm, 1971: 79), and the suitability of other topics depends on the person one is talking to.

Feedback
Feedback shows how the listener responds to what is talking about by the speaker. Feedback can be done both
verbally or non-verbally which signaling response. Feedback also varies cross-culturally. For example, a
common feedback token in Japanese is ‘hi’ which, taken literally, means ‘yes’. However, in Japanese interactions
the use of this feedback token does not necessarily mean agreement as ‘yes’ might in English, but rather, simply, ‘I
am listening to what you are saying’, much as ‘uh huh’ might in English.

Narratives
 differentiating the structure of narratives and Narrative imagining

Argumentation
identifying the structure of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical approach and the social-psychological
approach
The quality of argumentation

Persuasion

Is an umbrella term of influence. Persuasion can attempt to influence a


person's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviors. In business, persuasion is a process aimed at
changing a person's (or a group's) attitude or behavior toward some event, idea, object, or other person(s), by
using written, spoken words or visual tools to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination
thereof. Persuasion is also an often used tool in the pursuit of personal gain, such as election campaigning, giving
a sales pitch, or in trial advocacy. Persuasion can also be interpreted as using one's personal or positional
resources to change people's behaviors or attitudes. Systematic persuasion is the process through which attitudes
or beliefs are leveraged by appeals to logic and reason. Heuristic persuasion on the other hand is the process through
which attitudes or beliefs are leveraged by appeals to habit or emotion.

Argumentation
identifying the structure of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical approach and the social-psychological approach
The quality of argumentation

In analyzing argumentation from a discursive point of view, one has to take into account:

1. The situation of discourse with its socio-historical components: it includes (a) the framework of enunciation
(who speaks to whom, where and when as reflected in the discourse) and (b) the situation of communication,
including so-called contextual elements like the circumstances of the exchange, the selected media, the reputation of
the speaker, etc. The situation of discourse thus articulates external and internal elements.

2. The genre of discourse with its pre-established frameworks and constraints.

3. The dialogical dimension, or general interdiscursivity—the social discourse circulating at a given moment and
the previous texts on which the speaker and/or her audience draw (Bakhtin 1984).
4. The institutional dimension, or the speaker’s position(ing) in a specific field (Bourdieu 1991).

Argumentative discourse is a specific kind of communication, but one that is often broadly defined. Discourse is
defined as the social or public use of written or spoken language, or in other words, communication between two or
more parties. Within the general definition of discourse, several different types of discourse apply. These are
sometimes also called rhetorical modes, and they fulfill different functions in general discourse.

Everything’s an argument Every text—oral, written, or visual is, in some sense rhetorical; each one is a strategic
presentation of particular ideas.

Human beings both produce and receive such texts; as such, we must understand what they mean. Typically, this is
done implicitly; we understand the meaning of a text without thinking about how or why it works the way it does.

Rhetorical analysis asks us precisely that to understand how texts create meaning, how they construct
knowledge, and how they make us take action.

Rhetorical analysis, then, helps us to understand explicitly (rather than simply implicitly, as most of us do) how
the language of a text works and how we can use such language to work for us.

Although many people who hear the word, “argument,” think of a heated, vitriolic conflict or emotional exchange,
in general, the word simply means support for an idea. Argumentative discourse as a mode of rhetoric is
discourse that primarily consists of one or more parties supporting their ideas or opinions. This is in contrast to other
kinds of discourse, including narrative, expositional, or descriptive discourse.

Many different kinds of argumentative rhetoric or discourse develop and manifest in different ways. Some are
more formal, in which speakers or writers carefully expand on a basic idea with key supporting ideas that are often
based on technical research. Other kinds of argumentative discourse may be more broad, and rely more on
intuitive or emotional arguments than on specific fact-finding. It also includes many different kinds of diction and
presentation. In more formal venues, the wording used for argumentative discourse may be very sophisticated and
technical, where in less formal situations, dialect and slang may be used freely.

argumentative rhetoric or discourse can indeed vary widely in formality, structure, and the types of appeals
used to persuade audiences. Let's delve a bit deeper into the different aspects you've mentioned:

1. Formality: As you rightly pointed out, the level of formality in argumentative discourse can vary greatly.
In formal settings, such as academic papers or professional presentations, there's typically a rigorous
adherence to logical reasoning, supported by evidence and research. On the other hand, in informal
contexts like casual conversations or social media debates, the tone may be more relaxed, and the
arguments might rely more on personal experiences, anecdotes, or even humor.
2. Supporting Ideas: Formal argumentative discourse often involves carefully structured arguments with
well-defined premises and conclusions. These arguments are usually supported by evidence, data, and
logical reasoning. In contrast, informal discourse may involve simpler structures, with supporting ideas
presented more casually or intuitively.

