Stylistics Linguistic Discourse Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

This contains the summary for the week 11 discussion on Stylistics....

Description

Week 13 (November 9-13, 2020)

Linguistic Stylistics Discourse Analysis

and

Discourse analysis is composed of a wide range of sub-disciplines, such as pragmatics, conversational analysis, speech act theory and ethnography of speaking. The discipline studies language used in the context, so its subject matter is language as a whole, either written or spoken, in terms of transcriptions, larger texts, audio or video recordings, which provides an opportunity to the analyst to work with language rather than a single sentence. Pre- Competency Checklist At the end of this chapter, the student is expected to define discourse analysis and its related terms and fields, identify the basics of investigating language through a discourse analysis; and apply knowledge of discourse analysis in studying a classroom-based language or a popular culture phenomenon.

Learning Resources The content of this chapter was taken from various resources and the student is advised to visit these references for further reading. 1. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.457.5028&rep=rep1&type=pdf 2. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourseanalysis/#:~:text=Discourse 3. https://www.thoughtco.com/discourse-analysis-or-da-1690462 4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322537095_Academic_Writin g_Coherence_and_Cohesion_in_Paragraph 5. https://twp.duke.edu/sites/twp.duke.edu/files/fileattachments/cohesion-coherence.original.pdf 6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32957968_Discourse_Analysi s_and_the_Study_of_Communication_in_LIS 7. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upmbinaries/81157_Boreus_ %26_Bergstrom___Analyzing_Text_and_Discourse___Chapter_1.pdf 8. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/PeterDewsPowerandSubjectivityinFouc aultNLRI-144March-April1984.pdf

9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277705248_Classroom_Disc ourse

Explore Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis focuses on the structure of naturally occurring spoken language, as found in such ‘discourses’ as conversation, interviews, commentaries and speeches. Text analysis focuses on the structure of written language, as found in such ‘texts’ as essays, notices, road signs and chapters. But this distinction is not clear-cut, and there have been many other uses of these labels. Discourse analysis is the systematic study of naturally occurring (not hypothetical) communication in the broadest sense, at the level of meaning (rather than as physical acts or features). However, a survey of the literature on discourse analysis would quickly reveal that, although some researchers employ the terrn to describe a particular kind of analysis, it is also a label that has widespread usage across several disciplines with diverse goals. Consequently, it is more accurate to think of discourse analysis as a cluster of methods and approaches with some substantial common interests rather than as a single, unitary technique. In particular, ‘discourse’ and ‘text’ can be used in a much broader sense to include all language units with a definable communicative function, whether spoken or written. Some scholars talk about ‘spoken or written discourse’, others about ‘spoken or written text. Spoken discourse, especially conversation, poses the greatest problems in terms of analysis due to its apparently unstructured nature. The number of interlocutors may vary and the use of non-verbal expressions can add to the difficulty of its analysis. The use of taking turns and the real possibility of interruptions and interjections of discourse can also add to the difficulty of analysis. Sinclair and Coulthard suggest a three tier approach, beginning middle-end, to focus on the distinct ‘moves’ that take place in discourse, be they ‘question-answer-comment’ as in a classroom environment, or command-acknowledgment-polite formality, as occurs in a shop, between the client and the shopkeeper. Discourse analysis is a rapidly growing and evolving field. Current research in this field now flows from numerous academic disciplines that are very different from one another. Included, of course, are the disciplines in which models for understanding, and methods for analyzing, discourse first developed, such as linguistics, anthropology, and philosophy. But also included are disciplines that have applied – and thus often extended – such

