0% found this document useful (0 votes)

13 views

Introduction To Discourse Analysis

Fine

Uploaded by

maodhaf99

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

13 views

Introduction To Discourse Analysis

Fine

Uploaded by

maodhaf99

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 85

INTRODUCTION TO

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
A HANDBOOK FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDENT

Yusuf Al Arief
English Language Education Study Program
Teacher Training and Education Faculty
Lambung Mangkurat University
Banjarmasin
FOREWORD

Discourse analysis is the examination of language use by members of a speech

community. It involves looking at both language form and language function and includes
the study of both spoken interaction and written texts. It identifies linguistic features that
characterize different genres as well as social and cultural factors that aid in our
interpretation and understanding of different texts and types of talk. A discourse analysis
of written texts might include a study of topic development and cohesion across the
sentences, while an analysis of spoken language might focus on these aspects plus turn-
taking practices, opening and closing sequences of social encounters, or narrative
structure.
The study of discourse has developed in a variety of disciplines-sociolinguistics,
anthropology, sociology, and social psychology. Thus, discourse analysis takes different
theoretical perspectives and analytic approaches: speech act theory, interactional
sociolinguistics, ethnography of communication, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and
variation analysis. Although each approach emphasizes different aspects of language use,
they all view language as social interaction.
This book is based on the importance of the discourse as described above. It is
hoped that this book can be a reference source for students in studying discourse analysis
and seeing its application in English Language teaching. Although it is simple, the writer
hopes that this book will bring and provide extensive knowledge for readers. In closing,
the writer would like to thank all those who have helped and supported the completion
of the Introduction to Discourse Analysis textbook.

Banjarmasin, October 2nd, 2019

Writer
TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER I What Is Discourse Analysis?

1.1 What do Speakers Do in Conversation? 1
1.2 Discourse and Frames 1
1.3 Turn Taking 2
1.4 Discourse Markers 3
1.5 Speech Acts 3
Chapter I Evaluation 4
CHAPTER II Utterance, Text and Discourse
2.1 What is Utterance? 7
2.2 What is a Text? 8
2.3 What is a Discourse? 8
2.4 Difference between Text and Discourse 9
Chapter II Evaluation 11
CHAPTER III Classification of Discourse
3.1 Discourse and It’s Classification 13
3.2 Common Examples of Discourse 14
3.3 Significance of Discourse in Literature 15
Chapter III Evaluation 19
Chapter IV Context, Interpretation and Intuition
4.1 Context 35
4.2 Interpretation 35
4.3 Intuition 36
Chapter IV Evaluation 37
CHAPTER V Approaches in Discourse I: Pragmatics
5.1 Pragmatics 47
5.2 Areas of Study 47
5.3 Speech Act 48
CHAPTER VI Approaches in Discourse II: Interactional Sociolinguistics
6.1 Interactional Linguistics 51
CHAPTER VII Approaches in Discourse III: Ethnography of Communication
7.1 Ethnography of Communication 55
7.2 Ethnography of Communication Origin 55
7.3 Usage 57
7.4 The SPEAKING Model 58
CHAPTER VIII Approaches in Discourse IV: Conversation Analysis
8.1 Conversation Analysis 61
8.2 Basic Structure 62
8.3 Action Formation 67
8.4 Major Dimensions 67
CHAPTER IX Approaches in Discourse I: Systemic Functional Grammar
9.1 Systemic Functional Grammar 69
9.2 Language Metafunctions 69
9.3 Children Grammar 72
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN ELT 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY 145
CHAPTER I

WHAT IS DISCOURSE ANALYSIS?

1.1 What do Speakers Do in Conversation?

Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'.

This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly

concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as

sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics),

and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of

language as they flow together (Tannen, Linguistic Society of America, 2019).

Some discourse analysts consider the larger discourse context in order to

understand how it affects the meaning of the sentence. For example, Charles Fillmore

points out that two sentences taken together as a single discourse can have meanings

different from each one taken separately. To illustrate, he asks you to imagine two

independent signs at a swimming pool: "Please use the toilet, not the pool," says one. The

other announces, "Pool for members only." If you regard each sign independently, they

seem quite reasonable. But taking them together as a single discourse makes you go back

and revise your interpretation of the first sentence after you've read the second.

1.2 Discourse and Frames

'Reframing' is a way to talk about going back and re-interpreting the meaning of the first

sentence. Frame analysis is a type of discourse analysis that asks, what activity are

speakers engaged in when they say this? What do they think they are doing by talking in

this way at this time? Consider how hard it is to make sense of what you are hearing or

1|Page
reading if you don't know who's talking or what the general topic is. When you read a

newspaper, you need to know whether you are reading a news story, an editorial, or an

advertisement in order to properly interpret the text you are reading. Years ago, when

Orson Welles' radio play "The War of the Worlds" was broadcast, some listeners who

tuned in late panicked, thinking they were hearing the actual end of the world. They

mistook the frame for news instead of drama.

1.3 Turn-taking

Conversation is an enterprise in which one person speaks, and another listens. Discourse

analysts who study conversation note that speakers have systems for determining when

one person's turn is over and the next person's turn begins. This exchange of turns or

'floors' is signaled by such linguistic means as intonation, pausing, and phrasing. Some

people await a clear pause before beginning to speak, but others assume that 'winding

down' is an invitation to someone else to take the floor. When speakers have different

assumptions about how turn exchanges are signaled, they may inadvertently interrupt or

feel interrupted. On the other hand, speakers also frequently take the floor even though

they know the other speaker has not invited them to do so.

Listenership too may be signaled in different ways. Some people expect frequent

nodding as well as listener feedback such as 'mhm', 'uhuh', and 'yeah'. Less of this than

you expect can create the impression that someone is not listening; more than you expect

can give the impression that you are being rushed along. For some, eye contact is expected

nearly continually; for others, it should only be intermittent. The type of listener response

you get can change how you speak: If someone seems uninterested or uncomprehending

(whether or not they truly are), you may slow down, repeat, or overexplain, giving the

impression you are 'talking down.' Frederick Erickson has shown that this can occur in
2|Page
conversations between black and white speakers, because of different habits with regard

to showing listenership.

