DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS
SUMMARY

Senanur Bektaş

B244512018
Firstly, after the story that the book give us, it says, in previous chapters
we have already considered some of the features of language, some of the
most interesting observations are made about the way language is used.
And in this chapter, we call it “discourse analysis’, we will be talking about
how we make sense of what we read, how we recognize, understand the
things that we call as well-done texts, speakers’ speeches and, we will see
how to take part in conversation.
‘Discourse’ we define as ‘the use of language to communicate in speech
or writing’ so when analyzing it we study language in text and
conversation. Besides studying linguistic description and looking for
accurate forms and structures in previous chapters, now we are talking
about the capability of language users. So, what is the capability of these
users? One can understand the big meaning or message by just seeing a
couple of words and can notice them very easily. Language users have this
ability to make connection of complex discourse of explanation or opinion
of what something means.
We can even understand the texts that has a lot of errors, break a lot of
rules of English language, we can make an explanation of what is said.
Here is a little example about it.
‘It takes this name from the peopl’s carrer. In my childhood I remember
the people live. It was very simple. Most the people was farmer.’
Rather than saying the text in example is incorrect and unmeaningful, we
try to make it more understandable for us and make sense of it. And, most
people say they understand the text very easily surprisingly.
Our efforts to interpret and embrace this text are the key elements in the
study of discourse. To get the meaning and make our message
interpretable we use what we know about linguistic form and structure.
But, as language-users, we have more knowledge than that.
So, as an example, that texts must have a certain structure that depends
on factors quite different from those required in the structure of a single
sentence. We named these factors as ‘cohesion’ and it means unites and
connections that exist within text. And in the other little example we can
see the number of those types of cohesive ties.
‘My father once bought a Lincoln convertible. He did it by saving every
penny he could. That car would be worth a fortune nowadays. However, he
sold it to help pay for my college education. Sometimes I think I’d rather
have the convertible.’
There are connections of terms here we can see such as ‘money’ (bought-
penny-sold) and there is also a connecter (however) that shows the
relationship of what follows to what went before. Tenses that are used in
the text also make time connection within those events.
With analyzing this cohesive we can see what the author is trying to say,
and with this we can see the number of cohesive ties, and this can help us
to understand if the text that we are talking is well written or not.
As well as talking about English, also in other language these cohesive ties
may differ and this cause as a difficulty while translating.
However cohesion itself may not be enough to make sense sometimes,
and even though there are connections, it can be tough to interpret. Note
that the following text has connections such as Lincoln– the car, red– that
color, her– she, letters– a letter, and so on.
‘My father bought a Lincoln convertible. The car driven by the police was
red. That color doesn’t suit her. She consists of three letters. However, a
letter isn’t as fast as a telephone call.’
In this example we can see the ‘connectedness’ that we see in normal
texts is not simply based on connections between the words and it is
something different. And based on this, the term ‘coherence’ exists, and it
can be explained as some other factor that help us distinguish connected
texts that make sense from those that do not.
The thing ‘coherence’ is not related to words and structures but it is
something that exist in people. People try to get an interpretation by using
their experience. Our ability to make sense of what we read is probably a
small part of that general ability that we must make sense of what we
perceive in the world. And by trying to understand and filling the gaps that
we see in oddly constructed text, we can see we are involved in this and
feeling like have to create meaningful connections that are not actually
using.
And also, we are taking part in conversational interactions where the exact
mean is not said. By using this, we easily understand our intentions and
take action. Here is a great example;
‘HER: That’s the telephone.
HIM: I’m in the bath.
HER: O.K.’
There are certainly no ties that but how do these two understand each
other? They use information that comes from expressed sentences but
there is also something else. It has been suggested that exchanges of this
type are best understood in terms of the conventional actions performed
by the speakers in such interactions.
‘She makes a request of him to perform action.
He states reason why he cannot comply with request.
She undertakes to perform action.’
We can quickly realize that there is enormous variation in what people say
and do in different circumstances and because of this if we try describing
the sources, we will have to take account of a number of criteria. We may
first look at the relationship between speaker and hearer and their roles,
whether they are strangers or friends, what their gender is, how old are
they, what are their status in their life? All these things will have an
influence on the things that are said. And despite describing all of them,
we will still not have analyzed the actual structure of the conversation
itself.
In conversation analysis, we talk about how we can describe English and
resulted from this we can say most of the time two or more people take
turns at speaking. If more than one tries to speak one of them stops as in
the following example, where A stops until B has finished.
‘A: Didn’t you [ know wh-
B: [But he must’ve been there by two
A: Yes, but you knew where he was going’
In it, speakers use some signals (completion point) to indicate that they
finished. In number of ways, speakers can mark their turns, indicate that
they want the turn and also, they can use gestures and little sounds to
signal that they have something to say.
In the subject of participation in conversation different styles and
strategies can be seen. For example, ‘rudeness’ ( cuts another speaker),
‘shyness’ (keeps waiting for his/her turn and none seems to occur).
One strategy used by "long-winded" speakers is to avoid normal
completion points in their speech. This often happens when people are
figuring out what to say while they talk. Typically, completion points occur
at the end of sentences with a pause. To keep speaking, one can avoid
pausing at the sentence end by using connectors like ‘and’ or ‘but.’ Pauses
can be placed at incomplete message points, often filled with hesitation
markers like er or uh. In the example, pauses are before and after verbs,
making the message unclear until more information is provided.