3. Appeals: Arguments can also vary in the types of appeals they employ to persuade audiences. Formal
arguments often rely on logos (logical appeal) and ethos (ethical appeal), with an emphasis on reasoned
analysis and credibility. In contrast, informal arguments may rely more heavily on pathos (emotional
appeal), appealing to the audience's feelings, values, and beliefs.

4. Diction and Presentation: The choice of language and presentation style can significantly impact the
effectiveness of an argument. In formal discourse, language tends to be precise, technical, and often
jargon-heavy, reflecting the specialized knowledge of the field. Informal discourse, on the other hand,
may use colloquial language, slang, or even memes to connect with the audience on a more personal
level.

Different kinds of argumentative discourse also rely greatly on their physical or social context. One example is
the various applications of argumentative discourse to different fields or sectors of a society. For example,
argumentative discourse in a court or legislative parliament is quite different from the same types of discourse in
corporate board rooms. Discourse related to the legal field contrasts sharply to discourse in other fields where less
technical language often applies. Another kind of context involves the relationship between the speaker or writer and
the audience, where some examples of this discourse happen between live people in a room with a human audience,
and others happen in the form of published work distributed to readers, as in newspaper editorials and similar texts.

In general, the use of this kind of discourse offers readers or listeners an opportunity to examine the various ideas
that are being discussed. Persuasive or coercive arguments are often effective in reaching large numbers of people
within a target audience. Widely disseminated arguments can often have substantial effects on the
mass psychology of the public at large, whether these are measured or not. Examining arguments and argumentative
rhetoric or discourse also gives listeners or readers a good idea of how this rhetorical form is treated in a given
society.

1. Persuasive Arguments: Persuasion relies on appealing to the audience's emotions, values, logic, or
credibility to influence their beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. Persuasive arguments aim to convince
individuals to voluntarily adopt a certain viewpoint or take a specific course of action. They often
involve presenting information, evidence, and reasoning in a compelling manner to sway opinions.

 Effectiveness: Persuasive arguments can be highly effective, especially when they resonate with
the audience's values and beliefs. They can foster genuine understanding and agreement, leading
to lasting changes in attitudes or behaviors. Moreover, people are generally more receptive to
persuasion when they feel respected and empowered to make their own choices.

2. Coercive Arguments: Coercion involves using threats, intimidation, or force to compel individuals
to comply with a certain demand or behave in a particular way. Coercive arguments may involve
manipulation tactics, fearmongering, or other forms of pressure to achieve compliance.

 Effectiveness: Coercive arguments can indeed reach large numbers of people quickly, especially
when backed by authority or power. However, the effectiveness of coercion often comes at a cost.
While it may produce immediate compliance, it can also lead to resentment, resistance, or
backlash in the long run. Moreover, coercive tactics may undermine trust and damage
relationships with the target audience.

Persuasion

Appeals Logos An appeal to logos, or logical appeal, is a persuasive technique that aims to convince the
audience through the use of logical reasoning and evidence. This approach relies on presenting well-structured
arguments, making use of logical connections, and employing deductive reasoning to lead the audience to a
particular conclusion. Here are some key features and strategies associated with appeals to logos:

Logical Argumentation The core of logos involves constructing arguments that follow a logical sequence. This
often includes presenting premises and drawing conclusions based on them. The argument should be clear, coherent,
and free from fallacies.

If-Then Statements These are commonly used in logical reasoning to establish conditional relationships between
different propositions. By presenting if-then statements, the speaker can demonstrate how one condition leads to
another, thereby strengthening the logical coherence of their argument.

Appeals Ethos

Ethos refers to the credibility, authority, and trustworthiness of the speaker or writer. It is based on the
audience's perception of the speaker's character, expertise, and moral standing, as well as their
knowledge and experience on the topic being discussed.