1.4 Discourse Markers

'Discourse markers' is the term linguists give to the little words like 'well', 'oh', 'but', and

'and' that break our speech up into parts and show the relation between parts. 'Oh'

prepares the hearer for a surprising or just-remembered item, and 'but' indicates that

sentence to follow is in opposition to the one before. However, these markers don't

necessarily mean what the dictionary says they mean. Some people use 'and' just to start

a new thought, and some people put 'but' at the end of their sentences, as a way of trailing

off gently. Realizing that these words can function as discourse markers is important to

prevent the frustration that can be experienced if you expect every word to have its

dictionary meaning every time it's used.

1.5 Speech Acts

Speech act analysis asks not what form the utterance takes but what it does. Saying "I now

pronounce you man and wife" enacts a marriage. Studying speech acts such as

complimenting allows discourse analysts to ask what counts as a compliment, who gives

compliments to whom, and what other function they can serve. For example, linguists

have observed that women are more likely both to give compliments and to get them.

There are also cultural differences; in India, politeness requires that if someone

compliments one of your possessions, you should offer to give the item as a gift, so

complimenting can be a way of asking for things. An Indian woman who had just met her

son's American wife was shocked to hear her new daughter-in-law praise her beautiful

saris. She commented, "What kind of girl did he marry? She wants everything!" By

3|Page
comparing how people in different cultures use language, discourse analysts hope to

make a contribution to improving cross-cultural understanding.

4|Page
EVALUATION

Answer the following questions and discuss with your friends.

1. What is discourse analysis?

2. Why do we have to analyze a discourse?

3. Do you think analyzing discourse can help you learn English better? Why or why

not?

4. What do you think of discourse analysis and the real-life situation? Do they have

connection? Elaborate your answer!

5. What do you think is the best reason to learn discourse analysis?

5|Page
6|Page
CHAPTER II

UTTERANCE, TEXT, AND DISCOURSE

2.1 What is an Utterance?

An utterance is considered the smallest unit of speech. It can be defined as “a natural unit

of speech bounded by breaths or pauses.” Thus, it necessarily doesn’t covey a complete

meaning. An utterance can, therefore, be a clause, a single word, pause, and even a

meaningful statement.

However, unlike a sentence that can exist in both oral and written form, utterance

exists only in the oral form. However, they can be represented and delineated in the

written form using many ways.

An utterance, since it happens primarily in the oral speech, has several related

features such as facial expressions, gestures, and posture. These include stress,

intonation, and tone of voice, as well as ellipsis, which are words that the listener inserts

in spoken language to fill gaps. In addition to these, an utterance may also include

voiced/un-voiced pauses like “umm”, tag questions, false starts, fillers like “and stuff”,

deictic expressions such as “over there” with other simple conjunctions like “and,” “but,”

etc.

Moreover, ”We use the term ‘utterance‘ to refer to complete communicative units,

which may consist of single words, phrases, clauses and clause combinations spoken in

context, in contrast to the term ‘sentence’ which we reserve for units consisting of at least

one main clause and any accompanying subordinate clauses, and marked by punctuation

(capital letters and full stops) in writing.” (Carter & McCarthy, 2008)

7|Page
Hence some examples for utterances can be:

“Umm, what I …. No, don’t mind.”

“Well.. you know…. Errr”

2.2 What is a Text?

A text includes some information, specifically in the written form or printed form. Thus,

it is noteworthy that the agent of a text is not crucial: there may or may not be an agent.

And the agent has no direct impact of the content to the reader. For example, consider the

text in a subject textbook, an essay, or a press release where the information is merely

reported with or without an agent or the speaker. The information present in a text is

usually non-interactive, or it does not contain an indication of conversational speech.

Thus, the reader only reads and becomes aware of the facts presents. As defined by the

Linguistic glossary terms, text is “a sequence of paragraphs that represents an extended

unit of speech.” Therefore, the grammatical cohesion is a fundamental factor in a text.

In order to analyze the content of a text, one should be aware of the linguistic and

grammatical categories of the language, and the information provided according to the

meaning, grammatical devices used, structure, meaning, etc. Therefore, by analyzing the

overall structure of the text, one is able to grasp the meaning of the text. Thus, textual

analysis, in brief, is the analysis of these grammatically cohesive sentences, imparting

some information.

2.3 What is Discourse?

A discourse is necessarily interactive, which means there is always an agent to the

information in discourse. In simple terms, discourse is often conversational

communications between people. Therefore, under linguistics and literary theory,

8|Page
discourse is defined as “a social event of multi-layered communication in a variety of

media: verbal, textual, visual and audial, that has an interactive social purpose.”

Thus, interactive quality is a primary requirement in discourse. In other words, the

existence of an agent to the information defines what discourse means. Therefore, unlike

a text, a discourse can have cohesive sentences as well as utterances of the communicating

agents. In other words, discourse depicts the usage of language in for social purposes. This

is the basic difference between text and discourse.

Therefore, to analyze a discourse, one should study the persons or the agents

involved in the communication (who to whom), the purpose of them (the social purpose),

and medium used (verbal, written, audio or visual). Thus, to grasp the meaning of

discourse, one should analyze all these three basic elements in the discourse.

2.4 Difference between Text and Discourse

The difference between text and discourse (Hardison, 2011) can be summarized as

follows:

Definition

Text is usually a written form of communication information, which is a non-interactive

nature. In contrast, discourse can be from spoken, written, visual and audial form,

communicating information that is interactive in nature.

Agent

The agent is not crucial for the text. However, the agent is crucial, and it is that what makes

up a discourse. This is the main difference between text and discourse.

Nature

9|Page
Also, the text is non-interactive in nature; on the contrary, discourse is interactive in

nature.

Analysis Parts

In a text, the grammatical cohesion and the structure of sentences are analyzed whereas,

in discourse, the agents involved in the communication, the social purpose and the

medium utilized are analyzed to comprehend the meaning of it. This is an important

difference between text and discourse.

Medium or Form

Furthermore, the text is usually in written form whereas discourse can be either in

written, verbal, visual or audio form.

Examples:

Examples of texts include press reports, street signs, documents, etc. whereas discourse

can be dialogues, conversations, interactions in audio-visual programmes, etc, anything

that depicts the social usage of the language.