A: that’s their favorite restaurant because they … enjoy French food and
when they were … in France they couldn’t believe it that … you know that
they had … that they had had better meals back home
In the next example, speaker X produces filled pauses (with em, er, you
know) after having almost lost the turn at his first brief hesitation.
‘X: well that film really was … [ wasn’t what he was good at
Y: [ when di-
X: I mean his other … em his later films were much more … er really more
in the romantic style and that was more what what he was…you know…
em best at doing
Y: so when did he make that one’
These types of strategies are used in conversational speech, and they are
part of what makes conversation work. By using language, we define these
subtle indicators. Conversational discourses’ most distinguishable features
are generally very ‘co-operative’. This observation has been formulated as
a principle of conversation.
The Cooperative principle assumes that speakers are co-operating with
each other. It was first described by the philosopher Paul Grice that we
want our partner to obey while speaking. The co-operative principle is
stated in the following way: “Make your conversational contribution such
as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or
direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” Supporting this
principle are four maxims, often called the “Gricean maxims.”
‘The Quantity maxim: Make your contribution as informative as is
required, but not more, or less, than is required.
The Quality maxim: Do not say that which you believe to be false or for
which you lack adequate evidence.
The Relation maxim: Be relevant.
The Manner maxim: Be clear, brief and orderly’
Sometimes we can see conversational exchanges in which the co-
operative principle may not seem to be in operation. And this general
description helps to explain several regular features in the way people say
things. For example, two women speaks during lunch about a sandwich.
‘Oh, a sandwich is a sandwich.’
Normally, this communication has no value because it doesn’t make sense
and have no information but since the woman use the Quantity maxim ‘as
informative as is required’ the other woman and we can understand that
the sandwich isn’t worth talking about it and she has no opinion about it,
in a negative or positive way.
In the other part, we can use ‘Hedges’ (wors or phrases) to show that we
are not fully sure what we are talking about is correct or complete. For
example, we can use sort of or kind of hedges. *The book cover is sort of
yellow (rather than it is yellow). These are examples of hedges on the
Quality maxim. Other examples we can see listed below are used at the
beginning of conversations.
‘As far as I know …,
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but …’
We also take care of the different states like think or feel, may or could,
possible or likely. There is the difference that we can see ‘Jackson is guilty’
and ‘I think it’s possible that Jackson maybe guilty.’ Every version differs
from each other.
And when trying to analyze how hedges work, we talk about speakers
implies that is not said. Like in sandwich example that sandwich is not
worth talking about, we can try to see what people imply something in
conversation.
‘CAROL: Are you coming to the party tonight?
LARA: I’ve got an exam tomorrow.’
Lara’s statement is not a real answer to that question, but we can see the
negative ‘no’ response here by hearing the exam thing. So, knowing that
she got an exam tonight, she has to take to exam and can attend to the
party. She is adhering to the maxims of Relation and Quantity in this
conversation.
For understand the conversation itself in here, we had to appeal to some
background knowledge (about exams, studying and partying). In discourse
analysis, how we use background knowledge is critical to understand it.
A good example of processes involved in using background knowledge was
provided by Sanford and Garrod (1981), who use short texts in one
sentence. Their text begins with the following two sentences.
‘John was on his way to school last Friday.
He was really worried about the math lesson.’
Most people that read this think that john is a schoolboy. Since it is not
certain, it must be an inference. There are other inferences too; how does
he go to school? (not by ship or boat but maybe by bus or something)
If there is a little change in sentence process, people can change their
mind easily.
‘Last week he had been unable to control the class.’
And now most readers start to think like John is a teacher and he is not
very happy. And the next sentence is presented.
‘It was unfair of the math teacher to leave him in charge.’
With a great change again, John reverts to his schoolboy status, and the
teacher thing suddenly vanished from our minds. The final sentence is
another big surprise;
‘After all, it is not a normal part of a janitor’s duties.’
We build more information than we see in the sentences by ourselves
based on our expectations and experiences. To describe this phenomenon,
researchers often use the concept of a “schema” or a “script.”
For a conventional knowledge structure that exists in memory we say
‘schema’. When trying to make sense of previous examples like what a
classroom is, we use ‘classroom schema’ (or schemata). We have so many
schemas that are used to make sense of what we experience and what we
read and hear about. If you hear someone talk about visiting a
supermarket, a supermarket schema comes to your mind easily (shelves
fully of food, shopping charts) as part of your background example.
In many similar ways schema is a ‘script’. A script is essentially a dynamic
schema. So instead of typical features in a schema, a script has a series of
conventional actions.
‘Trying not to be out of the office for long, Suzy went into the nearest
place, sat down and ordered an avocado sandwich. It was quite crowded,
but the service was fast, so she left a good tip. Back in the office, things
were not going well.’
Because we know the restaurant script, we would be able to say a lot of
things in that short text. Although we do not have a lot of information, we
can say things related to Suzy’s actions when she entered the restaurant.
And from this it can be said that our understanding of what we read does
not just relate to sentences on the page, but the comments and meaning
that we create in our mind regardless of what we read.

Indeed, crucial information is often missed in instructions. Think carefully

about the following instructions from a bottle of cough syrup.
‘Fill measure cup to line
and repeat every 2 to 3 hours’
From this, it can said that we don’t need to keep filling the measured cup
every 2 to 3 hours or rub the cough syrup on your neck or your hair. You
are just expected to know the script and drink it from the measure cup
every 2 or 3 hours like it said.
Lastly, if we want to summarize all of that, our understanding of what we
read and trying make sense of them is not only based on what we see on
the page, but also on other things that are in our mind too. To understand
more deeply the connection between these two things, we must analyze
the working of human brain more closely.