When employing ethos in persuasive communication, the speaker or writer seeks to establish their
credibility and build trust with the audience. This can be achieved through various means, including:

1. Expertise: Demonstrating knowledge, expertise, and qualifications relevant to the topic at


hand. This may include citing credentials, professional experience, educational background,
or specialized training.
2. Authority: Asserting authority or leadership in the field or subject matter being discussed.
This may involve referencing positions of power, titles, affiliations, or endorsements from
reputable sources.

3. Integrity: Exhibiting honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. This involves maintaining
transparency, avoiding conflicts of interest, and adhering to moral principles and ethical
standards.

4. Relatability: Establishing a connection with the audience by demonstrating shared values,


beliefs, or experiences. This may involve using personal anecdotes, testimonials, or examples
to resonate with the audience on a personal level.

5. Credible Sources: Referencing reliable, credible sources of information, research, or evidence


to support arguments and claims. This enhances the speaker's credibility by demonstrating a
commitment to factual accuracy and reasoned analysis.

Appeals Pathos

Pathos refers to the emotional appeal that aims to evoke feelings, sentiments, or empathy in the audience.
Unlike ethos, which appeals to credibility, and logos, which appeals to logic and reason, pathos targets the
audience's emotions, values, and beliefs.

When employing pathos in persuasive communication, the speaker or writer seeks to evoke specific emotional
responses from the audience, such as compassion, sympathy, joy, anger, fear, or nostalgia. This can be achieved
through various means, including:

1. Anecdotes and Stories: Using personal anecdotes, narratives, or storytelling to evoke empathy and
emotional engagement. By sharing relatable experiences or compelling stories, the speaker can connect
with the audience on a deeper emotional level.

2. Vivid Imagery: Painting vivid pictures or using descriptive language to appeal to the audience's
senses and imagination. By creating sensory-rich experiences, the speaker can evoke powerful emotions
and foster emotional resonance with the audience.

3. Personalization: Addressing the audience directly and acknowledging their individual concerns,
aspirations, or struggles. By personalizing the message, the speaker can make it more relevant and
emotionally impactful to the audience's lives and experiences.
4. Appeals to Values and Beliefs: Aligning the message with the audience's values, beliefs, or moral
principles. By appealing to shared values or ideals, the speaker can evoke feelings of solidarity, identity, or
moral righteousness among the audience.

5. Use of Emotional Language: Employing emotive language, rhetorical devices, or persuasive


techniques to evoke specific emotional responses. This may include using words with strong connotations,
metaphors, similes, or hyperbole to heighten emotional intensity.

Discourse and cognition:

1. Modeling Discourse Production:

 Discourse production refers to the process of generating spoken or written language, involving
the formulation of ideas, organization of information, and expression of thoughts.

 Modeling discourse production involves developing theoretical frameworks or computational


models to understand how language is generated, structured, and conveyed during
communication.

 This may include studying cognitive processes such as planning, sentence generation,
discourse coherence, and discourse strategies employed by speakers or writers.

2. Product and Process Analysis:

 Product analysis involves examining the linguistic features, structures, and content of
discourse products, such as texts or conversations.

 Process analysis focuses on studying the cognitive processes and mechanisms involved in
discourse comprehension and production.

 By analyzing both the products and processes of discourse, researchers can gain insights into the
cognitive and linguistic aspects of communication.

3. Processing and Prior Knowledge:

 Discourse processing refers to the cognitive processes involved in comprehending and


interpreting spoken or written language, including parsing, inference-making, and memory
retrieval.

 Prior knowledge, including semantic, syntactic, and world knowledge, plays a crucial role in
discourse processing by providing a framework for understanding and interpreting incoming
information.
 Effective discourse processing relies on the integration of prior knowledge with incoming
linguistic input to construct coherent mental representations of discourse.

4. Aspects of Processing:

 Various aspects of processing influence discourse comprehension, including lexical processing,


syntactic parsing, discourse coherence and discourse integration.

 Lexical processing involves recognizing and accessing individual words and their meanings
within the context of a discourse.

 Syntactic parsing involves analyzing the grammatical structure and relationships between
words and phrases in sentences and discourse.

 Discourse coherence refers to the maintenance of logical connections and coherence between
sentences and paragraphs within a discourse.

 Discourse integration involves integrating incoming information with prior knowledge to


construct a coherent mental representation of discourse.