10 | P a g e
EVALUATION

Answer the following questions and discuss with your friends.

1. What is utterance?

2. What is text?

3. What are the differences between utterance and text?

4. What are the differences between text and discourse?

5. What is the relationship between utterance, text and discourse?

11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
CHAPTER III

CLASSIFICATION OF DISCOURSE

3.1 Discourse and It’s Classification

Discourse is any written or spoken communication. Discourse can also be described as

the expression of thought through language. While discourse can refer to the smallest act

of communication, the analysis can be quite complex. Several scholars in many different

disciplines have theorized about the different types and functions of discourse. The word

discourse comes from the Latin word discursus, which means “running to and fro.” The

definition of discourse thus comes from this physical act of transferring information “to

and fro,” the way a runner might.

While every act of communication can count as an example of discourse, some scholars

have broken discourse down into four primary types: argument, narration, description,

and exposition. Many acts of communicate include more than one of these types in quick

succession.

a) Argument: A form of communication meant to convince an audience that the

writer or speaker is correct, using evidence and reason.

b) Narration: This form of communication tells a story, often with emotion and

empathy involved.

c) Description: A form of communication that relies on the five senses to help the

audience visualize something.

d) Exposition: Exposition is used to inform the audience of something with relatively

neutral language, i.e., it’s not meant to persuade or evoke emotion.

13 | P a g e
Other literary scholars have divided types of discourse into three categories: expressive,

poetic, and transactional.

a) Expressive: Expressive discourse comprises those acts of literary writing that is

creative, yet non-fiction. This could include memoirs, letters, or online blogs.

b) Poetic: Poetic discourse comprises creative, fictional writing. Poetic discourse

includes novels, poems, and drama. These types of work often prioritize emotion,

imagery, theme, and character development, as well as the use of literary devices

like metaphor and symbolism.

c) Transactional: Transactional discourse is used to propel something into action,

such as advertising motivating a customer to buy, or showing a customer how to

use a product via a manual. This type of discourse generally does not rely so much

on literary devices.

3.2 Common Examples of Discourse

Let us look at some examples of the different types of discourse from everyday life:

When you buy a box of Ritz crackers, on the back of the box, they have all these suggestions

as to what to put on top of the Ritz. “Try it with turkey and cheese. Try it with peanut butter.”

But I like crackers man, that’s why I bought it, ’cause I like crackers! I don’t see a suggestion

to put a Ritz on top of a Ritz. I didn’t buy them because they’re little edible plates! You’ve got

no faith in the product itself.

—Mitch Hedberg

Jokes are examples of discourse like all other communication; here, Mitch Hedberg is

mainly using narration to tell a funny idea.

14 | P a g e
In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our

republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of

Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be

guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is

obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of

color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro

people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

—“I Have a Dream” speech, Martin Luther King, Jr.

In this speech, Martin Luther King, Jr. blended different types of discourse, such as

narration and argument.

3.3 Significance of Discourse in Literature

Discourse of any type is one of the most important elements of human behavior and

formation. Countless studies have been done on the way the brain shapes thoughts into

words and, indeed, the way that communication shapes the brain. Many studies have

specifically targeted the way that speakers of different languages understand concepts

differently. Thus, the creation and dispersion of discourse is of the utmost importance to

the perpetuation of the human race. Literature is one of the primary ways of maintaining

a record of discourse and creating new ways of understanding the world. By reading texts

from other cultures and other time periods, we are better able to understand the way in

which the authors of those texts thought. Indeed, reading literature from our own

ostensible cultures can better highlight the ways in which we think and interact. Since

15 | P a g e
each piece of literature ever created is an example of discourse, our understanding of

discourse is vital to our understanding of literature.

Examples of Discourse in Literature

Example #1

MACBETH: She should have died hereafter;

There would have been a time for such a word.

— To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury

Signifying nothing.

(Macbeth by William Shakespeare)

In this beautiful and haunting soliloquy from William Shakespeare’s tragedy

Macbeth, the character of Macbeth is lamenting the death of his wife, Lady Macbeth.

Shakespeare uses many different literary devices in this poetic discourse example, such

16 | P a g e
as repetition in “To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,” as well as imagery and

metaphor. The function of this passage is primarily to make the audience feel strong

emotion, even catharsis, as Macbeth thinks about what could have been.

Example #2

The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ‘Tis not the affair of a City, a County, a

Province, or a Kingdom; but of a Continent — of at least one-eighth part of the habitable

Globe. ‘Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the

contest, and will be more or less affected even to the end of time, by the proceedings now.

Now is the seed-time of Continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be

like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound

would enlarge with the tree, and posterity read in it full grown characters.

(“Common Sense” by Thomas Paine)

Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” is an excellent example of transactional

discourse. In his essay, Paine lays out the reasons that the American colonies should rebel

against Great Britain. Paine relies mostly on the discourse of argument, but also calls on

the emotions of his readers in this passage by asking them to think of how much territory

is at stake. Paine uses literary devices such as imagery and simile as well in invoking the

image of the colonies as a young oak,

Example #3

In the meantime, things are getting more and more wonderful here. I think, Kitty, that true

love may be developing in the Annex. All those jokes about marrying Peter if we stayed here

long enough weren’t so silly after all. Not that I’m thinking of marrying him, mind you. I don’t

17 | P a g e
even know what he’ll be like when he grows up. Or if we’ll even love each other enough to get

married.

(The Diary of Anne Frank by Anne Frank)

Anne Frank’s diary is one of the most famous examples of expressive discourse.

Anne Frank was in hiding during World War II for many years in an Annex in Amsterdam,

and spent her time recording her emotions and thoughts in her diary, which she named

Kitty. We can see that the entries are non-fiction—that is, she truly lived them—but they

are creative and expressive all the same.

18 | P a g e
EVALUATION

Decide what discourse is suitable for the following pictures and discuss with your friends!

CONTEXT, INTERPRETATION AND INTUITION

4.1 Context

In comprehension, information from the immediate setting surrounding an item in a text

and which provides information that can be used to understand the meaning of an item.