models and methods to problems within their own academic domains, such as communication, cognitive psychology, social psychology, and artificial intelligence. Given this disciplinary diversity, it is no surprise that the terms “discourse” and “discourse analysis” have different meanings to scholars in different fields. For many, particularly linguists, “discourse” has generally been defined as anything “beyond the sentence.” For others (for example Fasold 1990: 65), the study of discourse is the study of language use. These definitions have in common a focus on specific instances or spates of language. But critical theorists and those influenced by them can speak, for example, of “discourse of power” and “discourses of racism,” where the term “discourses” not only becomes a count noun, but further refers to a broad conglomeration of linguistic and non-linguistic social practices and ideological assumptions that together construct power or racism. So abundant are definitions of discourse that many linguistics books on the subject now open with a survey of definitions. In their collection of classic papers in discourse analysis, for example, Jaworski and Coupland (1999: 1–3) include ten definitions from a wide range of sources. They all, however, fall into the three main categories noted above: (1) anything beyond the sentence, (2) language use, and (3) a broader range of social practice that includes non-linguistic and nonspecific instances of language. The definitional issues associated with discourse and discourse analysis are by no means unique. In his two-volume reference book on semantics, for example, Lyons (1997) illustrates ten different uses of the word mean, and thus an equal number of possible domains of the field of semantics Three Approaches of Discourse Analysis 1. FORMAL LINGUISTIC DISCOURSE ANALYSIS The first approach, formal linguistic discourse analysis, involves a structured analysis of text in order to find general underlying rules of linguistic or communicative function behind the text. For example Lacson and colleagues compared human-human and machine human dialogues in order to study the possibility of using computers to compress human conversations about patients in a dialysis unit into a form that physicians could use to make clinical decisions. They transcribed phone conversations between nurses and 25 adult dialysis patients over a three month period and coded all 17385words by semantic type (categories of meaning) and structure (for example, sentence length, word position). They presented their work as a “first step towards an automatic analysis of spoken medical dialogue” that would allow physicians to “answer questions related to patient care by looking at [computer generated] summaries alone.

2. EMPIRICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Researchers using empirical discourse analysis do not use highly structured methods to code individual words and utterances in detail. Rather, they look for broad themes and functions of language in action using approaches called conversation analysis (the study of “talk-in-interaction”) and genre analysis (the study of recurrent patterns, or genres of language that share similar structure and context—such as the case report, the scientific article). Conversation analysis and genre analysis give more prominence to sociological uses of language than to grammatical or linguistic structures of words and sentences and are used to study human conversations or other forms of communication in order to elucidate the ways in which meaning and action are created by individuals producing the language. Lingard and colleagues, for example, studied communication between nurses and surgeons during 128 hours of observing 35 different procedures in the operating room and categorized recurrent patterns of communication. They then used their findings to draw links between interpersonal tensions, the use of language, and the occurrence of errors in the operating room. 3. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Researchers in cultural studies, sociology, and philosophy use the term critical discourse analysis to encompass an even wider sphere that includes all of the social practices ,individuals, and institutions that make it possible or legitimate to understand phenomena in a particular way, and to make certain statements about what is “true.” Critical discourse analysis is particularly concerned with power and is rooted in “constructivism.” Thus the discourse analyses of Michel Foucault, for example, illustrated how particular discourses “systematically construct versions of the social world.” Discourse analysis at this level involves not only the examination of text and the social uses of language but also the study of the ways in which the very existence of specific institutions and of roles for individuals to play are made possible by ways of thinking and speaking what madness is in different historical periods and in different places. Orientation to Sources of data discourse Samples of written Formal or oral language linguistic and texts discourse analysis (such as sociolinguistics)

Microanalysis of linguistic, grammatical, and semantic uses and meanings of text

Samples of written or oral language and texts; and data on the “uses” of the

Microanalysis and macroanalysis of the ways in which language and/or texts

Empirical discourse analysis (such as conversation

Analysis

analysis, genre text in analysis) settings Critical discourse analysis (such as Foucauldian analysis)

social construct practices

Samples of written or oral language/texts; and data on the “uses” of the text in social settings;

social

Macroanalysis of how discourses(in many forms) construct what is possible for individuals and institutions to think and to say

How is discourse analysis different from other methods? Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language. It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict). Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON Vocabulary

Grammar

Structure Genre

Non-verbal communication

Conversational codes

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS WHAT IS ANALYZED?

Words and phrases can be analyzed for ideological associations, formality, and euphemistic and metaphorical content. The way that sentences are constructed (e.g. verb tenses, active or passive construction, and the use of imperatives and questions) can reveal aspects of intended meaning. The structure of a text can be analyzed for how it creates emphasis or builds a narrative. Texts can be analyzed in relation to the conventions and communicative aims of their genre (e.g. political speeches or tabloid newspaper articles). Non-verbal aspects of speech, such as tone of voice, pauses, gestures, and sounds like “um”, can reveal aspects of a speaker’s intentions, attitudes, and emotions. The interaction between people in a conversation, such as turn-taking, interruptions and listener