5. Modeling Discourse Processing:

 Modeling discourse processing involves developing computational models or theoretical


frameworks to simulate and understand the cognitive processes involved in discourse
comprehension and production.

 These models may incorporate elements such as lexical access, syntactic parsing, discourse
representation, and inference-making to simulate human-like processing of discourse.

6. Metaphor in Cognitive Research:

 Metaphor is a cognitive phenomenon that involves understanding one concept or domain in


terms of another, often more concrete or familiar domain.

 Metaphors play a crucial role in cognitive processing by shaping how we perceive, reason
about, and communicate about abstract concepts.

 In cognitive research, metaphor analysis is used to uncover underlying conceptual mappings


and cognitive processes involved in language and thought.

 Understanding how metaphors are used in discourse can provide insights into how abstract
concepts are conceptualized, expressed, and understood by speakers and listeners.
Discourse and Knowledge

Knowledge is justified and shared belief. It is all beliefs which are presupposed in public discourse Criteria:
Observation ( 1st hand experience) ,someone told me’(information obtained from discourse) and Inference
from existing knowledge.

Example;- Knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun based on scientific evidence, education, and
consensus within the scientific community.

Discourse and Knowledge

• Mental models are cognitive notions related to a speaker and are relative to language users.
 Context model refers to the mental model of the communicative situation.
 Language shapes mental models which, in turn, shape one's understanding of the world.
Ideology is also a shared belief. Knowledge presupposes ideology,and Knowledge is presupposed in public
discourse, but ideology is never presupposed. It is implied, But this is the other story.

1. Ideology as a Shared Belief

 Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, values, and principles shared by a group or society. It often
shapes perspectives on various aspects of life, including politics, economics, and culture.

2. Knowledge Presupposing Ideology

 This suggests that knowledge is influenced by the underlying ideological framework within a
community. In other words, the beliefs and values inherent in ideology shape what is considered
valid knowledge within that particular context.

3. Presupposition of Knowledge in Public Discourse

 Knowledge is assumed or taken for granted in public discourse, serving as the basis for
discussions, debates, and decision-making processes. It forms the foundation upon which
arguments are constructed and evaluated.
4. Implicit Nature of Ideology in Public Discourse

 While knowledge is presupposed and explicitly discussed in public discourse, ideology


operates more subtly. It underlies and informs individuals' perspectives, arguments, and
positions but may not always be explicitly stated or acknowledged in the discou

Discourse and culture


The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Critical discourse analysis, Gender, Racism, Intercultural communication
Background knowledge, cultural schemata the preexisting knowledge within the speakers and the hearer.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, suggests that the structure of a language
shapes or influences the way its speakers perceive and think about the world. This hypothesis proposes that
language not only reflects our thoughts and experiences but also constructs and limits them. Here's a
breakdown of your provided terms and concepts in relation to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

1. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

 Definition The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis proposes that language shapes cognition and
perception, influencing how individuals understand and interpret the world around them.

 Example: If a language lacks a specific word for a concept or object, speakers of that language
may have difficulty perceiving or conceptualizing it. For instance, if a language lacks distinct
color terms for shades of orange, speakers might not perceive those shades as distinct from other
colors.

2. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

 CDA is an interdisciplinary approach to analyzing discourse, focusing on power relations,


ideologies, and social structures embedded within language use.

 Example CDA may examine how language reinforces or challenges dominant ideologies
related to gender, race, or power dynamics in society.

3. Gender:
 Gender refers to the social and cultural roles, behaviors, and identities associated with being
male, female, or non-binary. It is constructed within specific cultural contexts and varies across
societies.
 Example Gender norms dictate expected behaviors and roles for individuals based on their
perceived gender. For instance, societal expectations may dictate that men should be assertive
and dominant, while women should be nurturing and submissive.
4. Racism
 Racism is a system of prejudice, discrimination, and unequal treatment based on perceived
racial or ethnic differences. It encompasses beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that reinforce racial
hierarchies and perpetuate systemic inequalities.
 Example Racism can manifest in various forms, such as hate speech, discriminatory policies,
or biased representations in media. For example, racial stereotypes portrayed in advertising can
perpetuate harmful stereotypes and contribute to the marginalization of certain racial groups.
5. Intercultural Communication
 Intercultural Communication refers to interactions between individuals or groups from
different cultural backgrounds. It involves understanding and navigating cultural differences in
communication styles, values, and norms.
 Example In intercultural communication, individuals may encounter challenges related to language
barriers, nonverbal communication differences, or differing cultural values. Effective
intercultural communication requires sensitivity, empathy, and cultural competence.
6. Background Knowledge and Cultural Schemata

 Background knowledge and cultural schemata refer to the preexisting knowledge structures and
mental frameworks shaped by cultural experiences and social contexts. They influence how
individuals interpret and make sense of the world around them.
 Example Cultural schemata encompass cultural norms, values, and beliefs that influence
communication and behavior. For example, cultural norms regarding politeness or hierarchy may
shape conversational dynamics and interpersonal relationships.