Such clues may be lexical or grammatical. In speech context clues include the verbal,

paralinguistic and non-verbal signs that help speakers understand the full meaning of a

speaker’s utterances in context.

Communication occurring in a context that offers help to comprehension through

such things as the situation and setting, visual clues, gestures and actions. In such a

situation the learner can make more use of top-down processing to infer meanings. At the

same time the speaker may communicate less explicitly since much of the meaning is

known from the context.

The meaning a linguistic item has in context, for example the meaning a word has

within a particular sentence, or a sentence has in a particular paragraph. The question Do

you know the meaning of war? For example, may have two different contextual meanings:

a. it may mean Do you know the meaning of the word war? when said by a language

teacher to a class of students.

b. it may mean War produces death, injury, and suffering, when said by an injured soldier

to a politician who favors war.

4.2 Interpretation

Interpretation is the act or result of explaining or interpreting something: the way

something is explained or understood. Interpretation concerns the act of finding meaning

35 | P a g e
which involves three stages: finding literal meaning based on the semantic information,

finding explicature or a basic interpretation of an utterance using contextual information

and world knowledge, and finding an implicature or what is hinted at by an utterance in

its particular context.

4.3 Intuition

Intuition is a process that gives us the ability to know something directly without analytic

reasoning, bridging the gap between the conscious and nonconscious parts of our mind,

and also between instinct and reason. Our discomfort with the idea of relying on our

instincts is based on millennia of cultural prejudice.

Our intuition comes from our spiritual core and can be felt first up in the solar

plexus area. The waves of the intuition travel to the back brain, where they are encoded

into images and then forwarded to the frontal brain, where speech, action, and thought

arises. The solar plexus — also called the celiac plexus — is a complex system of radiating

nerves and ganglia. It's found in the pit of the stomach in front of the aorta. It's part of the

sympathetic nervous system.

Simply, we can say that intuition is the ability to know something without any

proof. It is sometimes known as a “gut feeling,” “instinct,” or “sixth sense.” ... Like our

ability to reason, sometimes our intuition is accurate and sometimes it's not.

36 | P a g e
EVALUATION

How do you understand the following text? Interpretation or Intuition? Discuss with your

friends.

APPROACHES IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS I

PRAGMATICS

5.1 Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context

contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational

implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy,

sociology, linguistics and anthropology (Mey, 2001). Unlike semantics, which examines

meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the

transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge

(grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener but also on the context of the

utterance, (Linguistic Society, 2017) any pre-existing knowledge about those involved,

the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors . In that respect, pragmatics explains

how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity since meaning relies on the

manner, place, time, etc. of an utterance (Mey, 2001).The ability to understand another

speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence (Kim & et.al, 2002).

5.2 Areas of Study

There are some areas that become the concern of pragmaticians, such as:

1. The study of the speaker's meaning focusing not on the phonetic or grammatical

form of an utterance but on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are.

47 | P a g e
2. The study of the meaning in context and the influence that a given context can have

on the message. It requires knowledge of the speaker's identities, and the place

and time of the utterance.

3. The study of implicatures: the things that are communicated even though they are

not explicitly expressed.

4. The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order

to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said.

5. The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning: what is

unsaid and unintended, or unintentional.

6. Information structure, the study of how utterances are marked in order to

efficiently manage the common ground of referred entities between speaker and

hearer

7. Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use for which

context of use is an important factor by using the methods and goals of formal

semantics.

5.3 Speech Act

Jakobson's six functions of language

Roman Jakobson, expanding on the work of Karl Bühler, described six "constitutive

factors" of a speech event, each of which represents the privileging of a corresponding

function, and only one of which is the referential (which corresponds to the context of

the speech event). The six constitutive factors and their corresponding functions are

diagrammed below.

The six constitutive factors of a speech event

48 | P a g e
Context

Message

Addresser---------------------Addressee

Contact

Code

Jakobson stated that there are six function of a language. The description can be seen as

follows:

Referential

Poetic

Emotive-----------------------Conative

Phatic

Metalingual

The elaboration of each function is as follows:

1. The Referential Function corresponds to the factor of Context and describes a

situation, object or mental state. The descriptive statements of the referential

function can consist of both definite descriptions and deictic words, e.g. "The

autumn leaves have all fallen now."

2. The Expressive (alternatively called "emotive" or "affective") Function relates to

the Addresser and is best exemplified by interjections and other sound changes

that do not alter the denotative meaning of an utterance but do add information

about the Addresser's (speaker's) internal state, e.g. "Wow, what a view!"

49 | P a g e
3. The Conative Function engages the Addressee directly and is best illustrated by

vocatives and imperatives, e.g. "Tom! Come inside and eat!"

4. The Poetic Function focuses on "the message for its own sake" and is the operative

function in poetry as well as slogans.

5. The Phatic Function is language for the sake of interaction and is therefore

associated with the Contact factor. The Phatic Function can be observed in

greetings and casual discussions of the weather, particularly with strangers.

6. The Metalingual (alternatively called "metalinguistic" or "reflexive") Function is

the use of language (what Jakobson calls "Code") to discuss or describe itself.

50 | P a g e
CHAPTER VI

APPROACHES IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS II

INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS

6.1 Interactional Sociolinguistics

Interactional sociolinguistics is a subdiscipline of linguistics that uses discourse analysis

to study how language users create meaning via social interaction (Tannen, An

Introduction to Language and Lingusitics, 2006). It is one of the ways in which linguists

look at the intersections of human language and human society; other subfields that take

this perspective are language planning, minority language studies, quantitative

sociolinguistics, and sociohistorical linguistics, among others (Tannen, Sociolinguistics,

1992). Interactional sociolinguistics is a theoretical and methodological framework

within the discipline of linguistic anthropology, which combines the methodology of

linguistics with the cultural consideration of anthropology in order to understand how

the use of language informs social and cultural interaction. Interactional sociolinguistics

was founded by linguistic anthropologist John J. Gumperz (Tannen, An Introduction to

Language and Lingusitics, 2006) (Gumperz, 1982). Topics that might benefit from an

Interactional sociolinguistic analysis include: cross-cultural miscommunication,

politeness, and framing.

