Discourse Analysis (from McCarthy, Matthiessen, & Slade, 2002) I. What is Discourse Analysis?

Life is a constant flow of discourse; we engage in communication in the extraordinary range of contexts. Learning how to engage in discourse is one of the most important goals in language learning and teaching. Discourse analysts study texts, whether spoken or written, whether long or short, and are interested in the relationship between texts and the context in which they arise and operate; always look at real texts; study language independently of the notion of the sentence, typically studying longer passages of text. context: text ; sentence: semantics, syntax sentence-level grammar . sentence discourse 2 sentences context . Questions that discourse analysts focus on when analysing texts: Who are the participant in the discourse, that is, the writer and reader(s) , the speaker(s) and listener(s) ? What is their relationship? How do we know what writers and speakers mean? What does this piece of language mean in this context? the writer and reader(s): written discourse participants the speaker(s) and listener(s): spoken/oral discourse participants

II.

Speaking and Writing

pauses, repetitions, false starts, hesitation, silence, etc.: spoken lg. formless spoken lg. grammatical form structure . Past myth of formlessness of spoken language (e.g., pauses, repetitions, false starts, hesitation, silence) Recent research on the analysis of spoken discourse shows that spoken English does have a consistent and describable structure and that in many respects the language patterning is the same as written English. One way of approaching differences between speaking and writing is to plot individual texts along scales/dimensions.

Informal Spoken English English

Formal Written

Casual conversation academic article E-mail to a friend

Letter to an acquaintance

Job interview

Written

Conversation with manager at work

Public speech

Informal written text

Formal spoken/oral text

Written lg. formal, spoken lg. informal dichotomy (mix ). Casual conversation turn-taking, topic shifting, overlapping, interruption , Written academic article . Informal text concrete , formal text abstract . Lexical density in written text vs. spoken text Text 1(written): Cockroaches {Cockroaches are eminently tropical}, but {certain species have become widely disseminated through commerce} and {are now cosmopolitan}. {Cockroaches are nocturnal in habit}, {hiding themselves during the day}; {the domestic species are omnivorous} but {are especially addicted to starchy or sweetened matter of various kinds}, {as a rule they injure and soil far more than consume}, and {most species emit a disagreeable odour}. Lexical density: 29 content words / {9 clauses} = 29/9 3.2 Text 2(spoken): Cockroaches Pat: {I remember} {we were sitting for our analytical chemistry exam} and {it was the final exams} and {they have sort of like bench desks} where {theres three to a bench normally} and {they had the middle seat empty} and {two sat either side} and {I was sitting there} and {I thought} {Geez I can feel something on my foot}. Lexical density: 20 content words / {10 clauses} = 20/10 = 2 Lexical density: Written texts are typically lexically denser than spoken texts. Pauline: uuhh Pat: And I thought No, no dont worry about it, you know what on earth is this chemical equation? and I am trying to think but theres something on my foot! and I looked down and there was this cockroach like this [gesture] and I just screamed and jumped up on the chair and as I did that I knocked the bench and it went up and all Geoffs exam stuff went into the bin next to him, and I was standing on this chair screaming and the exam supervisor came running over, whats going on there? [laughs] And I said theres a cockroach down there [laughs] cause youre not allowed to speak, sneeze, cough, anything in those final exams, and um, theres me screaming on the chair. 1 . 95 Non-verbal [Pat and Pauline both laugh]

Spoken Discourse Context dependent (exophoric reference) .

Written Discourse Context independent . writer reader context , reader context .

Less explicit (shared knowledge) Spontaneous (false starts, hesitations) All interactants are engaged in the creation of the text (turn-taking, interruptions, overlaps)

Quite explicit (in the first place, finally) Planned, edited, re-drafted Only implicitly interactive interaction interaction ( ).

interactionism writer & reader, reader &

text(reader .

response theory),

reader

& social

context( ) 3 interaction cf. reading top-down, bottom-up. Writer encoding messages interaction decoding reader Multilogue Grammatical complexity the chaining of clauses Spoken & written discourse . grammatical, discourse structured, complex. complexity Spoken chaining of clauses , written discourse density of structure within sentences . Lexically sparse Everyday vocabulary Lexically dense Specialised vocabulary Dialogic (writer & projected reader) Grammatical complexity density of structure within sentences density of structure within sentences complexity spoken discourse grammar, structure, complexity . writer reader NO