The idea that the power to name is the power to see. There is language and then there is experience. ex if you have
word for the color orange, the meaning doesn't exist to you and it isn't seen as distinct.

Background knowledge
Our ability to interpret the unsaid is usually based on pre-existing knowledge structures, familiar patterns that
we use to interpret new experiences. A common term to describe these patterns is schemata. If they are fixed
patterns, they are also called frames.
1. Schemata
 Schemata (singular schema) refer to mental structures or cognitive frameworks that
represent knowledge about a concept, event, or situation. They are formed through experience
and serve as templates for understanding and interpreting new information.
 Example: A schema for a restaurant might include expectations about the layout, menu, and social
dynamics, based on past experiences dining out.
2. Frames
 Frames are similar to schemata but may specifically refer to fixed, static patterns within
schemata. They provide a structured framework for interpreting and organizing information
within a particular context.
 Example: Within the schema of a job interview, a frame might include expectations about
appropriate attire, interview questions, and behavior.
For example, in our frame for an apartment is included at least a kitchen, a bathroom and a bedroom, so usually
these elements are not stated unless there is more than one.
Moreover, if we read an advertisement of the type:
Two-bedroom apartment for rent, € 800
On the basis of our experience we will also know that “€ 800” means “per month” and not “per year” or “per week”.
More dynamic types of schemata, involving a sequence of events, are often described as scripts. We use scripts to
interpret accounts of what happened. We have scripts for what happens in all sorts of events, such as travelling by
train, going to see the doctor, etc. and we tend to fill in the parts that are not stated.

Generally members of the same culture share the same frames and scripts , but with members of
different cultures there may be problems of communication.

Schemata and scripts, like the maxims of the cooperative principle, the politeness strategies we mentioned, the
mechanism of turn-taking, etc. are all culturally determined.

 Hence the necessity of contrastive and cross-cultural pragmatics

Schemata are high-level complex knowledge structures that serve as ideational scaffolding in how we organize
and interpret our experiences. However, there are different views on how schemata function. The deterministic view
portrays schemata as stereotypical and fixed ways of interpreting experiences. For example, when someone says,
"There's a party political broadcast coming on—do you want to watch it?" and the response is, "No,
switch it off, I know what they are going to say already," it reflects a predetermined interpretation based
on fixed schemata.

On the other hand, the weak version of schemata sees them as organized background knowledge that guides
our expectations or predictions in interpreting discourse. This perspective emphasizes the idea of structures of
expectation. According to Bartlett, our memory for discourse is not merely based on reproducing information
verbatim but involves a constructive process. This process integrates information from the encountered discourse
with knowledge from past experiences related to the current discourse, forming a mental representation. Importantly,
this past experience isn't merely an accumulation of individual events but rather is organized and made manageable.

In light of these perspectives, contrastive and cross-cultural pragmatics become essential. They help us
understand how different cultures and languages shape individuals' schemata and expectations in discourse
interpretation. By studying these contrasts, we gain insights into how people from different backgrounds may
interpret and construct meaning differently, enriching our understanding of communication across cultures.

 Four moments of the dialectics of discourse emergence, hegemony,


recontextualization, operationalization

1. Emergence

 This moment refers to the initial appearance or emergence of a discourse. It marks the point at
which a particular discourse or set of discourses begins to gain prominence or visibility within a
given context. Emergence involves the recognition and articulation of new ideas, perspectives,
or narratives that may challenge existing norms or paradigms.

2. Hegemony

 Hegemony refers to the dominance or influence of a particular discourse or ideology within a


society or social group. In this context, hegemony reflects the power dynamics at play within
discursive practices, where certain discourses exert control or authority over others. Hegemonic
discourses often shape perceptions, values, and social practices, thereby reinforcing existing
power structures.