In terms of research methods, interactional sociolinguists analyze audio or video

recordings of conversations or other interactions. Concerning the methodology of

discourse analysis, by which instances of interactional sociolinguistics can be isolated,

there are many ways in which language can be analyzed. Though Gumperz pioneered his

51 | P a g e
framework several decades ago it is still being used by anthropologists today in their

research.

Oftentimes researchers will focus on specific linguistic components. Some focus on

specific word use including connotation and indexicality. An example of an anthropologist

who employed this type of methodology in her work is Deborah Schiffrin who isolated 12

words to analyze in her study of Jewish communities and their use of speech in

Philadelphia (Schiffrin, 1987). Linguistic analysis, methods such as examining linguistic

structures and the roles they play within conversational discourse, play a large role in

using discourse analysis to establish relational frameworks (Schiffrin, 1987). Analysis

focuses not only on linguistic forms such as words, sentences, grammar, phonology, etc.

but also on subtle cues such as prosody and register that signal contextual presupposition.

Linguistic based analysis is not the only component that is useful for establishing

instances of Interactional sociolinguistics. Culture also plays a large role in understanding

this phenomenon. Many linguistic anthropologists have come to understand that

language and culture are not separate entities, but are in fact processes that work hand in

hand (Ahearn, 2012). These contextualization cues are culturally specific and usually

unconscious. Linguistic anthropology helps make explicit the implicit features of culture

that can often be unknown to the speaker. When participants in a conversation come from

different cultural backgrounds, they may not recognize these subtle cues in one another's

speech, leading to misunderstanding (Gumperz, 1982). This very idea of

misunderstanding, contextualization, and culture, has been widely explored using

Gumperz's framework of Interactional sociolinguistics. One of the main ways that

Gumperz's framework is often utilized is in the context of jokes and how, when and why

they are used by a specific culture in conversation. One anthropologist who has conducted

52 | P a g e
research using the methodology of interactional sociolinguistics is Catherine Evans

Davies. She uses it her ethnographic research to understand how beginning language

learners start to make sense of social interaction in that language by using jokes in

conversation with native speakers (Davies, 2003). In her work she discusses the

usefulness of Gumperz's theory in her methodology as it stresses conversational analysis

for the purpose of interpreting different linguistic practices, in this case humor and joking.

Jokes, and humor are not the only area in which interactional sociolinguistic discourse

analysis is useful. It is a valid and effective research framework for anyone interested in

how language interacts with culture and meaning. Karen Grainger utilized it in her work

involving relationships between care givers the elderly. In her article Reality Orientation

in Institutions for the Elderly: The Perspective from Interactional Sociolinguistics, Karen

Grainger uses Interactional sociolinguistics to push back against a process of elder

therapy called "Reality Orientation." (Grainger, 1998) In this piece Grainger uses

discourse analysis to examine some of the scripts and modes of speech that the therapists

abide by. Utilizing Gumperz's framework this way that showed that this type of therapy

is perhaps creating a bigger divide between patients and staff. Here Grainger uses

Interactional sociolinguistics to understand how power structures are established and

maintained, whether deliberately or unwittingly. The theories behind Interactional

sociolinguistics have no limit to the fields and areas of study to which they can be applied,

for they provide answers to the ever-present question of the relationship between culture

and language.

53 | P a g e
54 | P a g e
CHAPTER VII

APPROACHES IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS III

ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION

7.1 Ethnography of Communication

The ethnography of communication (EOC), originally called the ethnography of speaking,

is the analysis of communication within the wider context of the social and cultural

practices and beliefs of the members of a particular culture or speech community (Hymes,

Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication, 1964). It is a method of

discourse analysis in linguistics that draws on the anthropological field of ethnography.

Unlike ethnography proper, though, EOC takes into account both the communicative form,

which may include but is not limited to spoken language, and its function within the given

culture (Cameron, 2001).

General aims of this qualitative research method include being able to discern

which communication acts and/or codes are important to different groups, what types of

meanings groups apply to different communication events, and how group members

learn these codes, in order to provide insight into particular communities. This additional

insight may be used to enhance communication with group members, make sense of

group members’ decisions, and distinguish groups from one another, among other things.

7.2 Ethnography of Communication Origin

Dell Hymes proposed the ethnography of communication as an approach towards

analyzing patterns of language use within speech communities, in order to provide

support for his idea of communicative competence, which itself was a reaction to Noam

55 | P a g e
Chomsky's distinction between linguistic competence and linguistic performance

(Hymes, Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach 8th. Ed, 1976).

Originally coined "ethnography of speaking" in Dell Hymes' eponymous 1962

paper, it was redefined in his 1964 paper, Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of

Communication to accommodate for the non-vocal and non-verbal characteristics of

communication (Hymes, Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication, 1964),

although most EOC researchers still tend to focus upon speaking as it is generally

considered "to be a prominent - even primordial - means of communication." (Lindlof &

Taylor, 2002)

The term "ethnography of communication" is meant to be descriptive of the

characteristics that an approach towards language from an anthropological standpoint

must take. Namely, according to Dell Hymes, it must 1) "investigate directly the use of

language in contexts of situations so as to discern patterns proper to speech activity" and

2) "take as context a community, investigating its communicative habits as a whole."

(Hymes, Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication, 1964) In other words,

rather than divorcing linguistic form from its function, the analysis of a culture's or

community's communication, linguistic and otherwise, must occur with respect to the

sociocultural context of its use and the functions of the meanings conveyed. As Deborah

Cameron puts it, "If you are mainly concerned with the way a certain speech event fits into

a whole network of cultural beliefs and practices, you will spend more time describing

things that are external to the talk itself: who the speakers are, where they are, what

beliefs and customs are important in their lives." (Cameron, 2001)

56 | P a g e
7.3 Usage

In their book Qualitative Communication Research Methods, communications scholars

Thomas R. Lindlof and Bryan C. Taylor explain, "Ethnography of communication

conceptualizes communication as a continuous flow of information, rather than as a

segmented exchange of messages." (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) According to Deborah

Cameron, EOC can be thought of as the application of ethnographic methods to the

communication patterns of a group (Cameron, 2001). Littlejohn and Foss recall that Dell

Hymes suggests that "cultures communicate in different ways, but all forms of

communication require a shared code, communicators who know and use the code, a

channel, a setting, a message form, a topic, and an event created by transmission of the

message." (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011) "EOC studies," according to Lindlof and Taylor,

"produce highly detailed analysis of communication codes and their moment-to-moment

functions in various contexts. In these analyses, speech communities are constituted in

local and continuous performances of cultural and moral matters." (Lindlof & Taylor,

2002)

EOC can be used as a means by which to study the interactions among members of

a specific culture or "speech community," which is any group of people that creates and

establishes its own speaking codes and norms. Gerry Philipsen explained, "Each

community has its own cultural values about speaking and these are linked to judgments

of situational appropriateness." (Philipsen, 1975)

The meaning and the understanding of the presence or absence of speech within

different communities will vary. Local cultural patterns and norms must be understood

to analyze and interpret the appropriateness of speech act within specific communities.