Discourse analysis has demonstrated that both spoken and written discourse have consistent and describable structures, with different complexities reflecting the different functions of speech and writing. In every way possible, learner should be alerted to the special qualities of spoken language and encouraged to accord equal validity to both spoken and written formulations of language. III. Approaches to Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis come from a number of different academic disciplines: Philosophy(Speech act theory,

pragmatics), Sociology(Conversation Analysis), Sociolinguistic Approaches(Ethnography of Speaking, Variation Theory), Linguistic Approaches(The Birmingham school - IRF model).
Philosophy

Speech act theory : We can act by saying.

performative verbs: e.g. promise I promise you I will give you a present. promise say performative sense . promise felicity condition promising . factive verbs: e.g. know I know that its on sale vs. I believe that its on sale know that

Pragmatics : Grices maxims (Cooperative principle), presupposition, performative verbs, factive verbs, deictics( fact . believe non-factive verb.
), etc. Sociology

written & spoken discourse spoken discourse conversation analysis. conversation analysis turn-taking.

Conversation Analysis is concerned with the detailed organisations of everyday interaction.

Turn taking In conversation analysis, the basic unit of speech is the individual speakers turn. A turn is each occasion that a speaker speaks and a turn ends when another speaker takes a turn. Conversation analysts are interested in how speakers achieve smooth turn-taking, and what the rules are for who speaks when. Patterns in Turn-taking: Adjacency Pairs() In conversation analysis, the most basic pattern is the adjacency pair(AP), which is a pair of turns that mutually affect one another. Examples of everyday APs are greeting-greeting, compliment-thanks, apology-acceptance. Such pairs consist of two parts: a first pair part(FPP) and a second pair part(SPP). A: Good morning. (FPP) B: Hi, good morning. (SPP)

A: Can I use your phone? (FPP) B: Sure. (SPP) Preferred vs. Dispreferred SPPs A: I think Ralphs pretty good writer. B: I think so, too. (preferred SPP)

A: I think Ralphs pretty good writer. B: Well, his imagers interesting, but apart from that I dont think he writes well at all. (dispreferred SPP)

A: Wanna meet for lunch tomorrow? B: Sure! (preferred SPP)

A: Would you like to meet for lunch tomorrow? [Invitation] B: Well, um tomorrows the 24th, right? I told Lori Id have lunch with her tomorrow. And its her birthday, so I cant softener cancel. How bout Wednesday? [Refusal] reason (dispreferred SPP)

suggestion(face-saver)

 disagreement refusal dispreferred SPP (surprising) .

A major contribution of CA has been to make everyday interaction a subject worthy of academic research; always based on actual recorded data of naturally occurring interactions, transcribed in meticulous detail and reject experimental methods of collecting conversational data. Implications for the language teaching classrooms: As much as possible, language learners should be given access to authentic spoken extracts. Sociolinguistic Approaches

Ethnography of Speaking (Dell Hymes) is concerned with the situation and uses, the patterns and functions, of
speaking as an activity in its own right; speech event as the prime unit of analysis. Hymes SPEAKING grid(1972): Any speech event (e.g., a conversation at a party) comprises several components: S P E A K I N G Setting/Scene Participant Ends Act sequence Key Instrumentalities Norms of interaction and interpretation Genre Temporal and physical circumstances Subjective definition of an occasion Speaker/sender/addressor Hearer/receiver/audience/addressee Purposes and goals Outcomes Message form and content Tone, manner Channel (verbal and non-verbal; physical forms of speech drawn from community repertories) Specific properties attaches to speaking Interpretations of norms within cultural belief system Textual categories

Variation Theory : Description of the structure of spoken narratives (Labov & Waletsky, 1967)
(Abstract) Orientation Complication (Evaluation) Resolution (Coda) who and what the narrative is about; summary the background for the narrative e.g., time, place, situation the conflict or problem in the story asides() or comments from the narrator the outcome of the narrative an epilogue or the moral of the story ) optional orientation, complication, resolution

narrative; story telling ( obligatory . e.g. This is about a prince, a witch, and a princess. [abstract]

Once upon a time there was a handsome prince. [orientation] A wicked witch turned him into a frog. [complication] Thats not good, is it? [evaluation]

A beautiful princess broke the witchs spell by kissing the frog. [resolution] The prince and princess lived happily ever after. [coda] Linguistic Approaches

The Birmingham School (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975)

IRF model (for the analysis of classroom discourse) Transactions: lesson phases bounded by discourse markers Now then, Right, etc. Transactions are composed of exchanges, moves, acts. Exchanges: question-answer-feedback combinations Moves: single actions of questioning, answering, feeding back Acts: local, micro-actions (e.g., nominating a pupil to speak) <A typical exchange in the teacher-fronted classroom> T: How do we use a thermometer? Jennie. P: Put it in your mouth. T: You put it in your mouth. (Initiating move)

(Responding move) (Follow-up move)

IV. Grammar and Discourse: Spoken and Written Differences A grammar that fails to make the spoken-written distinction may be incomplete or even misleading Hi, Nigel, been working? (understood: Have you been working?)