3. Recontextualization

 Recontextualization involves the adaptation or reinterpretation of discourses as they move


across different contexts or domains. It refers to the process by which discourses are taken up,
modified, and applied in new settings or situations. Recontextualization can lead to shifts in
meaning, emphasis, or interpretation, as discourses interact with diverse social, cultural, and
political factors.

4. Operationalization

 Operationalization refers to the translation of abstract concepts or ideas into practical actions
or policies. In the context of discourse, operationalization involves the implementation of
discursive strategies or frameworks in real-world contexts. It entails turning discourse into
tangible practices, procedures, or interventions that shape social behavior,
institutional structures, or policy decisions.

Discourse is a crucial and irreducible dimension of processes of social change which are currently referred to by
such terms as ‘globalisation’, ‘neo-liberalism’, ‘new capitalism’, ‘knowledge economy’, ‘learning society’, and
so forth. The processes of change which are represented, and constructed, in terms of categories such as these can
be seen as partly actual and partly imagined responses to socio-economic crisis. Schematically, we can sum up the
role of discourse in such in situations of crisis as follows (see Jessop 2002):

There is a crisis in the existing social order, and competing strategies on the part of different groups of social
agents emerge to resolve it. New discourses emerge in response to the crisis, as facets ofstrategies, which
constitute ‘imaginaries’ for a new economic and political ‘fix’, a new order.

There is a process of contestation between discourses, leading potentially to the diffusion of a new hegemonic
discourse across social fields and scales. If a discourse achieves hegemony, it is enacted in new ways of acting and
interacting, inculcated in new ways of being (forms of identity), materialized in new ‘hardware’ (architecture,
machinery, technologies etc). More specifically CDA focuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm,
legitimate, reproduce or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.

 Fairclough&Wodak (1997: 271-280) summarize the main tenets of CDA as


follows:

1. DA addresses social problems

2. Power relations are discursive

3. Discourse Constitutes Society and Culture

4. Discourse does ideological work

5. Discourse is historical

6. The link between text and society is mediated

7. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory

8. Discourse is a form of social action.

 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. With such
dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and
ultimately resist social inequality.

 What is `cognition'?
As is the case for other fundamental notions, 'cognition' is a notion that is jointly defined by all the disciplines
currently integrated under the label 'cognitive science',such as psychology, linguistics, philosophy and logic
as well as the brain sciences.

Some typical cognitive notions used here are, for instance

• Mind, defined, for example, as a central function of the human brain.

• Cognition as the set of functions of the mind, such as thought, perception and representation. reasoning,
problem-solving, and decision-making.

• Memory Short Term (Working) Memory (STM) and Long Term Memory(LTM). Memory involves the
encoding, storage, and retrieval of information. It includes both short-term memory (working memory) and long-
term memory, which can be further categorized into episodic memory (personal experiences) and semantic
memory (general knowledge and facts).

• Episodic (personal, autobiographic) Memory (EM) and Semantic (sociocultural, shared) Memory — as
part of LTM.

• Pragmatic Context Models specific mental models of subjective representations (definitions) of the relevant
properties of communicative situations, controlling discourse processing and adapting discourse to the social
environment so that it is situationally appropriate.

• Knowledge and its organization shared, sociocultural beliefs that are certified by the (knowledge) criteria or
standards of a (knowledge) community.

• Ideology as the shared, fundamental and axiomatic beliefs of specific social groups (socialism, neoliberalism,
feminism , (anti)racism, pacifism, etc.).

• Attitudes as the socially shared, ideologically based opinions (normative beliefs) about specific social issues
having given rise to debate or struggle (abortion, divorce, euthanasia, immigration, etc.).

• Cognitive processes such as the production and comprehension of discourse/ interaction on the basis of
specific mental models, controlled by context models, and based on knowledge and ideologies.

