DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Interactional
Socialinguistics
1.
Introduction
The aprroach to discourse that I am “interactional sociolinguistics”
has the most diverse disciplinary origins of those discussed in this book it is
based in anthropology, sociology, and linguistics and shares the concerns of
all three fields with culture, society, and language.
2.
Defining interactional
sociolinguistics
In this section, I decribe the basic ideas of interactional
sociolinguistics. I begain with the work of Gumperz (2.1) and go on to Golfman
(2.2) briefly summarize how the ideas of these two scholars can be combined.
Recall Gumperz’s (1982a:12) observation that “what we perceive and retain in
our mind is a function of our culturally determined predisposition to perceive
and assimilate.”
Let’s us take an example (from Gumperz 1982a:147). The example
illustrates the use of rising intonation as a contextualization cue.
TEACHER : james, what does
this word say ?
JAMES :I don’t know
TEACHER :Well, if you don’t
want to try someone else will.freddy ?
FREDDY :Is that a “p” or a
“b” ?
TEACHER : (encouragingly) it’s
a “p”
FREDDY : Pen.
The teacher’s response (Well, if you don’t want to try someone else
will) indicates her interpretation of freddy’s I don’t know not only in termsof
its literal meaning, but also as an indication that freddy did not wish to try
to answer the question.
3.
Sample analysis “Speaking for
another”
Interactional
sociolinguistics always draw upon naturally occouring interaction for data. I
begain with a segment of that same interchange Zelda’s remark She’s on a diet –
reproduced as line (c) in (1) below :
HENRY : (a) Y’want a piece of candy ?
IRENE : (b) No,z
ZELDA : (c) She’s on a diet z
DEBBY : (d) Who’s not on [a diet.
IRENE : (e) [I’m on-
I’m
on a diet
(f)
and my mother [buys =
ZELDA : (g) [
You’re not !
IRENE : (h) = [ mother buys these mints =
DEBBY : (i) [ Oh yes I amhhhh!
Oh
yeh
We said that She’s on a diet is both an expansion (a sequentially
dependent unit which add information supplementary to a prior unti) and an
accounts are relational acts.
4.
Interactional sociolinguistics as
an approach to discourse Exercises
We have seen in this chapter that interactional sociolinguistics
provides an approach to discourse that focuses upon situated meaning. Scholars
taking this approach combine the ideas of the antropologist john Gumperz and
the sociologist Erving Goffman.
Professor A is in her office preparing for class ( the door is open)
when Professor B walks by.
A : (looking into the hallway ) Hi.
B : (walking by without stopping) Hi.
A few minutes later, B is in his office and A walks by.
A : (walking by without stoping ) see you.
B : Hi.
On your way to calss ?
A : Cool, calm, and collected !
The
Ethnography of communication
1.
Introduction
The ethnography of communication is an approach to discourse that is
based in anthropology and linguistics. As we see in this chapter, this approach
is the most encompassing of all those consaidered.not only does it focus upon a
wider range of communicative behaviours than the other approaches, but built
into its theory and methodology is an intentional openness to discovery of the
varienty of forms and functions available for communication, and to the way
such forms and functions are available for communication, and to the way such
forms and functions are part of defferent ways of life.
2.
Defining the ethmography of
communication
Although the ethnography of communication was developed by Hymes in a
series of papers written in 1960s and 1970s (many of wich are collected in his
1974 Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach), the roots of
this approach reach back to Edward Sapir’s (1933) movement away from the study
as “process” (Hymes 1974a:20,fn.6). Also important was the emphasis of the
Prague School of linguistics (e.g. Mathesius 1924) on the penetration of
language structure by function.
The ethnography of communication builds a single intergrated framework
in which communication has a central role in both anthropological and
linguistic studies. Although I explain this role by discussing each field
separately, we will see that key concepts and methods intentionally bring
together the two separate starting points, building an interdependence between
them. That the ethnography of communication is the most integrative approach of
those considered in this book this reflects the fact that culture it self
encopasses or embraces a totality of knowladge and practices.
3.
Sample analysis; questions as
speech acts in speech events
We have focused here upon three types of questions used during
sociolinguistic interviews: questions primarily from S seek information,
question from both S and R check the information being provided and request
clarification Althouhg the distribution of these modes of questioning generally
suports the norms of the interview structure
HENRY : (a) Y’want a
piece of candy ?
IRENE : (b)
No,z
ZELDA : (c) She’s on a diet z
DEBBY : (d) Who’s not on [a diet.
IRENE : (e) [I’m on-
I’m
on a diet
(f)
and my mother [buys =
ZELDA : (g) [ You’re not !
IRENE : (h) = [ mother buys these mints =
DEBBY : (i) [
Oh yes I amhhhh!