Thus, "the statement that talk is not anywhere valued equally in all social contexts
57 | P a g e
suggests a research strategy for discovering and describing cultural or subcultural

differences in the value of speaking. Speaking is one among other symbolic resources

which are allocated and distributed in social situations according to distinctive culture

patterns." (Philipsen, 1975)

Hymes also used EOC to argue against the strong view of the Sapir-Whorf

hypothesis, the idea that one's language determines one's cognitive ability. While Hymes

believed that one's language affected one's world view, he argued that the extent of that

effect depended "on the circumstances of its acquisition, and its place in the linguistic

repertoire of a person and a community." (Hymes, Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An

Ethnographic Approach 8th. Ed, 1976)

7.4 The SPEAKING Model

A model that Hymes developed as a framework for the analysis of a speech event within

its cultural context is the mnemonic SPEAKING model. The model consists of sixteen

components, which Hymes believed were necessary to consider in order to accurately and

satisfactorily describe any particular speech event: message form, message content,

setting, scene, speaker/sender, addressor, hearer/receiver/audience, addressee,

purposes (outcomes), purposes (goals), key, channels, forms of speech, norms of

interaction, norms of interpretation, and genres. These sixteen components are organized

into eight divisions to form the acronym SPEAKING (Hymes, Foundations in

Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach 8th. Ed, 1976).

S - setting and scene: where the speech event is located in time and space

P - participants: who takes part in the speech event, and in what role (e.g. speaker,

addressee, audience, eavesdropper)

58 | P a g e
E - ends: what the purpose of the speech event is, and what its outcome is meant to be

A - act sequence: what speech acts make up the speech event, and what order they are

performed in

K - key: the tone or manner of performance (serious or joking, sincere or ironic, etc.)

I - instrumentalities: what channel or medium of communication is used (e.g. speaking,

signing, writing, drumming, whistling), and what language/variety is selected from the

participants' repertoire

N - norms of interaction: what the rules are for producing and interpreting speech acts

G - genres: what 'type' does a speech event belong to (e.g. interview, gossip), and what

other pre-existing conventional forms of speech are drawn on or 'cited' in producing

appropriate contributions to talk (e.g. do people quote from mythology or poetry or

scripture?) (Cameron, 2001)

While the SPEAKING model is a valuable model to EOC, as well as the descriptive

framework most commonly used in ethnography of communication, Cameron cautions

that Hymes' model should be used more as a guide than a template, because adhering to

it too narrowly may create a limiting view of the subject of its study. Ethnography of

communication, according to Cameron, should strive not only to "address such

'descriptive' questions as 'what speech events occur in such-and-such a community?' and

'what are the components of speech events X, Y, and Z?'", but also to explain "why

particular events occur and why they have particular characteristics." (Cameron, 2001)

59 | P a g e
60 | P a g e
CHAPTER VIII

APPROACHES IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IV

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

8.1 Conversation Analysis

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction, embracing

both verbal and non-verbal conduct, in situations of everyday life. 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 (Garfinkel,

1967). 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 sociolinguistic interactions.

Conversation analysis begins by setting up a problem connected with a

preliminary hypothesis. The data used in CA is in the form of video- or audio-recorded

conversations, collected with or without researchers' involvement, typically from a video

camera or other recording device in the space where the conversation takes place (e.g. a

living room, picnic, or doctor's office). The researchers construct detailed transcriptions

from the recordings, containing as much detail as is possible. After transcription, the

researchers perform inductive data-driven analysis aiming to find recurring patterns of

interaction. Based on the analysis, the researchers identify regularities, rules or models

to describe these patterns, enhancing, modifying or replacing initial hypotheses. While

this kind of inductive analysis based on collections of data exhibits is basic to fundamental

61 | P a g e
work in CA, this method is often supported by statistical analysis in applications of CA to

solve problems in medicine and elsewhere.

8.2 Basic Structures

8.2.1 Turn Taking Organization

The actions that make up conversations are implemented through turns at talk, and turn-

taking is therefore a fundamental feature of conversational organization. The analysis of

how turn-taking works focuses on two major issues: i) what are the primary units of

turns; and ii) how are these units allocated between speakers. The fundamental analysis

of turn-taking was described in a paper widely known as the "Simplest Systematics"

(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974)

1) Sacks et al. identify turn constructional units (TCUs) as the fundamental building

blocks of turns. TCUs can be sentences, clauses, phrases or single words that can

be recognized as units in their own right depending on context. A crucial feature of

TCUs is that they are projectable: that is, a hearer can recognize what it will take

for a unit to be complete. It is this projectability that enables the split-second

timing that is characteristic of ordinary human turn-taking. The completion point

of a current TCU is a turn-transition place (or TRP).

2) In the Sacks et al model, the allocation of units between speakers is implemented

through a hierarchically organized set of rules. At any given TRP: i) If the current

speaker selects a next one to speak at the end of current TCU (by name, gaze or

contextual aspects of what is said), the selected speaker has the right and

obligation to speak next. ii) If the current speaker does not select a next speaker,

other potential speakers have the right to self-select (the first starter gets the turn),

62 | P a g e
and iii) if options i and ii have not been implemented, current speaker may

continue with another TCU. At the end of that TCU, the option system applies again.