 Social cognition
Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) is not primarily interested in the subjective meanings or experiences
of individual language users. Power, power abuse, dominance and their reproduction typically involve
collectivities, such as groups, social movements, organizations and institutions (Van Dijk, 2008b).
Therefore, besides the fundamental interface of personal mental models that account for specific discourses, a
cognitive approach also needs to account for social cognition, that is, the beliefs or social representations they share
with others of their group or community . Knowledge, attitudes, values, norms and ideologies are different types of
social representations.
These social representations also play a role in the construction of personal models, as we have seen in some detail
in our brief analytical remarks about the Petition text. That is, socially shared knowledge and opinions may be
`instantiated' in such models. In other words, models are also the interface of the individual and the social, and
explain how group beliefs may affect personal beliefs and thus be expressed in discourse. Ethnic or gender
prejudice, which are typically defined for social groups, thus also appear as an (instantiated) property of individual
discourses.
And conversely, if the personal mental model of social events of an influential person is shared by others of a group
or community, mental models may be generalized and abstracted from to form social representations such as
knowledge, attitudes and ideologies.This is of course precisely the aim of the Petition text.
It is one of the aims of CDS research to analyse specific discourses in this broader, social framework, for instance by
trying to infer (sometimes quite )inwhdichi -shraerecdtsolcyial representations are being expresed or presuposed by
discourse. Thus, critical discourse studies of racism, sexism or classism need to relate properties of discourse with
these underlying, socially shared, representations, which group members use as a resource to talk about (members)
of other groups. Outgroup derogation and ingroupcelebration are the social-psychological strategies typically
defining this kind of chauvinist discourse.
 Ideology
Dominance, defined as power abuse, is often based on, and legitimated by ideologies, that is, by the fundamental
social bebe& that organize and control thesocial representations of groups and their members. Many forms of CDS
research require such an ideological analysis, especially because ideologies are typically expressed and reproduced
by discourse.
It is important to stress here that the cognitive framework sketched above suggests that there is no direct link
between discourse and ideology. The basic beliefs of an ideology (for instance, about the equality of women and
men in a feminist ideology) organize specific attitudes, that is, the socially shared opinions of a group (for instance,
about abortion, sexual harassment or equal pay), which in turn may influence specific event models (about specific
participants and actions), which finally may be related to discourse under the final control of context models. In
other words, to `read off' ideologies from discourse is not always possible, precisely because ideologies need to be
very genehrgeqtral and fairly abstract. Although we still ignore what the general structure of ideologies are (van
Dijk, 1998), it may be assumed that they are organized by a general schema consisting of the basic categories that
organize the self and other representations of a group and its members, such as:
• membership devices (who belongs to us?)
• typical acts (what do we do?)
• aims (why do we do it?)
• relations with other (opponent) groups • resources, including access to public discourse.
What is critical discourse analysis (CDA)?

Hyland (2005:4) acts of meaning making are always engaged in that:

they realize the interests ,the positions, the perspectives, the values and of those who enact them

The aim of CD is help reveal some of the hidden values, positions and perspectives.

CDA examines the use of discourse in relation to social and cultural issues, such as race, politics, gender,
identityand asks why the discourse is used in particular way and what the implications are of this kind of use.

CDA assumes thatlanguage use is always socialdiscourse both reflects and constructs the social world

A critical analysis explores issues such as gender, ideology and identity and how these are reflected in particular
text

To do CDA, the first step is analysis of the use of discourse,the second step is explanation and interpretation of the
discourse. The final step is deconstruction of the text, tracing ideologies and assumptions underlying the discourse
and link them to different views of world, experience and beliefs.

 Principles of CDA
Social and politicalissues are constructed and reflected in discourse

Power relations are negotiated and performed through discourse

Discourse both reflects and reproducessocial relations

Ideologies are produced and reflected in the use of discourse

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) stems from a critical theory of language which sees the use of language as a form
of social practice. All social practice are tied to specific historical contexts and are the means by which existing
social relations are reproduced or contested and different interests are served. It is the questions pertaining to
interests - How is the text positioned or positioning? Whose interests are served by this positioning? Whose interests
are negated? What are the consequences of this positioning? - that relate discourse to relations of power. Where
analysis seeks to understand how discourse is implicated in relations of power, it is called critical discourse
analysis.

Fairclough's (1989, 1995) model for CDA consists three inter-related processes of analysis tied to three inter-related
dimensions of discourse. These three dimensions are

1 The object of analysis (including verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts).
2 The processes by means of which the object is produced and received (writing/ speaking/designing and
reading/listening/viewing) by human subjects.

3 The socio-historical conditions which govern these processes.

According to Fairclough each of these dimensions requires a different kind of analysis

1 text analysis (description),

2 processing analysis (interpretation),

3 social analysis (explanation).

You might also like