Oh
yeh
We noted earlier that the ethnography of communication is the most
integrative approach of those considered thuse far: it can combine other
approaches within a larger framework of inquiry into cultural knowladge and the
social and linguistic practices for which it provides. Our analysis of the ways
in which a speech act (question) can be used during a speech event (interview)
thus illustrates cultural knowladge of language structure and function, teh
latter broadly anough construed to include how language functions as a resource
through wich to organize social interactions and enact social roles.
4.
An ethmography approach to
discourse Exercises
We have seen in this chapter that an ethnographic approach to discourse
seeks to discover and analyze the structures and fuctions of communicating that
organize the use of language in speech situations, events, and acts. Although
an ethnograpic approach provides an analysis of language, it views language as
but one part of a complex pattern of actions and beliefs that give meaning to
people’s lives. Consistent with this assumption, our sample analysis did not
just focus on questions within different types of interviews, but on the goals,
settings, participants, and another acts.
(a) Yes. Can I help you ?
(b) Is there a way that can
find out where in periodicals this periodical is .....
(c) Archives in [Pathonogy
and Laboratory Medicine.z
(d) [Pathonogy. Yeh.
[6 Seconds]
(e) Okay.
(f) Um, there’s listing
under archives of pathology
(g) It said it was called
the archives of
Pathology z and Laboratory
medicine=
(h) periodical?
(i) from ninteen twenty six to twenty eight?
(j) [But now it’s
(k)[ This is just their march issue- z
(l) Now
it’s just called the archives of
Pathology, accourding to this.
(m) it’s .. i’d – when- that could be wrong or this could be wrong
(n) I don’t know which
(o) Uh it’s at the Georgetown Medical School Labrary and at the George
Washington .... University, medical Library, and at Howard’s Medical Library.
(p) Okay.
(q) I’m going to be going to G.W tomorrow
(r) Would that be – is that the main library, or is it a separate [ li-
(s) [ There’s
A separated library
Pragmatics
1.
Introduction
Pragmatics
is another broad approach to discourse: it deals with three concepts (meaning,
context, communication) taht are themselves extreamly vast and unwieldy. Given
such breadth, it is not surprising that the scope of pragmatics is so wide, or
that pragmatics faces definitional dilemmas similar to those faced by discourse
analysis. Levinson (1983).
2.
Defining pragmatics
Pragmatics was defined by Morris (1938) as branch of semioties. In
addition to defening different aspects of the semiosis process, moris
identified three ways of studying signs syntax is the study of formal relations
of signs to one another, semantics is the study of how signs are related to the
objects to which they are applicable (their designata), pragmatics is the study
of the relation of signs to enterpreters and how to interpreters engage in the
“taking-account-of” designata.
3.
Referring terms pragmatic
processes in discourse
Gricean pragmatics provides a way to analyze the inference of speaker
meaning: how hearers infer the intentions underlying a speaker’s utterance. It
is not intended as an approach to the analysis discourse, i.e to secuences of
utterances. Our sample analysis in section 4 focuses on the organization of
referring terms in a narrative.
SUE : (a) I always wanted to
marry an Italian guy.
IVER : (b) How come?
SUE : (c) I just wanted to.
(d) And I said it.
(e) And I did.
Sue has been talking about a period of time (high school days)
4.
Sample analysis referring
sequences in narrative
The sample analysis in this section is based upon the referring
expressions in one particular discourse-a narrative.
GARY : (nn) And uh, then when-
(oo) y’know, I told the cop what happened.
(pp) He said, “All right, get in your car and
go back onto broad street. I’ll meet you up there.”
(qq) Cause they were trying to pick people up
for identification.
(rr) That’s when it hit me.
(ss) My leg started jumpin’ up and down.
(tt) I just couldn’t control my nerves.
IVER : [jesus.
GARY: (uu) [but then
the whole time I was-
I-I
didn’t even get scared or upset.
(vv) And I-I maybe I thought subconsciously if
would’ve been scared or shown that I’d have been scared, then I probably
would’ve been hurt.
(ww) Maybe they would’ve gotten jumpy.
5.
Gricean pragmatics as an approach
to discourse Exercises
We saw Gricean ideas about information quantity and relevance (cf. Horn
1985b; Levinson 1983, 1987; Sperber and Wilson 1986) can help solve problems of
utterance iterpretation that hinge on assessing the contribution of various kinds
of contexts to such interpretations. What Gricean pragmatics offers to
discourse alaysis is a view of how participant assumptions about what comprises
a cooperative context for communication (a context that includes knowladge,
text, and situation) contributed to meaning, and how those assumptions help to
create sequential patterens in talk.