The turn-taking model sketched here is designed to accommodate a wide range of

turn-taking possibilities, varying numbers of conversational participants, and

circumstances in which the length of turns, and of conversations, and of their topics is not

in any way pre-specified in advance. The system is implemented by the parties to the

conversation without external regulation (party administered), and on a local unit-by-

unit basis. Designed to account for the fact that much conversation takes place without

much silence or 'dead time' but also without significant amounts of overlapping talk, the

described system has multiple consequences.

1) It defines silences:

Pause: A period of silence within a speaker's TCU.

Gap: A period of silence between turns.

Lapse: A period of silence when no sequence is in progress: the current speaker

stops talking, does not select a next speaker, and no one self-selects. Lapses are

commonly associated with visual or other forms of disengagement between

speakers, even if these periods are brief.

2) It provides that speakers wanting a long turn, for example to tell a story or describe

important news, must use some form of preface to get a go-ahead that provides

that others will refrain from intervening during the course of the telling (the

preface and its associated go-ahead comprise a "pre-sequence".

3) It provides that conversations cannot be appropriately terminated by 'just

stopping', but require a special closing sequence.

63 | P a g e
4) It provides that certain types of gaps (following the 'current selects next' option)

are accountable.

5) It provides that special resources be deployed in the case of overlapping talk.

The model also leaves puzzles to be solved, for example concerning how TCU

boundaries are identified and projected, and the role played by gaze and body orientation

in the management of turn-taking. It also establishes the relevance of problems for other

disciplines: for example, the split second timing of turn-transition sets up a cognitive

'bottle neck' problem in which potential speakers must attend to incoming speech while

also preparing their own contribution - something which imposes a heavy load of human

processing capacity, and which may impact the structure of languages.

The turn-taking model described by Sacks et al was a landmark in the language

sciences, and indeed it is the most cited paper ever published in the journal Language.

However, it is designed to model turn-taking only in ordinary conversation, and not

interaction in more specialized, institutional environments such as meetings, courts, news

interviews, mediation hearings. All the these latter, and many more, have distinctive turn-

taking organizations that depart in various ways from the Sacks et al model. Nonetheless

it is fundamental that we cannot perform social actions of any kind without getting a turn

at talk, and hence that turn-taking provides an omnipresent background that shapes the

performance of action regardless of the particular turn-taking system in play.

Adjacency Pairs

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

64 | P a g e
parts' to form a 'pair type'. There are lots of examples of adjacency pairs including

Questions-Answers, Offer-Acceptance/Refusal and Compliment-Response.

Sequence Expansion

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: an adjacency pair that may be understood as preliminary to the

main course of action. A generic pre-expansion is a summon-answer adjacency

pair, as in "Mary?"/ "Yes?" It is generic in the sense that it does not contribute to

any particular types of base adjacency pair, such as request or suggestion. There

are other types of pre-sequence that work to prepare the interlocutors for the

subsequent speech action. For example, "Guess what!"/"What?" as preliminary to

an announcement of some sort, or "What are you doing?"/"Nothing" as

preliminary to an invitation or a request.

2. 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 (Jefferson, 1972). 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:

65 | P a g e
Customer : I would like a turkey sandwich, please. (FPP base)

Server : White or wholegrain? (Insert FPP)

Customer : Wholegrain. (Insert SPP)

Server : Okay. (SPP base)

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.

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:

a) Pause: A period of silence within a speaker's turn.

b) Gap: A period of silence between turns.

c) Lapse: A period of silence when no sequence is in progress: the current speaker

stops talking, does not select a next speaker, and no one self-selects. Lapses are

commonly associated with visual or other forms of disengagement between

speakers, even if these periods are brief.

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). The former is termed an unmarked turn shape, meaning the

66 | P a g e
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

8.2.2 Repair

Repair organization describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in

speaking, hearing, or understanding. 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

mechanism in social interaction (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) Participants in

conversation seek to correct the trouble source by initiating and preferring self-repair,

the speaker of the trouble source, over other repair . Self-repair initiations can be placed

in three locations in relation to the trouble source, in a first turn, a transition space or in

a third turn.

8.3 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.

8.4 Major Dimensions

The major dimensions of CA include three terms:

67 | P a g e
1) Action: Organization of actions distinct from outside of a conversation. This could

include openings and closings of conversations, assessments, storytelling, and

complaints.

2) 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

3) Intersubjectivity: Concerning the ways in which the participants’ intentions,

knowledge, relations, and stances towards the talked-about objects is created,

maintained, and negotiated.

68 | P a g e
CHAPTER IX

APPROACHES IN DISCOURSE ANALYSIS V

SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR

9.1 Systemic Functional Grammar

Systemic functional grammar (SFG) is a form of grammatical description originated by

Michael Halliday. It is part of a social semiotic approach to language called systemic

functional linguistics. In these two terms, systemic refers to the view of language as "a

network of systems, or interrelated sets of options for making meaning"; functional refers

to Halliday's view that language is as it is because of what it has evolved to do. Thus, what

he refers to as the multidimensional architecture of language "reflects the

multidimensional nature of human experience and interpersonal relations." (Halliday M.

, 1994)

9.2 Language Metafunctions

From early on in his account of language, Halliday has argued that it is inherently

functional. His early papers on the grammar of English make reference to the "functional

components" of language, as "generalized uses of language, which, since they seem to

determine the nature of the language system, require to be incorporated into our account

of that system." (Halliday M. , Functional Diversity in Language as seem from a

Consideration of Modality and Mood in English, 1970) Halliday argues that this functional

organization of language "determines the form taken by grammatical structure".

Halliday refers to his functions of language as metafunctions. He proposes three

general functions: the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual.

69 | P a g e
Ideational Metafunction

The ideational metafunction is the function for construing human experience. It is the

means by which we make sense of "reality" (Halliday M. , The Essential Halliday, 2009).

Halliday divides the ideational into the logical and the experiential metafunctions. The

logical metafunction refers to the grammatical resources for building up grammatical

units into complexes, for instance, for combining two or more clauses into a clause

complex. The experiential function refers to the grammatical resources involved in

construing the flux of experience through the unit of the clause.