response, can reveal aspects of cultural conventions and social roles. How to Conduct Discourse Analysis Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge. There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic steps you need to follow. Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question. Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it. Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research. You want to study how a particular regime change from dictatorship to democracy has affected the public relations rhetoric of businesses in the country. You decide to examine the mission statements and marketing material of the 10 largest companies within five years of the regime change. Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to. As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis. You research factual information on the politics and history of the country and on the businesses you are studying. You also research theory on democratic transitions and the relationship between government and business. Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question. You analyze the selected material for wording and statements that reflect or relate to authoritarian and democratic political ideologies, including attitudes toward authority, liberal values, and popular opinion.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question. Your analysis shows that the material published before the regime change used language that emphasized the quality and necessity of its services and products, while the material published after the shift to a democratic regime emphasized the needs and values of the consumer. You compare the results with your research on the ideology and rhetoric of the political regimes, and infer that the shifting political context shaped the communication strategies of national businesses. GENRE ANALYSIS APPROACH IN LITERATURE REVIEW WRITING A. Introduction Applying genre analysis as a rich analytical tool and a data-based interview in a study in a university in Indonesia, the writers has revealed the students' ability and problems in writing a literature review chapter in their research proposal. It has been found that despite their ability in the discourse semantic level, most students have not been able to justify the literature review to be correlated to the proposed study. The main causes of the problems were the students' unfamiliarity with the elements ana its linguistic features in a research proposal and the students' lack of knowledge in applying those elements and linguistic features properly in their research proposals. Those findings support the previous studies by Bunton (2002) and Paltridge and Starfield (2007) finding that presenting arguments in terms of justifications is something many second-language students find difficult to do. Those also support the extensive research into academic writing that emphasizes the importance of explicit teaching of the structure of specific written genres, particularly literature review, to second-language students. Consequently, this paper attempts to explore the genre analysis approach as the explicit teaching of the structure of literature review to second-language students to help not only the students to solve their problems, but also the writing instructors and supervisors to understand B.

Genre Analysis Approach In Literature Review Writing

In the implementation of genre analysis in literature review writing, the writing instructors and supervisors can show the students explicitly the purpose, elements, and linguistics features of literature review. By analyzing how writers conventionally sequence material to achieve particular purposes, the writing instructors and supervisors can begin to describe each element and show how they are realized linguistically. This information can then be used by students as models to develop their skill in writing literature review. 1.

Purpose of Literature Review

The communicative purpose of literature review is to show that the student is familiar with the previous research and opinion on the topic and understands their relevance to the study being planned. It suggests that the student should indicate the relevance or implication for the study they have planned before they cite the references. Literature review varies depending on the level of the thesis or dissertation the student is working on (Hart, 1998).Table 1 summarizes these differences. As can be seen from this table, the higher the level of the study, the more depth and breadth is expected in the review of the literature. Table 1 Degrees and the nature of the literature review (Hart, 1998:15) Degree and Research Product B.A., B.Sc., project B.Ed

Function And Format Of The Literature Review In Research At These Level Essentially descriptive, topic focused, mostly indicative of main current sources on the topic. Analysis in the topic is in terms of justification.

Analytical and summative, covering M.A.,M.5c.,M.Phil. dissertation or methodological techniques and issues, research thesis topics. Possibly two literature-based chapters, one, on methodological issues, which demonstrates knowledge of advantages and disadvantages, the and another on theoretical issues relevant to the topic problem. Ph.D,Dr.Phil,Dr.Litt thesis

Analytical synthesis, covering all known literature on the problem, including that in other languages. High level of conceptual linking within and across theories. Critical evaluation of previous work on

the problem. Depth and breadth of discussion on relevant philosophical traditions and ways in which they related to the problem.

2.

Elements of Literature

Review

A literature review needs to be an extensive review of the area with reference to many sources and previous research. The literature review may be arranged according to the various questions to be asked, the various topics and sub-topics that are central to the study, specific variables in study, chronologically from oldest to more recent research, different points of view, or a combination of these (Feak& Swales,2009). Table 2 below shows the elements of purpose and criteria used as the main the students' literature review chapter.

literature review and their theories in the analysis of

Table 2 Elements of literature review and their purpose and criteria (Modified from Hart, 1998; Feak& Swales, 2009; Fraenkel&Wallen, 1993; Emilia, 2008) Elements Coverage

Purpose To show that the researcher is familiar with the major trends in previous research and opinion on the topic.

Criteria 1. The criteria for the inclusion and exclusion from review is justified 2. The review is essentially descriptive, topic focused, mostly indicative of main current sources onthe topic. 3. The major finding on the research topic is presented, by whom and when.