A: Anybody want soup? (Does anybody want soup?) B: No, thank you.

Turned out well in the end. (It turned out well in the end.)

A: Nice restaurant. (Its a nice restaurant.)

written discourse spoken discourse // grammar. written discourse spoken discourse . B: Yes, it is, isnt it?

These common features of spoken discourse mean that a grammar written solely on the basis of written texts, where such phenomena might be rare or completely absent, is incomplete. Equally, some structures which are common in writing may be very rare in everyday conversation(bookish English). A discourse grammar, since it derives its description from real contents of use rather than from isolated or invented sentences, will necessarily be interested

syntax sentence invent . in the spoken-written divide wherever it is relevant. Language teaching should take note of the differences, especially where skills are separated into speaking or listening skills and writing or reading skills, in syllabuses, materials and

language testing. V. Corpus() Linguistics and Variation in Discourse

In recent years, discourse analysts have been able to greatly expand the scope of their work thanks to computer software that can analyse large corpora. Corpus linguistics sprang from a desire to be more objective about language and to free description from subjective intuition. e.g. Absolutely Written (per 5 million words) 276 A: I thought it was wonderful, you know. Spoken 1234

spoken discourse absolutely spoken discourse . corpus Brown Corpus (1967. 100 ). BNC(British National Corpus) ANC(American National Corpus) corpus 1 , BNC 2007 3, ANC 2006 2 . Corpus written text spoken text balanced corpus written corpus, spoken corpus . BNC ANC balanced corpus. Corpus B: Yeah, absolutely. invent corpus Additional study . Adjacency pairs

Linguist Sacks defines adjacency pairs in terms of characteristics. Adjacency pairs are sequences of two utterances that are adjacent, produced by different speakers, ordered as first part and a second part, typed, so that a particular first part requires a particular second part. There is a rule governing adjacency pairs: Having produced a first part of the same pair, the current speaker must stop speaking and the next speaker must produce it at that point a second part of the same pair. Structure of adjacency pairs: The two parts are contiguous and are uttered by different speakers. A speaker who makes a statement before answering a question sounds strange because the parts of the adjacency pairs are nonconsecutive. The two parts are ordered. For example, the answer to a question cannot precede the question in ordinary conversation. The first and second parts must be appropriately matched to avoid odd exchanges. i.e. It is called sequential organisation. The requirement that both parts of an adjacency pair should be contiguous is violated in a socially recognised way. e.g. A: Where is the book I bought this morning? B: The green book? A: Yes. B: On the table. The examples of dispreferred second parts are an offer-rejection, a proposal-rejection, an invitation-refusal, etc. A dispreferred second is a marked and unexpected response. They are typically delivered after a significant delay, with some reason that the preferred second part cannot be performed. Felicity conditions

In pragmatics, the conditions that must be in place and the criteria that must be satisfied for a speech act to achieve its purpose.Several kinds of felicity conditions have been identified, including: (1) an essential condition (whether a speaker intends that an utterance be acted upon by the addressee); (2) a sincerity condition (whether the speech act is being performed seriously and sincerely); (3) a preparatory condition (whether the authority of the speaker and the circumstances of the speech act are appropriate to its being performed successfully). Etymology: Introduced by Oxford philosopher J. L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words (1962) and further developed by American philosopher J.R. Searle. "[Performatives are] utterances in which saying is doing, and they . . . are only successful if certain felicity conditions are fulfilled . . .. A good example is the act of ordering someone to do something. To do this it is possible to use the verb 'order' and say, for example, 'I order you to clean your boots,' or to use the imperative form 'Clean your boots,' which is often associated with ordering. Yet, as with declarations, such utterances will only be perceived as orders if certain conditions are in operation by both the sender and the receiver. The felicity conditions for an order are: The sender believes the action should be done. The receiver has the ability to do the action. The receiver has the obligation to do the action. The sender has the right to tell the receiver to do the action. If any one of these conditions is not fulfilled, the utterance will not function as an order. If I order someone to clean their boots when I really do not believe this should be done, then my order is insincere, and flawed (condition 1). I can order someone to clean their boots, but not to eat the Eiffel Tower--they will not have the ability (condition 2). My order will not succeed as an order unless the person I am talking to is obliged to clean their boots (condition 3), and I have the right and the power to make them do so (condition 4)." (Guy Cook, Discourse. Oxford Univ. Press, 1989)