The ideational metafunction reflects the contextual value of field, that is, the nature

of the social process in which the language is implicated (Halliday & Hasan, Language,

context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective, 1985). An analysis

of a text from the perspective of the ideational function involves inquiring into the choices

in the grammatical system of "transitivity": that is, process types, participant types,

circumstance types, combined with an analysis of the resources through which clauses

are combined. Halliday's An Introduction to Functional Grammar (in the third edition,

with revisions by Christian Matthiessen) sets out the description of these grammatical

systems (Halliday & Matthiessen, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2004).

Interpersonal Metafunction

The interpersonal metafunction relates to a text's aspects of tenor or interactivity. Like

field, tenor comprises three component areas: the speaker/writer persona, social

distance, and relative social status. Social distance and relative social status are applicable

70 | P a g e
only to spoken texts, although a case has been made that these two factors can also apply

to written text.

The speaker/writer persona concerns the stance, personalization and standing of

the speaker or writer. This involves looking at whether the writer or speaker has a neutral

attitude, which can be seen through the use of positive or negative language. Social

distance means how close the speakers are, e.g. how the use of nicknames shows the

degree to which they are intimate. Relative social status asks whether they are equal in

terms of power and knowledge on a subject, for example, the relationship between a

mother and child would be considered unequal. Focuses here are on speech acts (e.g.

whether one person tends to ask questions and the other speaker tends to answer), who

chooses the topic, turn management, and how capable both speakers are of evaluating the

subject.

Textual Metafunction

The textual metafunction relates to mode; the internal organisation and communicative

nature of a text. This comprises textual interactivity, spontaneity and communicative

distance. Textual interactivity is examined with reference to disfluencies such as

hesitators, pauses and repetitions. Spontaneity is determined through a focus on lexical

density, grammatical complexity, coordination (how clauses are linked together) and the

use of nominal groups. The study of communicative distance involves looking at a text's

cohesion—that is, how it hangs together, as well as any abstract language it uses. Cohesion

is analyzed in the context of both lexical and grammatical as well as intonational aspects

with reference to lexical chains and, in the speech register, tonality, tonicity, and tone. The

lexical aspect focuses on sense relations and lexical repetitions, while the grammatical

aspect looks at repetition of meaning shown through reference, substitution and ellipsis,
71 | P a g e
as well as the role of linking adverbials. Systemic functional grammar deals with all of

these areas of meaning equally within the grammatical system itself.

9.3 Children’s Grammar

Michael Halliday outlined seven functions of language with regard to the grammar used

by children:

a) the instrumental function serves to manipulate the environment, to cause certain

events to happen;

b) the regulatory function of language is the control of events;

c) the representational function is the use of language to make statements, convey

facts and knowledge, explain, or report to represent reality as the speaker/writer

sees it;

d) the interactional function of language serves to ensure social maintenance;

e) the personal function is to express emotions, personality, and “gut-level” reactions;

f) the heuristic function used to acquire knowledge, to learn about the environment;

g) the imaginative function serves to create imaginary systems or ideas.

72 | P a g e
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS APPROACHES IN ELT:

1. PRAGMATICS

2. INTERACTIONAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS

3. ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION

4. CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

5. SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS

73 | P a g e
74 | P a g e
Bibliography

Ahearn, L. (2012). Living language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology. New Jersey: Wiley-
Blackwell.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage Publication.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2008). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Davies, C. E. (2003). How English-learners joke with native speakers: an interactional sociolinguistic
perspective on humor as collaborative discourse across cultures. Journal of Pragmatics,
1361-1385.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Grainger, K. (1998). Reality orientation in institutions for the elderly: The perspective from
interactional sociolinguistics. Journal of Aging Studies, 39-56.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies: Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 1. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. (1970). Functional Diversity in Language as seem from a Consideration of Modality and
Mood in English. International Journal of Language and Philosophy, 166-167.

Halliday, M. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. (2009). The Essential Halliday. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic
perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Philadephia:

Routledge.

Hardison, K. P. (2011, 8 6). enotes. (eNotes) Retrieved 10 1, 2019, from https://www.enotes.com/

Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication. American Anthropologist,

1-34.

Hymes, D. (1976). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach 8th. Ed. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side Sequences. Studies in Social Interaction, 294-338.

Kim, D., & et.al. (2002). The Role of Interactive Book Reading Program in the Development of Second
Language Pragmatic Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 332-348.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publication.

Linguistic Society. (2017, 8 25). Retrieved from Linguistic Society of America:

www.linguisticsociety.org

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication 10th Ed. Long Grove:
Waveland Press.
75 | P a g e
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Philipsen, G. (1975). "Speaking Like a Man" in Teamsterville: Culture Pattern of Role Enactment in an
Urban Neighborhood. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 13-22.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessment: Some Features of

Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-
taking for conversation. Language 50, 696-735.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1992). Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tannen, D. (2006). An Introduction to Language and Lingusitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Tannen, D. (2019, 10 1). Linguistic Society of America. Retrieved from LSA:

https://www.linguisticsociety.org/

76 | P a g e
Bibliography

Ahearn, L. (2012). Living language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology. New Jersey: Wiley-
Blackwell.

Cameron, D. (2001). Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage Publication.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2008). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Grainger, K. (1998). Reality orientation in institutions for the elderly: The perspective from interactional
sociolinguistics. Journal of Aging Studies, 39-56.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies: Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 1. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Halliday, M. (1970). Functional Diversity in Language as seem from a Consideration of Modality and
Mood in English. International Journal of Language and Philosophy, 166-167.

Halliday, M. (1994). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. (2009). The Essential Halliday. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic
perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.

Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Philadephia: Routledge.

Hardison, K. P. (2011, 8 6). enotes. (eNotes) Retrieved 10 1, 2019, from https://www.enotes.com/

Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication. American Anthropologist, 1-

34.

Hymes, D. (1976). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach 8th. Ed. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jefferson, G. (1972). Side Sequences. Studies in Social Interaction, 294-338.

Kim, D., & et.al. (2002). The Role of Interactive Book Reading Program in the Development of Second
Language Pragmatic Competence. The Modern Language Journal, 332-348.

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publication.

Linguistic Society. (2017, 8 25). Retrieved from Linguistic Society of America: www.linguisticsociety.org

145 | P a g e
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication 10th Ed. Long Grove: Waveland
Press.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.